Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is

[dougeaton]

According to the website of Fox News: "American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."

Read more here.

I agree with Craig's opinion about atheistic ideologues. Basically, they're INTELLECTUAL COWARDS. They feel very brave in atheistic internet forums or infamous websites (like PZ Meyers' blog) in which they act like wild cats. But when they're challenged to defend rationally their beliefs in a high-level public debate, many of them chicken out of it.

Continue: http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/08/according-to-fox-news-christian.html

[Rlyeh]

I'm not surprised. Some biologists refuse to debate with creationists because of their dishonest tactics, evangelicals are no better (which is to be expected as many creationists are evangelicals).

Edited May 19, 2012 by Rlyeh

[IamsSon]

*a drop of blood strikes the surface of the water and begins to dissolve....*

*miles away the sharks begin to get resteless*

[Euphorbia]

*Snip*

I agree with Craig's opinion about atheistic ideologues. Basically, they're INTELLECTUAL COWARDS. They feel very brave in atheistic internet forums or infamous websites (like PZ Meyers' blog) in which they act like wild cats. But when they're challenged to defend rationally their beliefs in a high-level public debate, many of them chicken out of it.

Continue: http://subversivethi...-christian.html

You know, you always say you are an agnostic yet you seem to always side with Christians. Are you really agnostic.......or a Christian pretending to be an agnostic? Either way you seem to have a deep-seated hatred dislike of atheists.

I don't personally like William Lane Craig. If I was on the same intellectual level as Richard Dawkins, I probably wouldn't debate him either. Polly Toynbee probably pulled out of the debate because of his style and attitude....and his arrogance, not because she thought she would lose the debate. For whatever reason, WLC is not changing many minds if any at all. His words are just a waste of hot air.......not words for an atheist to take seriously......

[IamsSon]

You know, you always say you are an agnostic yet you seem to always side with Christians. Are you really agnostic.......or a Christian pretending to be an agnostic? Either way you seem to have a deep-seated hatred dislike of atheists.

I don't personally like William Lane Craig. If I was on the same intellectual level as Richard Dawkins, I probably wouldn't debate him either. Polly Toynbee probably pulled out of the debate because of his style and attitude....and his arrogance, not because she thought she would lose the debate. For whatever reason, WLC is not changing many minds if any at all. His words are just a waste of hot air.......not words for an atheist to take seriously......

Isn't an agnostic someone who neither asserts the existence of a supreme being nor denies it? Wouldn't an agnostic be able to honestly take up either side of the argument for a given instance or just on a whim?

[Cradle of Fish]

Too bad Christopher Hitchens is dead. It's also too bad that usually the most reasonable voices are the quiet ones. But of course you'd hate to be too vocal as an atheist or else you'll be labelled a militant.

And I agree, agnostic doesn't automatically mean on the atheist's side. I suspect there are a lot of agnostic christians in the world.

[Euphorbia]

Isn't an agnostic someone who neither asserts the existence of a supreme being nor denies it? Wouldn't an agnostic be able to honestly take up either side of the argument for a given instance or just on a whim?

Hi IamsSon,

Long time no speak. How ya been?

You are correct, but dougeaton always slants heavily towards the Dark Christian side! I would think if he was truly agnostic the tone he uses towards atheists would be a little less antagonistic. I've personally never seen a post of his that was remotely positive to anything atheistic. I have major doubts as to his agnosticism.

[Leonardo]

Craig argues that science and faith are connected. In his writings, he states: "I think we are living in a time in human history where physical science is more open to the existence of a creator and designer of the universe than at any time in recent memory."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1vLxSnR6Y

If this is an example of the points Lane Craig makes in debate then it is pointless debating him, because he is hopelessly narrow and short-sighted in the scope of his argument.

Prior to the Enlightenment, science and religion were intertwined and science was often practised to support religion, but modern science has absolutely no room for anything other than science.

doug,

I agree with Craig's opinion about atheistic ideologues. Basically, they're INTELLECTUAL COWARDS. They feel very brave in atheistic internet forums or infamous websites (like PZ Meyers' blog) in which they act like wild cats. But when they're challenged to defend rationally their beliefs in a high-level public debate, many of them chicken out of it.

It is not intellectual cowardice to refuse to defend one's world-view in public, and it degrades Lane Craig's character more that he levels such charges at atheist targets.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Leonardo

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Given this expressed distaste towards Atheists, then Agnosticism is a perfectly valid positin to take. He (or shee) doesn't believe in a deity, but doesn't not do so in a way that expressly forbids the existence of said deity. That's agnostic, but there's nothing saying an Agnostic can't dislike the tactics/unbelief systems of the atheists anymore then they have to dislike Christianity/Islam/whatever.

[dougeaton]

I'm not surprised. Some biologists refuse to debate with creationists because of their dishonest tactics, evangelicals are no better (which is to be expected as many creationists are evangelicals).

This is nonsense. He is not a fundimentlist Christian, he accepts evoloution, so please will you atheist stop being so dishonest. I am not a believer, but he is more logical and rational than atheist. He usually wins, that is why Dawkins who is alight weight will not debate him. Theism is rational, creationism is not, science has put that to rest.

doug

[dougeaton]

You know, you always say you are an agnostic yet you seem to always side with Christians. Are you really agnostic.......or a Christian pretending to be an agnostic? Either way you seem to have a deep-seated hatred dislike of atheists.

I don't personally like William Lane Craig. If I was on the same intellectual level as Richard Dawkins, I probably wouldn't debate him either. Polly Toynbee probably pulled out of the debate because of his style and attitude....and his arrogance, not because she thought she would lose the debate. For whatever reason, WLC is not changing many minds if any at all. His words are just a waste of hot air.......not words for an atheist to take seriously......

I don't know about God, but I am open, so that makes me an agnostic. Athiest are closed and shut off from any kind of real debate., I just know that Craig is deeper and more intelligent tha Dawkins is. You say you are logical, well Craig is logical, the problem is you are wed to a world view the same as many theist and will not listen to anything outside your narrow world view. No, I am an agnostic, so I can listen to both sides, it is just that atheist don't have much to put forth.....all they can do is say the same old tired things over and over agian.

doug

Edited May 19, 2012 by dougeaton

[dougeaton]

Isn't an agnostic someone who neither asserts the existence of a supreme being nor denies it? Wouldn't an agnostic be able to honestly take up either side of the argument for a given instance or just on a whim?

Thank you.

doug

[dougeaton]

Hi IamsSon,

Long time no speak. How ya been?

You are correct, but dougeaton always slants heavily towards the Dark Christian side! I would think if he was truly agnostic the tone he uses towards atheists would be a little less antagonistic. I've personally never seen a post of his that was remotely positive to anything atheistic. I have major doubts as to his agnosticism.

I find atheist antagonistic and ignorant for the most part, there are some exceptions and they are on this site, but most are like you, villiage atheist. I don't like strong fundie theist any better than atheist.

doug

Hi IamsSon,

Long time no speak. How ya been?

You are correct, but dougeaton always slants heavily towards the Dark Christian side! I would think if he was truly agnostic the tone he uses towards atheists would be a little less antagonistic. I've personally never seen a post of his that was remotely positive to anything atheistic. I have major doubts as to his agnosticism.

Gee I am really concerned your opinion is so important to me

doug

[dougeaton]

[/background][/left]

If this is an example of the points Lane Craig makes in debate then it is pointless debating him, because he is hopelessly narrow and short-sighted in the scope of his argument.

Prior to the Enlightenment, science and religion were intertwined and science was often practised to support religion, but modern science has absolutely no room for anything other than science.

doug,

It is not intellectual cowardice to refuse to defend one's world-view in public, and it degrades Lane Craig's character more that he levels such charges at atheist targets.

He is debating the existence of God with atheist, how else could he do it? There is no problem between science and religion, the fact that many christian except evoloution, my friend markdohle is one of them, would point to this reality. If you think there is a divide, well you need to look up what an opinion means, for our perception is just that, an opinion.

doug

Given this expressed distaste towards Atheists, then Agnosticism is a perfectly valid positin to take. He (or shee) doesn't believe in a deity, but doesn't not do so in a way that expressly forbids the existence of said deity. That's agnostic, but there's nothing saying an Agnostic can't dislike the tactics/unbelief systems of the atheists anymore then they have to dislike Christianity/Islam/whatever.

You get me.

doug

[markdohle]

You know, you always say you are an agnostic yet you seem to always side with Christians. Are you really agnostic.......or a Christian pretending to be an agnostic? Either way you seem to have a deep-seated hatred dislike of atheists.

I don't personally like William Lane Craig. If I was on the same intellectual level as Richard Dawkins, I probably wouldn't debate him either. Polly Toynbee probably pulled out of the debate because of his style and attitude....and his arrogance, not because she thought she would lose the debate. For whatever reason, WLC is not changing many minds if any at all. His words are just a waste of hot air.......not words for an atheist to take seriously......

Doug is an agnostic believe me. He is very dark about it and knows where atheism leads. To be fair, many atheist do sound like they have been brain washed, just like many believers do.... or like those who take strong positions on the left or the right in politics. The stronger we believe in something, the narrower we become, though we don't know this, just those who think or believe differently see how locked in they or, yes, me, are. Doug tries to be fair, but does not like robots of anykind. He just happens to think that most atheist are robots, or talking heads who try to sound rational....just sound bites he call them. I dont' alwyas agree with him on that, just the way he thinks.

Peace

Mark

[Arbenol]

I knew I'd heard that name before. I went to Pharyngula to reacquaint myself. Here's a few gems from him:

"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."

"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."

"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, this is Lane Craig's take on genocide:

Kill the kids so they don't grow up to do you harm in the future. And don't forget you're actually doing them a favour.

Killing is a worse trauma for the soldiers doing the killing than those being killed.

It's the victims' fault for not getting out of the way.

Theist, agnostic or atheist. Who'd want to spend one minute in the company of this repulsive piece of slime?

[Euphorbia]

I don't know about God, but I am open, so that makes me an agnostic. Athiest are closed and shut off from any kind of real debate., I just know that Craig is deeper and more intelligent tha Dawkins is. You say you are logical, well Craig is logical, the problem is you are wed to a world view the same as many theist and will not listen to anything outside your narrow world view. No, I am an agnostic, so I can listen to both sides, it is just that atheist don't have much to put forth.....all they can do is say the same old tired things over and over agian.

doug

But you are not open minded! You are not open to anything an atheist says or in any views they wish to share. You generalize atheists like we are all of one mind. I am not closed minded as I am open to a god.......just show me some proof.....any proof!

And I will decide if I will debate someone or not as would any one else. Craig doesn't debate facts, rather he debates opinions.......opinions don't matter!

Craig is not logical! He is the one who is stuck on his views, views that he cannot substantiate. His words are pure BS.

So you are the authority as to who is more intelligent? I think not! It takes incredible arrogance to hold the views you hold.

Atheists have much to "put forth", as you put it......the problem is you don't listen, why because your views are static and I still think you have no respect for anybody that is atheist. Your loss! You may listen to both sides, but you let the atheists views go in one ear and out the other.

I am friends with other atheists, agnostics and even Christians, and none of them display the antagonistic attitude that you display on these threads.

[Euphorbia]

Doug is an agnostic believe me. He is very dark about it and knows where atheism leads. To be fair, many atheist do sound like they have been brain washed, just like many believers do.... or like those who take strong positions on the left or the right in politics. The stronger we believe in something, the narrower we become, though we don't know this, just those who think or believe differently see how locked in they or, yes, me, are. Doug tries to be fair, but does not like robots of anykind. He just happens to think that most atheist are robots, or talking heads who try to sound rational....just sound bites he call them. I dont' alwyas agree with him on that, just the way he thinks.

Peace

Mark

Hi Mark,

I read your posts and I respect your views. I don't agree with certain views that you hold, but you are never antagonistic with your opinion.

I do though really have a problem with people that generalize a certain group. It shows a lack of intelligence that is a put-off to me. I am an atheist because I can't see any other viable option for me, but I still read the opinions of the religious as I would really like to understand them. But........like I have said many times, No one has been able to put it into words that make sense to me.

So where does he think atheism leads? And why does he think atheists are robots? At any rate, if he could get rid of the generalizations and tone down the anger he displays towards atheists, maybe I could actually have a rational discussion with him.

Thanks for the words......

[markdohle]

Hi Mark,

I read your posts and I respect your views. I don't agree with certain views that you hold, but you are never antagonistic with your opinion.

I do though really have a problem with people that generalize a certain group. It shows a lack of intelligence that is a put-off to me. I am an atheist because I can't see any other viable option for me, but I still read the opinions of the religious as I would really like to understand them. But........like I have said many times, No one has been able to put it into words that make sense to me.

So where does he think atheism leads? And why does he think atheists are robots? At any rate, if he could get rid of the generalizations and tone down the anger he displays towards atheists, maybe I could actually have a rational discussion with him.

Thanks for the words......

I think he believes that it will lead to the death of culture as we know it. He thinks the book 1984 paints a true picture of the world of the future when the only leaders will be power hungry men or women who only believe in themselves and their power. He think North Korea is only the first country to become the way it is..... He does tend to paint with large brush strokes, but in the past he got burned too many times by what he calls 'village atheis', perhaps what you present to him will change him a bit.

Peace

Mark

[Euphorbia]

I think he believes that it will lead to the death of culture as we know it. He thinks the book 1984 paints a true picture of the world of the future when the only leaders will be power hungry men or women who only believe in themselves and their power. He think North Korea is only the first country to become the way it is..... He does tend to paint with large brush strokes, but in the past he got burned too many times by what he calls 'village atheis', perhaps what you present to him will change him a bit.

Peace

Mark

Well, I'm a very open atheist. I try to respect others opinions and I don't really want to argue with anyone, but I'm far from perfect and sometimes I too can get argumentative. I usually step away from a thread or at least that particular poster when that happens. Hopefully I can have a better discourse with him in the future, and hope he can realize that I'm not out to burn anyone......and that atheists can be good people not intent on the downfall of our civilization.

Thanks for the info......

Peace back at you!

[Rlyeh]

This is nonsense. He is not a fundimentlist Christian, he accepts evoloution, so please will you atheist stop being so dishonest. I am not a believer, but he is more logical and rational than atheist. He usually wins, that is why Dawkins who is alight weight will not debate him. Theism is rational, creationism is not, science has put that to rest.

doug

Will you try to read what I wrote, or is that asking too much from you?

[Leonardo]

He is debating the existence of God with atheist, how else could he do it? There is no problem between science and religion, the fact that many christian except evoloution, my friend markdohle is one of them, would point to this reality. If you think there is a divide, well you need to look up what an opinion means, for our perception is just that, an opinion.

doug

If Lane Craig really is a philosopher, then he would know the danger of introducing ad hom's into his debating tactics, but that is what he is doing when he accuses prominent atheists of 'intellectual cowardice'. Their reticence to debate him has no bearing on the merits of any arguments for or against the existence of divinity, and neither does it reflect their conviction in their own belief.

What Lane Craig appears to be doing in making these accusations is "chest-thumping", which does not lend any validation his own beliefs but only indicates he is promoting loudness as truth.

[Rlyeh]

So, this is Lane Craig's take on genocide:

Kill the kids so they don't grow up to do you harm in the future. And don't forget you're actually doing them a favour.

Killing is a worse trauma for the soldiers doing the killing than those being killed.

It's the victims' fault for not getting out of the way.

Theist, agnostic or atheist. Who'd want to spend one minute in the company of this repulsive piece of slime?

Apologists actually think their sick arguments are rational and intelligent. I bet they could justify the holocaust.

[IamsSon]

Hi IamsSon,

Hey Euphorbia.

Long time no speak. How ya been?

Yeah, been away for a while. Too many new things going on in real life, but it seems things are calming down a bit now.

How have you been?

You are correct, but dougeaton always slants heavily towards the Dark Christian side! I would think if he was truly agnostic the tone he uses towards atheists would be a little less antagonistic. I've personally never seen a post of his that was remotely positive to anything atheistic. I have major doubts as to his agnosticism.

Doug himself already replied to this part.