William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus -

[dougeaton]

I am not a christian, but like to listen to William Craig:

[Euphorbia]

I am not a christian, but like to listen to William Craig:

*Snip*

I watched about two minutes of this, this boring video of a man that I can't stand! He was talking about evidence......something he has none of......

I'm not going to waste this much of my time on this video! Why do you post a video like this and then offer no opinion on it?

You say you are agnostic, yet you watch and enjoy video's like this? Do you like to watch any atheist type video's.......to temper your agnostic (cough) beliefs?

[Ever Learning]

I watched about two minutes of this, this boring video of a man that I can't stand! He was talking about evidence......something he has none of......

I'm not going to waste this much of my time on this video! Why do you post a video like this and then offer no opinion on it?

You say you are agnostic, yet you watch and enjoy video's like this? Do you like to watch any atheist type video's.......to temper your agnostic (cough) beliefs?

in the first two minutes, you formed an opinion of the whole thing but judge the person who watches the whole thing and doesnt give his opinion. cough cough

[Copasetic]

WLC a good thinker? Yeah and I'm the queen of England.

You're such a Poe Doug.

[Euphorbia]

in the first two minutes, you formed an opinion of the whole thing but judge the person who watches the whole thing and doesnt give his opinion. cough cough

Yes! I'm that good...... ......besides I've seen his atheist bashing before, and he always sides with theists.....and as for William Lane Craig......well, the man is just plain wrong (my opinion of course). I've seen other video's of him, and I just don't like him.....or his opinion!

[Imaginarynumber1]

This guy thinks that supernatural explanations should be accepted and that the bible is accurate data to be examined.

[Rlyeh]

Like all apologists, he is a bit sick.

From http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

[dougeaton]

I watched about two minutes of this, this boring video of a man that I can't stand! He was talking about evidence......something he has none of......

I'm not going to waste this much of my time on this video! Why do you post a video like this and then offer no opinion on it?

You say you are agnostic, yet you watch and enjoy video's like this? Do you like to watch any atheist type video's.......to temper your agnostic (cough) beliefs?

I think he is a clear thinker, something you are not. I watched the whole thing and thought he had some good points. The man is brilliant no matter what his beliefs are. People like you are simply afraid of him since you talk of logic etc., but someone uses it well you refuse to listen. Logic and reason can be used by anyone to back up beliefs, it is an art form.

There is a myth that agnostics have to be pro-atheist or lean in that direction. That is nonsense, agnostics many of them are actually open to theism, we just can't make that jump.

doug

[dougeaton]

WLC a good thinker? Yeah and I'm the queen of England.

You're such a Poe Doug.

Well I disagree, he is a good thinker. Dawkins was afraid to debate him, he did and lost.....you are right to fear him, though you mask it with contempt.

Like all apologists, he is a bit sick.

From http://www.reasonabl...-the-canaanites

Oh come on, he is talking about trying to make sense of the OT.

[Ever Learning]

Well I disagree, he is a good thinker. Dawkins was afraid to debate him, he did and lost.....you are right to fear him, though you mask it with contempt.

Oh come on, he is talking about trying to make sense of the OT.

can you find that link with dawkins, sounds like a good one to watch

[Rlyeh]

I think he is a clear thinker, something you are not. I watched the whole thing and thought he had some good points. The man is brilliant no matter what his beliefs are. People like you are simply afraid of him since you talk of logic etc., but someone uses it well you refuse to listen. Logic and reason can be used by anyone to back up beliefs, it is an art form.

The guy's profession is spouting out logical fallacies.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

[dougeaton]

This guy thinks that supernatural explanations should be accepted and that the bible is accurate data to be examined.

Of course, they believe it is history, well much of it is, Jesus being what he is talking about. Atheist don't believe because as he said they don't accept any god, miracles, so it is impossible for them to give a fair reading....well according to Craig. Probably right, like I said, I do lean towards theism, but have never been able to make the jump....perhaps one day. If I do, William Craig will be one of the reasons. To bad we don't have atheist that can do as good as him. At this time, it is just insults etc.that can be handed back.

[Rlyeh]

Oh come on, he is talking about trying to make sense of the OT.

He should consider being a holocaust apologist.

[dougeaton]

can you find that link with dawkins, sounds like a good one to watch

[Imaginarynumber1]

Of course, they believe it is history, well much of it is, Jesus being what he is talking about. Atheist don't believe because as he said they don't accept any god, miracles, so it is impossible for them to give a fair reading....well according to Craig. Probably right, like I said, I do lean towards theism, but have never been able to make the jump....perhaps one day. If I do, William Craig will be one of the reasons. To bad we don't have atheist that can do as good as him. At this time, it is just insults etc.that can be handed back.

There is no evidence for any god(s) nor miracles. A "fair reading" does not include ascribing things to un-provable supernatural explanations.

There are plenty of articulate and well educated atheists and understand science and methodology much better than this man. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, to name a few.

Dawkins on why he refuses to debate with Craig:

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to

. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.

It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Edited October 8, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Rlyeh]

Probably right, like I said, I do lean towards theism, but have never been able to make the jump....perhaps one day. If I do, William Craig will be one of the reasons. To bad we don't have atheist that can do as good as him.

We've got plenty of atheists who make baseless assertions, while they are frowned upon you seem to be more interested in praising theists who do it. Edited October 8, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Odin11]

Well I disagree, he is a good thinker. Dawkins was afraid to debate him, he did and lost.....you are right to fear him, though you mask it with contempt.

It’s next to impossible to win a debate with someone who debates like Craig. He uses a debating technique called Gish Gallop, which drowns the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. Dawkins didn’t lose, he just did not have enough time to answer all of Craig’s BS and lies. People, like Dawkins, don’t debate him because he’s a joke to them, not because they fear him (but keep telling yourself that, maybe if you say it enough it will come true). Craig is only trying to cash in on their names.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Odin11

[markdohle]

The guy's profession is spouting out logical fallacies.

http://rationalwiki....liam_Lane_Craig

This only proves how limiting our beliefs make us when seeking to understand another point of view....

Peace

mark

It’s next to impossible to win a debate with someone who debates like Craig. He uses a debating technique called Gish Gallop, which drowns the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. Dawkins didn’t lose, he just did not have enough time to answer all of Craig’s BS and lies. People, like Dawkins, don’t debate him because he’s a joke to them, not because they fear him (but keep telling yourself that, maybe if you say it enough it will come true). Craig is only trying to cash in on their names.

Hmmmm and Dawkins is so honest and logical when he speaks of 'faith heads'. I will take Craig anytime.

Peace

mark

[White Crane Feather]

Well... I think this thread puts to rest the "there are no dogmatic atheists" bit. Don't you think?

[White Crane Feather]

It’s next to impossible to win a debate with someone who debates like Craig. He uses a debating technique called Gish Gallop, which drowns the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. Dawkins didn’t lose, he just did not have enough time to answer all of Craig’s BS and lies. People, like Dawkins, don’t debate him because he’s a joke to them, not because they fear him (but keep telling yourself that, maybe if you say it enough it will come true). Craig is only trying to cash in on their names.

Dawkins is afraid to debate people that use real logic. All you have to do is watch any of the debates. His vast use of ad hominimns and non sequiturs prooves he does not have a mind for logic nor respect. You should hear Rupart sheldrake talk about the time dawkins wanted to discuss these things on camara with him.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Seeker79

[Euphorbia]

Dawkins is afraid to debate people that use real logic. All you have to do is watch any of the debates. His vast use of ad hominimns and non sequiturs prooves he does not have a mind for logic nor respect. You should hear Rupart sheldrake talk about the time dawkins wanted to discuss these things on camara with him.

Wrong! Odin11 is quite correct!

You perceive it that way because you don't like Dawkins! Your attack on him is nothing more than your opinion.....your preconceived opinion....

In the scientific world, Dawkins has great respect.....William lane Craig.....not so much.

[Euphorbia]

Hmmmm and Dawkins is so honest and logical when he speaks of 'faith heads'. I will take Craig anytime.

Peace

mark

That's so sad!

[StarMountainKid]

I find it hard to stomach these television evangelists with their religious infomercials, and for me Mr. Craig seems to fit right in with the rest of them I've watched. They look too slick and slimy. Would I buy a used car from these two in the OP's video? No.

[Copasetic]

Well I disagree, he is a good thinker. Dawkins was afraid to debate him, he did and lost.....you are right to fear him, though you mask it with contempt.

I have contempt for someone who's idea of a debate is just throwing a bunch of **** at the wall and hoping your opponent cant address it all in time? And then refusing to address any of their points and blundering on with more of their own?

Oh, gee well you caught me there doug.......

Fear him? No not at all. He is an idiot, he debates like an idiot--he doesn't debate for the sake of expanding knowledge or understanding. He doesn't debate to show any evidence or to sway people to his ideas. He does solely to win for the cameras. WLC could take the side of why it is great to eat babies their moms just pushed out and he would win. Not because that idea has any merit, because he is a professional debater who thinks a debate ought to be about how much crap you can say before your opponent eventually gets tired of addressing it all whilst ignoring everything they say or turning it into a strawman.

About the only reason there would be to fear idiots like that is because there are other people dumb enough to believe that is "winning a debate with evidence, etc" (ehhhm, looks at doug).

[Alienated Being]

I have contempt for someone who's idea of a debate is just throwing a bunch of **** at the wall and hoping your opponent cant address it all in time? And then refusing to address any of their points and blundering on with more of their own?

Oh, gee well you caught me there doug.......

Fear him? No not at all. He is an idiot, he debates like an idiot--he doesn't debate for the sake of expanding knowledge or understanding. He doesn't debate to show any evidence or to sway people to his ideas. He does solely to win for the cameras. WLC could take the side of why it is great to eat babies their moms just pushed out and he would win. Not because that idea has any merit, because he is a professional debater who thinks a debate ought to be about how much crap you can say before your opponent eventually gets tired of addressing it all whilst ignoring everything they say or turning it into a strawman.

About the only reason there would be to fear idiots like that is because there are other people dumb enough to believe that is "winning a debate with evidence, etc" (ehhhm, looks at doug).

I would also like to point out that Christopher Hitchens demolished him in a debate.