RachelSkates Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Too bad these smarties don't put their mental energy into things that could make a real difference in our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 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. I think Lane was a correction of what he was originally born with: William LAME Craig The man lives for semantics and picking out different shards of an argument to pull magic card tricks while enjoying the sound of his own yapping. He is an arrogant blowhard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Sometimes, I just pick out the atheist parts of these debates and listen to them refute WLC because frankly, it gets to the point where this guy turns my stomach. In this vid, that would be the Bart Ehrman parts. You might have to look up the other ones in the series on YouTube if you're really interested. I personally find it easier than reading Ehrman's books and very educational. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and a real challenge for WLC. I have a few more videos on my list in which WLC debates true scholars who disagree with him. I'm not talking about people like Christopher HItchens who are just good at speaking their mind but people who know the scholarly stuff just as good as WLC does and can get back at him on his own turf. That's when Craig resorts to all these cop-out shots as have been described in one of these threads--I think it was this one. What gets to me is that his fans invariably claim that WLC won the debate. It's really good for me to see people here say the opposite because it's true. I don't know the formal criteria for "winning" or "losing" a debate but I think I know how to tell a good argument from a bad argument. I have yet to see a good argument for Christianity. I just love the following quote from Ravenstar's post: 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... After being overwhelmed by Christies on WLC's forums all these years it just feels so GOOD to see others share my own feelings on his style of argumentation. A new member on exC, Miekko, suggested in Post 9 on my thread that WLC's goal is to convince believers that non-belief is an irrational knee-jerk hatred of Christianity so they will not hear out what we have to say. In Post 11, I answer that this certainly is the way things are playing out. If that's the case, I guess he's intentionally "preaching to the choir," huh? We non-believers serve as punching bags for their young people to practice on and sharpen their teeth or skills for real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 oopsie - never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 That... was painful. sorry, couldn't watch the whole thing, it was apologetic masturbation. Maybe later when I have more patience. Don't waste your time. Besides, you summed up his modus operandi perfectly! I've always loved the way he's said 'independent sources' and then quoted from the gospels as though they were outside of the bible. And, from a historically scholastic point of view he is also very wrong because at least 2 ot the gospels took all of their info from the famous missing Q doc so that makes them the same source doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 And, from a historically scholastic point of view he is also very wrong because at least 2 ot the gospels took all of their info from the famous missing Q doc so that makes them the same source doesn't it? some people on here (Ex-Chr), I don't remember who, have said that there was not even a Q, that Mark was the first gospel and Luke and Matthew used and adapted Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 For a quick delve into bible history (scholarly) THIS series is awesome, especially for us laymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 And, from a historically scholastic point of view he is also very wrong because at least 2 ot the gospels took all of their info from the famous missing Q doc so that makes them the same source doesn't it? some people on here (Ex-Chr), I don't remember who, have said that there was not even a Q, that Mark was the first gospel and Luke and Matthew used and adapted Mark. It's believed that Mark came from the Q doc for the most part. Luke and Matt. took from Mark so everything actually was from Q. This is a premise of course but one with many scholars including Bart Ehrman accepting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts