PandaPirate Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've always found WLC to be highly intelligent and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his knowledge of science. Can you help me understand? He really did own Christopher Hitchens in his debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Well Hitch isn't a scientist or a professional debater afaik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 He was a drunkard before he died, wasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 WLC cherry picks science in the same way he cherry picks the bible. That state of dishonesty makes it easy to 'believe in' whatever is useful to your worldview and overlook that which is inconvenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Right. Why did god kill all those people in the OT acc to WLC? "They were evil and deserved it". So much for turning the other cheek, loving your enemy etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've always found WLC to be highly intelligent and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his knowledge of science. Can you help me understand? He really did own Christopher Hitchens in his debate. Craig is incredibly ineffective in debating style not to mention intellectually dishonest to say the least. If he 'owned' Hitchens in a debate then Hitch was probably having an off day because Craig has been demolished in debates with opponents (see the Ehrman/Craig debates for example). When I was an apologist in the cult I relied on Craig among others to support various arguments in favor of the bible, god, et.al. Now that I'm out of that and living in reality I can see how much Craig subtly shifts arguments in most of his debates in order to push his own agenda (altar call, etc.) onto people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaPirate Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 I have never seen Ehrman debate, but I have read some of his books. I will have to check that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Ehrman is a smart guy, his books are great read for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'd mentioned Ehrman because of a debate I watched on YouTube between the two of them. Ehrman issued a very simple challenge at the beginning. He cited a few cases of errors in the bible and posited that since the bible had errors, even if only a few, how could one say it is the inerrant word of a god? Craig could not directly respond; merely cited what all of them do - that since the errors only comprise less than 1% of the bible, it is of no consequence. The problem with this stance is: 1. The less than 1% contain most, if not all of the doctrines the orthodoxy have formulated for their cult. 2. Even if the errors were miniscle, it completely destroys any argument about the bible being god breathed. IE: how could it come from a perfect being who never makes mistakes if it contains mistakes? Craig's response? Nada, he merely switched cards in the deck and argued from something totally different. That was bad enough but then a while later I caught another video on YouTube where Craig was back at a cult college or gathering of some kind where he totally trashed Erhman - bragging about how he 'won' the prior debate. I was so pissed when I saw that. I tried to write the truth under the comments section of the vid but of course, the good xtian cultist who supplied the thread blocked anything I tried to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've always found WLC to be highly intelligent and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his knowledge of science. Can you help me understand? He really did own Christopher Hitchens in his debate. What debate would that be? I would have to see it in order to believe it. I just can't imagine how any believer could win a debate against a compentent atheist and Hitchens was quite good. Could any believer answer Hitchens 100,000 years question? Even now that Hitchens is gone that question still goes unanswered. It's unanswerable because it exposese the sillyness of the Bible. edit: Here is Hitchen's question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 You can search these forums for more on WLC. He is a master at rhetorical twists and manipulations of language. All tactics. Like I said before, he is a lawyer for a God, a liar for Jesus. Of the sociopathic type, as someone here mentioned. Hitches was a boozy screed-writer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDPApostate Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Craig is only convincing if you don't bother to check his "facts" and always uses the same strategy. The debate format allows a huge opening statement, with only limited rebuttal time. Craig crams as much bull into the opening statement as possible, and when the opponent cannot answer all of it, (time does not allow), he points out the lack or answers as some kind of admission of being wrong. I call it overwhelm and deflect.... He likes to go first for this reason if you notice... Even when he has to be second, he restates what he thinks the other person has to do to win, which cannot be done because they have limited rebuttal time, and never answers their challenges, just simply states them to be wrong, and assumes you will believe him. After all, he is a good christian while the other guy is an evil atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chikirin Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Is Lane his middle name or part of his last name? I have an automatic dislike of guys who go by three names. A man ought to go by his first name and his last name, anything more is pretentious. It's like wearing a bow tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Wm Lane Craig might be tickled to know how much space we devote to our hatred of him. Or maybe he knows already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Is Lane his middle name or part of his last name? I have no idea but I've wondered myself what kind of a name it is. Inserting "Lane" into the middle makes it more distinctive. Otherwise, all you've got is another Bill on the planet. Or Will or Wm or whatever. And Craig is such a common name. I have an automatic dislike of guys who go by three names. A man ought to go by his first name and his last name, anything more is pretentious. It's like wearing a bow tie. But pretentious. Now there's a word I like coupled onto this guy. It just fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I've always found WLC to be highly intelligent and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his knowledge of science. Can you help me understand? He really did own Christopher Hitchens in his debate. Craig *is* intelligent if intelligent means "having large intellectual capacity." However, having it and using it are two different things. Also, the human life span is not long enough to use it fully in all the ways it can possibly be used. Craig chose to use his intelligence to resurrect an old philosophy and offer it as a substitute to science. He goes beyond passively offering it as a substitute. He actively teaches/preaches that science is no good and not to be trusted, etc. He provides reasons for this. Sorry, I can't immediately come up with examples but I've come across them. Successfully doing that in the late twentieth century was no small feat. The man is massively intelligent. If only he could come up with evidence for his claims but he has chosen to believe regardless of personal eye-witness evidence. Literally. See the Contra Craig website--scroll down to the yellow strip where the webmaster posted a page from Reasonable Faith and read the text beneath. It's not the neatest website but it's a fascinating story if you can wade through all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I have a personal dislike of Hitchens and his politics, but I've never seen Craig 'own' him. I've seen Craig spend his time on straw men and use other rhetorical tricks, which simply make him intellectually dishonest and therefore highly unconvincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Craig is only convincing if you don't bother to check his "facts" and always uses the same strategy. The debate format allows a huge opening statement, with only limited rebuttal time. Craig crams as much bull into the opening statement as possible, and when the opponent cannot answer all of it, (time does not allow), he points out the lack or answers as some kind of admission of being wrong. I call it overwhelm and deflect.... He likes to go first for this reason if you notice... Even when he has to be second, he restates what he thinks the other person has to do to win, which cannot be done because they have limited rebuttal time, and never answers their challenges, just simply states them to be wrong, and assumes you will believe him. After all, he is a good christian while the other guy is an evil atheist. In other words WLC has never won a debate and has no clue how to even try. Fooling sheep isn't winning a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 WLC does appear to be highly intelligent, and a good debater and I've enjoyed watching debates which feature him for the most part. I of course think he's wrong, and think that at times he is dishonest in his approach but for a Christian he is alright. No other Christian debater really compares to him, James White is an alright debater but he frankly uses strawmen far too often (yes, once is too much I know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I have never seen Ehrman debate, but I have read some of his books. I will have to check that out. Here is WLC and Bart Ehrman on the Resurrection 1/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 ok,,,, i listen till he was talking about independent sources,,,,, the 4 gospels and the gospel of peter,,,, huh? these are independent sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I have never seen Ehrman debate, but I have read some of his books. I will have to check that out. Here is WLC and Bart Ehrman on the Resurrection 1/12 Wow! 1:58 " . . . the resurection of Jesus is the best explanation of certain well established facts . . . " Another debate lost by WLC. Three of his four "facts" are not facts at all. As for the fourth one every belief has origins. Should we have to explain the origin of every religious belief ever held by a religious person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 That... was painful. a few minutes in I was thinking... Oh, I see what you are doing there.. first establishing that you are 'educated' and enforcing the view of yourself s an 'authority'... then setting up a strawman and prejudicing your audience with another appeal to authority and presupposition, and then a few minutes later I was thinking... but you haven't established that the gospels (or even the bible) are reliable sources, or that we have evidence for any of the people mentioned (including Jesus or Joseph of Arimathea) even existed, or that the crucifixion ever happened... Then there was some math stuff... (I pretty much tuned him out after the attempt to set up false parameters earlier) sorry, couldn't watch the whole thing, it was apologetic masturbation. Maybe later when I have more patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Debates are easy to "win" if you are willing to lie and make up bullshit sources that don't actually exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Later on it turns into comic gold. Why of course it's improbable that Invisible Pink Unicorns are naturally invisible. I'm asserting that they are magically invisible. Totally different! And I see no reason why it wouldn't be highly probable that the Pink Unicorn's invisibility is magical in nature. How could WLC be intelligent and make himself look like a fool at the same time? I submit that WLC makes himself look like a fool because he honestly believes foolish is wise. Craig is the only one blundering here. He keeps introducing "facts" that arn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts