Upcoming Debate with Alexander Rosenberg

[Anthony]

Dr. William Lane Craig's next debate will be with another philosopher, Alexander Rosenberg of Duke University (North Carolina). This should be a very interesting debate because Dr. Rosenberg is a very outspoken atheist and has written a book entitled, The Atheist's Guide to Reality published in 2011. He also has written a lot on the philosophy of science, particularly Darwinism and evolution. Now, in this debate which will take place at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana sometime between January 31 and February 3 of 2013, we shall see if Rosenberg's arguments for atheism really stand. Any thoughts on this upcoming dialogue?

[Chris Dotson]

I found a review of his book "Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions" here, you may enjoy it.

[Anthony]

I find it very interesting how, according to this review that you posted, it says that Alexander Rosenberg's book apparently instructs atheists to not debate with theists because they should not waste their time and instead, learn more about reality. This makes me really puzzled that Rosenberg even agreed to this debate! Perhaps Dr. Craig will bring this up in the debate and make Dr. Rosenberg blush. But he apparently likes the word Naturalist as opposed to atheist. I don't think that's a good word because even Peter Millican said that science reveals strange phenomena like the Quantum vacuum that you can't really classify as natural or supernatural. I definitely am looking forward to seeing this debate when it gets posted on YouTube.

Here is an article by Alexander Rosenberg entitled, Why I am a Naturalist, published in the New York Times, September 17, 2011 --> Why I am a Naturalist

[Chris Dotson]

I'm looking forward to this exchange. Honestly it seems that Dr. Rosenberg's entire set of arguments hinge on the assumption of Naturalism, so all Dr. Craig should have to do is show Naturalism to be faulty and Theism to be a viable alternative. He should have this in the bag, but I hope its as good as the exchange he had with Dr. Millican.

[金白龍]

Hitchens, Harris, Rosenberg... and so it continues.

Many of the top athiest apologists are Jews.

Why are Jews, more than any other race, trying to spearhead major discourse undermining the christian faith?

We all know why. Jews see christianity as the number one threat to Jewish interests.

I hope this forum hasn't been inflitrated by Jews, or even has lingering crypto Jews, lying in ambush, seeking to divide opinion between christian believers through use of an array of cleverly concocted fallacies.

The masters of deception are forever waging war against Christs children.

Be wary, my brethren. Be on guard.

White Dragon, defender of the faith.

[Stephen]

Hitchens, Harris, Rosenberg... and so it continues.

Many of the top athiest apologists are Jews.

Why are Jews, more than any other race, trying to spearhead major discourse undermining the christian faith?

We all know why. Jews see christianity as the number one threat to Jewish interests.

I hope this forum hasn't been inflitrated by Jews, or even has lingering crypto Jews, lying in ambush, seeking to divide opinion between christian believers through use of an array of cleverly concocted fallacies.

The masters of deception are forever waging war against Christs children.

Be wary, my brethren. Be on guard.

White Dragon, defender of the faith.

What a gloriously irresponsible, unsubstantiated, and altogether narrow thing to say.

Seems to me the much more pertinent threat is the one these gentlemen perpetrate against their own race- their subscription to atheism/anti-theism.

[Dan Zachariah]

Hitchens, Harris, Rosenberg... and so it continues.

Many of the top athiest apologists are Jews.

Why are Jews, more than any other race, trying to spearhead major discourse undermining the christian faith?

We all know why. Jews see christianity as the number one threat to Jewish interests.

I hope this forum hasn't been inflitrated by Jews, or even has lingering crypto Jews, lying in ambush, seeking to divide opinion between christian believers through use of an array of cleverly concocted fallacies.

The masters of deception are forever waging war against Christs children.

Be wary, my brethren. Be on guard.

White Dragon, defender of the faith.

ROFL
Dude what is wrong with you?

[grosso]

What date is the debate set at?

[grosso]

http://purduecfsn.com/special_events.php

[Asherah-deceased]

Apparently his specialty is the Philosophy of Biology.  It's not clear to me how he will be able to leverage his expertise in this area in a debate about the reasonableness of faith.  Consequently, I'm not expecting this one to be real  interesting. I'll still give it a listen when it comes out.

[brent arnesen]

Hitchens, Harris, Rosenberg... and so it continues.

Many of the top athiest apologists are Jews.

Why are Jews, more than any other race, trying to spearhead major discourse undermining the christian faith?

We all know why. Jews see christianity as the number one threat to Jewish interests.

I hope this forum hasn't been inflitrated by Jews, or even has lingering crypto Jews, lying in ambush, seeking to divide opinion between christian believers through use of an array of cleverly concocted fallacies.

The masters of deception are forever waging war against Christs children.

Be wary, my brethren. Be on guard.

White Dragon, defender of the faith.

I'll ignore the anti-semetic ramblings and point out that Jews have a very long history of discussing God and debating.  Their religion is founded on such a principle, and most Jews are brought up to learn the arguments.  It's a cultural strength.

It's diametrically opposed to the Christian idea that "if it feels good, believe it."

[juniorsti]

<span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> But he apparently likes the word <strong>Naturalist </strong>as opposed to atheist.

That is the correct way of describing someone who believes there is no God. As James Sennett put it, naturalism is the only real alternative for the atheist. By calling them atheists you allow them to refuse to take responsibility for their claims and try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof away.

[Don Quixote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is the utube debate.

Meat of debate is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_K_a7fW1A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Viennacon]

Ugh. One of the worst, most disrespectful diatribes I have EVER listened to. I got the impression that Rosenberg suffers from some kind of disorder, but this doesn't excuse his rudeness. He attacked Craig's character right from the get-go.
Also, during the questioning, he was positively venomous to one of the questioners.

Craig should not debate people like this. Men like Rosenberg do not deserve even the satisfaction of making fools of themselves.