Dr. William Lane Craig, PhD Teaches a young PUNK a lesson

[Harbinger]

The man never sleeps. No wonder atheists bow at the altar of Dr. William Lane Craig, PhD

[Athanasius90]

Well to be fair, WLC has refused to debate author of Debunking Christianity blog, John W. Loftus, without ever giving much of a reason. He's addressed him in writing a few times so it can't be an issue of credential.

John is also a former student of his.

Actually, Craig is known for only entering debates if they fit his terms.

I don't know what the deal is here. But-- Loftus isn't a Phd trained philosopher, he has a masters iirc. Has he published anything original or groundbreaking in the field? Is he the most robust and articulate opponent Craig could face? I sincerely doubt it. Craig has faced much better and more difficult opponents.

The point isn't about needing to debate everyone who knocks on your door--it's about debating the very best of the opposition. Especially if you have a bestseller trashing the opposition, calling them deluded, going on about how noone can answer your arguments, actually asking theologians/philosophers to come forward and have a debate, advertising campaigns about how God doesnt exist, pretty much forming some sort of worldwide atheist uprising. It's just weaksauce to do all that and make a flimsy excuse. The oxford atheist philosophers stepped up to avoid a huge PR disaster for atheism. You have a big mouth, you better bring the bling. It's interesting to note after that debacle his war against religion puttered out, lol. What, no more books about how deluded religion is?

From The Dawk

This is funny because it's such an obvious lie. Who did Dawkins consult exactly? He didn't say. He worked at Oxford, the philosophy faculty has Daniel Came and Peter Millican and Peter Atkins in the chemistry faculty. Did he ask them if they've heard of Craig? Funny if he did, because they were both scheduled to debate Craig within weeks. It'd be really funny if they'd never heard of Craig despite being lined up to debate him! He knows Daniel Dennet, knew Hitchens too. Did he ask them? It'd be funny if they hadn't heard of him, given that they both debated him in the past. A.C Grayling too--Dawkins didn't ask him? They're friends and Grayling works at Oxford too. It'd be a hoot if Grayling hadn't heard of him despite also debating him in the past.

The stuff about Craig harassing him to debate is a lie. The debate was set up by four independent organisations who sent invitations to Dawkins and Craig. Craig never contacted Dawkins over this.

Craig has never set up a debate in his life--it's always been through independent organisations who send invites.


Honestly dissapointing for Dawkins to lie like that just as a PR/damage control move.

[Athanasius90]

Lawrence Krauss caught red handed deleting portions of Vilenkins email because it tended to support Craigs argument LOL

[MuscleXtreme]

Lawrence Krauss caught red handed editing Vilenkins email because it tended to support Craigs argument LOL


[youtube]AkvckQG71oc[youtube]

Krauss and Noam Chomsky are doing a presentation at Arizona State University (Krauss is a professor there), I'm tempted to go.

[Athanasius90]

Krauss and Chomsky? What mutual interests do they share? That'd be an interesting presentation, as long as Krauss didn't bring a game show buzzer or distort written emails lol

[homicidal_misc]

Lawrence Krauss caught red handed deleting portions of Vilenkins email because it tended to support Craigs argument LOL

Oh God that's PITIFUL. This is what happens when you aren't a GOD FEARING MAN like Dr. William Lane Craig, PhD.

[MuscleXtreme]

Krauss and Chomsky? What mutual interests do they share? That'd be an interesting presentation, as long as Krauss didn't bring a game show buzzer or distort written emails lol

Here's what the program for it says:

Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss invite you to join them as they candidly discuss contemporary issues on the nature of humanity, the power of science and the mind, and global social justice as this live unscripted conversation unfolds.

Tickets are nearly sold out, and I'm not sure if I want to spend $45 to see it.

[Harbinger]

snip.

[Athanasius90]

Oh God that's PITIFUL. This is what happens when you aren't a GOD FEARING MAN like Dr. William Lane Craig, PhD.

lol. It was so funny how Krauss kept trying to interrupt him and talk over him because he knew Craig was going to deliver the ether.

It's also professional misconduct and shouldn't be tolerated from a scientist. This is the sort of behaviour which science actively discourages in its methods. Krauss is a boob.

[ODBM]

Kinda thought this thread would fall off the first page after a day or so. How much is there to discuss about a guy whose argument is basically that the universe exists so God must have created it?

[Athanasius90]

Kinda thought this thread would fall off the first page after a day or so. How much is there to discuss about a guy whose argument is basically that the universe exists so God must have created it?

All the videos of Craig wasting atheist talking points and slogans.

[Athanasius90]

[homicidal_misc]

My goodness, how does that ghoulish creature live with himself?

[tng83]

Atheist brahs, do you feel it would truly be so difficult to debate Craig? I sit here and watch his vids and with a few moments to put my thoughts into order Im always able to see through his arguments and respond appropriately.I just dont understand why some seem so have so much trouble with this guy. I don't have anything against Craig personally. I'm sure hes a nice guy IRL. Do people just allow themselves to become too rustled to explain their position?

[TheFornicator1]

Atheist brahs, do you feel it would truly be so difficult to debate Craig? I sit here and watch his vids and with a few moments to put my thoughts into order Im always able to see through his arguments and respond appropriately.I just dont understand why some seem so have so much trouble with this guy. I don't have anything against Craig personally. I'm sure hes a nice guy IRL. Do people just allow themselves to become too rustled to explain their position?

You're watching clips. You need to watch entire debates.

In loosely-structured informal discussion, he's much easier to undermine/pick apart. He has trouble with that.

But debate is more a sport than it is a simple discussion. He knows the ropes better than most.

[Athanasius90]

You're watching clips. You need to watch entire debates.

In loosely-structured informal discussion, he's much easier to undermine/pick apart. He has trouble with that.

But debate is more a sport than it is a simple discussion. He knows the ropes better than most.

In an unstructured discussion, it's easier to talk down over others, go o/t, use herrings etc. I prefer the debate format as it gives each speaker uninterrupted time to properly make and defend an argument.


It's true that he's mastered the art of the debate, but if you're defending a manifestly absurd and idiotic position having good debate skills won't account for all that much. He's a professional philosopher as well, so he can break his arguments down into easy to follow, logical structures while his opponents usually can't (often they have no arguments at all, just go off on irrelevant rants, or have poor public speaking and debate skills).

IMO he wins most debates because his position is solid and robustly defensible and there are few if any troublesome objections to it. I like it how this option is unacceptable to a lot of atheists so it's instead gotta be some nuanced and unspecified element of timed debate, or some trickery on Craigs part which explains the lacklustre performance.

[TheFornicator1]

Just to be clear, I'm in no way demeaning him or criticizing him. Seems like you're on the defensive.

P.S - I saw the name mentioned earlier... I'm a fan of Lawrence Krauss (especially for the work he's done with the Origins Project), but I'll never watch another debate involving him again. Atrocious lmao

[Athanasius90]

Just to be clear, I'm in no way demeaning him or criticizing him. Seems like you're on the defensive.

P.S - I saw the name mentioned earlier... I'm a fan of Lawrence Krauss (especially for the work he's done with the Origins Project), but I'll never watch another debate involving him again. Atrocious lmao

ah sorry, was pretty sure I double quoted you and the dude above you. My post was directed at both, because the guy above seemed to wonder why Craig was excelling in debates and thought this was some sort of anomaly.

[TrettinR]

P.S - I saw the name mentioned earlier... I'm a fan of Lawrence Krauss (especially for the work he's done with the Origins Project), but I'll never watch another debate involving him again. Atrocious lmao

I went to a talk he gave at the university I work at. It was similar to the story of science talk that can be found on youtube which is pretty interesting. Had a chance to talk with him briefly after the talk. He seems like a pretty nice guy. Plus he was rocking some sweet chuck taylors.

[tng83]

ah sorry, was pretty sure I double quoted you and the dude above you. My post was directed at both, because the guy above seemed to wonder why Craig was excelling in debates and thought this was some sort of anomaly.

More a question of why others seem so bad at it. Ive never been in a formal debate but I am aware of the fact that the winner is not necessarily correct. Just better at arguing. Like a lawyer or a lobbyist. As far as Craigs style goes he tends to fall back on philosophical explanations for things which have no other evidence. I find philosophy completely irrelevant on these topics.


My response to Craig is simple. 'There is not one shred of evidence that any god, especially the Abrahamic one exists. There are natural explanations for thousands of things that people previously assumed were supernatural. Every day we discover new things previously not understood and there's no reason to think that wont continue until every question we have about our universe is answered. Many theologians (the respected ones) have gone through great lengths to piece god into the world we keep learning new things about. It used to be that god turned the lights on. Then we discover the Sun. God created the Sun. Then we discover how stars are formed. God created the stars and planetary orbits. Then we understand physics and cosmology better (BBT). God started the big bang. And on and on forever. Science keeps closing the door on a need for god. And theists of course keep manufacturing ways for the two to coexist. Theist evolutionists, for example. But until you can show me a miracle or some convincing form of proof there is no reason whatsoever to believe what you have to say.'

[TheFornicator1]

My response to Craig is simple. 'There is not one shred of evidence that any god, especially the Abrahamic one exists. There are natural explanations for thousands of things that people previously assumed were supernatural. Every day we discover new things previously not understood and there's no reason to think that wont continue until every question we have about our universe is answered. Many theologians (the respected ones) have gone through great lengths to piece god into the world we keep learning new things about. It used to be that god turned the lights on. Then we discover the Sun. God created the Sun. Then we discover how stars are formed. God created the stars and planetary orbits. Then we understand physics and cosmology better (BBT). God started the big bang. And on and on forever. Science keeps closing the door on a need for god. And theists of course keep manufacturing ways for the two to coexist. Theist evolutionists, for example. But until you can show me a miracle or some convincing form of proof there is no reason whatsoever to believe what you have to say.'

Sorry brah, he'd eat you alive lol

[tng83]

Sorry brah, he'd eat you alive lol

Im certain he and you would see it that way. In reality he has no argument. Anything he said in defense would be non sequitur as far as Im concerned.

[Ransom17]

More a question of why others seem so bad at it. Ive never been in a formal debate but I am aware of the fact that the winner is not necessarily correct. Just better at arguing. Like a lawyer or a lobbyist. As far as Craigs style goes he tends to fall back on philosophical explanations for things which have no other evidence. I find philosophy completely irrelevant on these topics.


My response to Craig is simple. 'There is not one shred of evidence that any god, especially the Abrahamic one exists. There are natural explanations for thousands of things that people previously assumed were supernatural. Every day we discover new things previously not understood and there's no reason to think that wont continue until every question we have about our universe is answered. Many theologians (the respected ones) have gone through great lengths to piece god into the world we keep learning new things about. It used to be that god turned the lights on. Then we discover the Sun. God created the Sun. Then we discover how stars are formed. God created the stars and planetary orbits. Then we understand physics and cosmology better (BBT). God started the big bang. And on and on forever. Science keeps closing the door on a need for god. And theists of course keep manufacturing ways for the two to coexist. Theist evolutionists, for example. But until you can show me a miracle or some convincing form of proof there is no reason whatsoever to believe what you have to say.'

... You better pepper thine angus if you are thinking get this is gonna cut it. This is the same rhetoric type stuff Hitchens tried... This isn't an argument with any solid ground. Oh yes, look up the term "straw man argument"

[TheFornicator1]

Im certain he and you would see it that way.

Not sure what you're inferring there, but if it's what I think it is: I'm an atheist. We have polar-opposite views.

[tng83]

Not sure what you're inferring there, but if it's what I think it is: I'm an atheist. We have polar-opposite views.

I was under the impression you were theist. My bad.

[tng83]

... You better pepper thine angus if you are thinking get this is gonna cut it. This is the same rhetoric type stuff Hitchens tried... This isn't an argument with any solid ground. Oh yes, look up the term "straw man argument"

I dont find it to be a straw man at all. I can go into further detail but it's not necessary. Craig cant substantiate his beliefs. There is no debate beyond that.

[guyver79]

I was just checking out some philosophy forums just to see what the average person that's into philosophy thinks of Craig, it's not good and like Dawkins claimed he's a bit of a nobody?

I'm sure I've posted this before, still lulzy though!!:

"Craig deserves a reputation as a remarkable individual, because he is an extremely skilled debater and advocate. He also knows enough philosophy to quickly detect when an opponent makes an invalid step - as anybody sometimes will in an extended debate - and make maximum capital from that.

But he has no respect as a philosopher, which is why you would be disppointed if you read any of his writings. I have never seen him quoted by any other philosopher, and his ideas do not appear to have any influence outside of Christian communities.

I have listened to quite a few Craig debates, and his techniques are interesting and very effective. Here are a few of them:

1. The 'Gish Gallop'. Speak first and fast. Bombard your opponent with an absolute wall of rapid-fire claims, then demand that they must rebut every one of them before they even begin to outline their own case.

2. Faux Incredulity. Repeat an argument your opponent has made, with an ever-increasing chuckle in your voice, sounding as though you are struggling to repress your laughter at the fact that your opponent could make such a naive error as to say whatever it was.

3. The False Dichotomy. Claim that the reason for X must either be A or B, but it can't be A because of Y, so it must be B, which implies God. He does this all so fast that nobody notices that there were other possible reasons for X, ie C or D, which he neglected to mention.

4. The Appeal to Authority. Whenever he wants to make a particularly contentious claim, he usually says 'as philosopher X (or scientist Y) has said "yada yada yada" ...', thereby hoping to escape scrutiny of whether the claim is actually true, or even whether he has quoted in context.

5. Accusing his opponent of made-up non-existent fallacies. One he has often used is what he calls 'The Taxicab Fallacy' - something nobody has ever heard of other than WLC (and it's not a fallacy either - indeed, his identifying it as a fallacy appears to be a category error).

6. Godwin's Law. WLC loves to use the Nazis in his moral argument for God, implying that if his opponent does not accept that moral truth exists independent of humanity, then they implicitly fail to condemn the Nazis for their crimes.

7. Claiming expert consensuses that don't exist. When discussing the resurrection, he often says things like 'almost all New Testament scholars agree that ..... <insert highly contentious claim here>'. He never backs up this claim, or explains what he means by a New Testament scholar.

I stopped listening after a while. Craig usually gets the best of his debates. Interestingly, he does worst when up against a genuine philosopher. Shelly Kagan, Arif Ahmed and Stephen Law all made him look fairly ordinary. He does especially well when up against someone like physicist Laurence Krauss who goes into the debate assuming that, because they understand the subject matter much better than Craig, they will have the advantage. They rapidly learn, to their cost, that debating is very little about having a good understanding of the subject but very much about knowing all the rhetorical tricks.

One can learn a lot by listening to a good debate about religion, but I'd much rather listen to a Christian like Mike Licona giving me his viewpoint on the resurrection and why he believes it than a slick salesman like Craig just trying to score points off his opponent.


•cLOUDDEAD
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 02, 2011

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 276
#52 - Quote - Permalink


Posted Feb 1, 2013 - 9:33 AM:


If anyone is interested, Craig will be debating the philosopher Alexander Rosenberg tonight and it will be streamed live. The topic of the debate will be Is Faith in God Reasonable? Here is the link:

http://live.biola.edu/

I'm curious what kind of arguments Rosenberg will give. I watched the Moving Naturalism Forward conference in which he was a participant, and he seemed like a really intelligent guy. Here is to hoping he gives Craig a run for his money. I've watched a lot of Craig debates and the atheist side usually does poorly."

[TheFornicator1]

I dont find it to be a straw man at all. I can go into further detail but it's not necessary. Craig cant substantiate his beliefs. There is no debate beyond that.

That's the thing, he can. When you're dealing with epistemology, empiricism is not the be-all and end-all. He has a logical deductive argument to substantiate his beliefs which stands the test of intellectual rigor.

I don't agree with him whatsoever, but you're going to need much more than an elementary argument to undermine him in a structured debate.

I was just checking out some philosophy forums just to see what the average person that's into philosophy thinks of Craig, it's not good and like Dawkins claimed he's a bit of a nobody?

Philosophy of Religion and Natural Theology aren't exactly the creme de la creme when it comes to philosophy.

[Athanasius90]

More a question of why others seem so bad at it. Ive never been in a formal debate but I am aware of the fact that the winner is not necessarily correct. Just better at arguing. Like a lawyer or a lobbyist. As far as Craigs style goes he tends to fall back on philosophical explanations for things which have no other evidence. I find philosophy completely irrelevant on these topics. .....'

Yeah, sorry m8, but Craig actually does well with these sorts of talking points. If that was a real debate, you'd play right into his hands and if you haven't really thought the slogan or trope throught and are unprepared for a response to it, get ready for an egged face.

In fact, that was exactly what someone asked him in one of these videos. They just launched it, thought it was awesome, and little to nothing to say in response to Craig once he responded.

[tng83]

I was just checking out some philosophy forums just to see what the average person that's into philosophy thinks of Craig, it's not good and like Dawkins claimed he's a bit of a nobody?

Im trying to figure out why theists put so much stock in philosophical arguments to begin with. Arguments not dealing in facts or evidence are weak IMO. Imagine you're on a jury presenting evidence for a murder and you attempt something like this. Some people will be convinced sure but its an awful form of evidence.