He's contributed next to nothing in the field of physics and the majority of his contributions to the world have been pseudo-intellectual attack books on religion, and his "Universe from Nothing" hypothesis which is hilariously a philosophical theory based in science (which has almost no support from other physicists by the way).

He wrote a few articles on dark energy. Wow what a scientific powerhouse.

Here's some idiotic statements from the article above:



Which is evident in the wild progress featured in nearly every area of philosophy (not to mention,the progress from philosophy to science, thanks philosophers!)



Many if not most contemporary philosophers are scientific-minded and want nothing more than for philosophy to be superseded by science.



So, not at all.



You can see that Krauss is so bent on an "us vs. them" ideal in everything he does. He's generalizing that all philosophers are not even interested in the truth...

What a cockhead.





Finally a good statement! I agree completely.

I fully expect science to eventually, if humans continue progressing, subsume all philosophical knowledge; this is a philosophical claim! And philosophy is required to guide us there.


If the "Four Horsemen of Atheism" could just become the two horsemen with Harris and Dawkins I think they'd be a lot more effective

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 7 2014 10:15am

Krauss and Dawkins both sound like angry children when they are discussing religion.

Lawrence Krauss is a scientific powerhouse..... over 200 publications and an impact factor over 40. Those are stats some scientists would kill for. "He wrote a few articles on dark energy" just shows you don't know the first thing about his work or its relevance.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 7 2014 10:25am

Hitchens was the best by leaps and bounds. I could watch him talk for hours, whether it was him talking about highly intellectual topics, or him insulting someone. Often he was at his best when blending the two obviously.

It's difficult not to become frustrated when faced with wilful ignorance on such a grand scale.

WLC and others do a pretty good job at ignoring the intellectual deficiencies of the atheists they debate and focusing on the issues. Perhaps humans knowing they are subject to a higher power gives them maturity and humility, something atheists seem to lack.

Oh yea for some reason I thought Krauss was one of them. Dennett is the worst by far.

Hitchens had the luxury of being an incredibly good speaker with a large vocabulary and being British, so even if what he said wasn't smart it sounded smart. It was usually smart, though.



He obviously wasn't completely useless, but just compare to Feynman:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Lawrence+Krauss%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Richard+Feynman%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

Krauss's most cited article with just over 500 citations, Feynman at over 9,700 (and oodles of articles more cited than Krauss's most cited).

Obviously it's not a really fair comparison, but Krauss isn't all that important. To call him an intellectual powerhouse is a massive overstatement.

Well that's straight up bullshit as has been proven several times in this very thread. WLC just talks a constant stream of suppositionalist bullshit and often resorts to straight up fabrications.

But you keep on trying to troll.

Simply not true. WLC is always tempered in his debates, even when atheist scum start acting like children. It's a quality only men of God can develop.

Ok let's chill out kiddies and stop attacking each other.