Celeb atheists Dawkins and Grayling don’t want to debate apologist Craig because … maybe a reason is now emerging … Larry Krauss!

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 28, 2011

Atheism, Culture, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yesterday, one of our top stories was “William Lane Craig is disingenuous, and he ‘shocked’ Larry Krauss” [his materialist atheist opponent].

The oddest thing about the story is that Krauss is, as it happens, a multi-awarded physicist, hailed by Scientific American as “one of the few top physicists who is also known as a “public intellectual.” Yet his post-debate comments sound like the circular rants of a sore loser.

The really interesting question is why such behaviour is so widely admired. Why do Krauss’s friends not discreetly suggest he quit talking like this?

Is materialist atheism so rotten that all behaviour, of whatever type, is admired – the way parents rejoice at the antics of a toddler – because, well, he is sentient? Thoughts?

Celeb British atheists Dawkins and Grayling have refused to debate Craig, despite in house criticism (here and here). Do they fear that, no matter what happens, someone might confuse them later with Larry “the Grouse” Krauss? Maybe their friends can’t stand all the whining … The desired dinner invitations might cease to arrive in bundles …

(Note: In 2009, I’d written about Krauss’s presentation at a Canadian science conference. He didn’t like what I said. )

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

No, not all display this behaivor, but more and more these days, the well-known, high-brow club of materialsim seem to lash out as toddlers. Toddlers, that cannot share their toys with others well and must be taught a lesson in social interaction. While this is not limited to only Darwinian atheist, certainly a sign is the devolving culture of a secular religion. It has expanded into mainstream. Call it the Saul Alinsky method, or when in doubt, ridicule, mock and scoff at your oppponents. Never acknowledge real problems or questions that may show your sides weakness, or expose a failed solution. Any means to an end is justified by the obvious superiority of brain matter. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapson..." from Rules for Radicals, a favorite amongst the political, media and elitist ruling classes on the far left. Because as an "intellectual" with superior leftist sensibilities, you are of course, assumed to be smarter than theist in general. You are more giving, caring and empathetic as well as more modern thinker in a post-modern world. The government is the answer, not your fake god. All hail centralized-planning and thinking. We think, therefore you do. Yours is not to question Dear Leaders, but to carry their water. Merely on the classifcation of beliefs. Not actual knowledge of a theory, or ability to win a factual point in debates. They "just" are smarter, period. End of story, thus they have every right to ridicule those below them. This is true on many subjects today in the media frenzy of hatred against eople that believe in Design, or for that matter, the belief we can be moral beings with a purpose given by a Creator. It does not matter if you believe in the long age or not, you're still classified as lower beings with the Creationist chimps yet to develop higher faculties of reason. The socially acceptable mainstreamed culture today is rebellion and ridicule. Whether it be Harvard-trained intellectuals on the left, or psudeo-intellectuals in media that daily roll-out the angry, bitter comedic pop shots, like Bill Maher, or "Joy" Behar for example. You think that Design may be an answer? You're obviously stupid, dull and have a "sloped forehead" from flyover-ville. You must be "dragged" into the 21st century. You think Darwinism has failed to answer some questions? You must be intentionally misleading those dumb Christians to prop up their religious beliefs. You must be a "liar" by scientific standards. Anyone that dare attack Darwin is a cretin, or lower form of ape that cannot pick his own bananas. Put them in a zoo, throw peanuts at them, but at all cost, do not allow them any freedom, as they may infect the others with individual thought disease. Todays collective says so. If you're not of the "liberal" Borg, you obviously fail to realize todays modern standards. Because today, thinking for oneself is not permitted, you must see the paradigm shift as a whole organism, we are One, together in all our future glory. We are the ones we've been waiting for... hooraah. These type of gestures in public, the ridicule of opponents, rather than debating opponents, play well to the indotrinated classes of the Borg mentality. It eliminates a need for difficult topics brought up by opponents, often the embarrasing truth that they actually do not have the answers. That if one is honest are not resolved by the Borg. That would be to much a shock to the system. Therefore cognitive dissonance sits in and ridicule rules are played out to put aside a more difficult reality to admit failure. It is much more socially acceptable to ridicule today across large expanses of scientific areas and not be challenged by media, but be encouraged to do so by the punditry. It is very popular amongst the in-crowd. Their peers and followers share the experience in rapt jocularity of group-think, as grand parrots on display, constantly pruning their feathers, while audiences of lemmings admire their witty color. For they believe ridicule to be a high art of the sophiticate and they are afterall, more sophisticated than the low-brows. Life is a comedy at the expense of others real questions. An English sitcom of the absurd, where right is wrong and ridicule, shows off talents. There are few real discussions, only mocking and the parroted repeats of pithy commentary. They are so smart they need not make an honest reply. Indeed. Like a toddler, they lash out w/o thinking. As if they are an only child and no one else can share the toys in the playground or share the swings. Their sandbox is exclusive territory for those who only work to build accidental sandcatles.DATCG_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

My guess that the answer is "no"? But my point was that your motive is to insinuate that the answer is "yes."JesseJoe_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

JesseJoe at 1: It's called a "rhetorical question." Your guess is right. Don't drop your English literature classes before you get there.News_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Ms. O'Leary, I've noticed that whenever you ask questions in your posts or in the titles of your posts (such as "Is materialist atheism so rotten that all behaviour, of whatever type, is admired – the way parents rejoice at the antics of a toddler – because, well, he is sentient? Thoughts?"), the answer is almost always "no." If the answer were "yes," you would simply make a direct statement, instead of using questions to insinuate.JesseJoe_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Graylings response to his loss in the Craig debate is a good example of an ego in pain. How could he possibly be surprised by Craig's syllogisms? (They are in his books, on his webpage, in his podcasts--you can't spend 10 minutes on the web researching WLC and not find a couple of them). He probably didn't do the research because he thought he had the debate "in the bag" and didn't study WLC's methods for argumentation. If he had, he could have prepared better (althought he probably wouldn't have fared any better). As the other, perhaps more prominent, militant atheist (read Dawdins) watch his commrades drop one-by-one to WLC's logical, scientifically supported argumentation stye that stresses "plausibility" over "proof", he cannot help but to desire to avoid their fate.rpvicars_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply