Dr. William Lane Craig is dishonest.

[Jehanne]

Hi Everyone,

Another ex from the Secular Web discussion forum (renamed since I left many months ago.)

I have been listening to a number of Dr. William Lane Craig’s debates over the past six months and have come to a conclusion: Craig is dishonest. Maybe he is not a conscious liar, but he is certainly lying to himself.

To give one quick example from the following site:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50

Compare the debate that Craig had with Professor Bart Ehrman from a few years ago to his recent one with Professor James Brown. In his debate with Ehrman on the resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Ehrman gives Craig a naturalistic hypothesis on what happened to Jesus’ body after his crucifixion, one of (paraphrase) “dozens of examples that I could come up with.” Contrast that with Craig’s statements to Brown, where he says that (paraphrase), “no modern scholar has ever come-up with any naturalistic explanation…”

Has Craig brainwashed himself? It is fine to believe, but to lie about it to a college audience in front of one’s own peer?

Geesh.

[Worldtraveller]

Craig is an apologist?

His lips are moving?

The title of the thread is redundant in that case. :D

Welcome to SC.

[Jehanne]

His lips are moving?

His debates are all cut from the same cloth, right down to the words and even the voice inflections. Makes me wonder if he is able to recite his 20-minute opener in his sleep or (delete other gross thoughts...maybe when I am a senior member...) In any case, his 20-minute formula is simple: 1) I have good reasons for my theism, you (the atheist) have no good reasons for atheism; 2) I get 20 minutes to present my reasons for theism; 3) You (the atheist) get 20 minutes to tear-down all my reasons for theism, plus you must present your reasons for atheism.

[DMB]

I imagine that debating him must require the sort of preparation the manager of a top soccer team would make: analyse all his tactics and be prepared to use them against him.

How different would you say his debates are from the usual evolution versus creation debates?

[Jehanne]

I imagine that debating him must require the sort of preparation the manager of a top soccer team would make: analyse all his tactics and be prepared to use them against him.

How different would you say his debates are from the usual evolution versus creation debates?

Good point. I would like to see Craig debate Michael Shermer sometime. Shermer knows "all the tricks."

[Ray Moscow]

I read Craig's debate with Erhman. What a yahoo (Craig, that is).

[Jehanne]

I read Craig's debate with Erhman. What a yahoo (Craig, that is).

An audio version of that debate is available as I posted above. If you liked the transcript, you will love that audio. Dr. Erhman's southern accent is wonderful! He puts Craig in his place. Craig can "pull the wool" over intellects like Hitchens, who is not an expert in anything (which he admits), but when faced with someone like Erhman, who is a true expert in Biblical studies, he hits a brick wall.

[epepke]

My world is shattered.

Next think you'll be telling me that rain is wet.

[Jobar]

His lips are moving?

His debates are all cut from the same cloth, right down to the words and even the voice inflections. Makes me wonder if he is able to recite his 20-minute opener in his sleep or (delete other gross thoughts...maybe when I am a senior member...) In any case, his 20-minute formula is simple: 1) I have good reasons for my theism, you (the atheist) have no good reasons for atheism; 2) I get 20 minutes to present my reasons for theism; 3) You (the atheist) get 20 minutes to tear-down all my reasons for theism, plus you must present your reasons for atheism.

1) I have good reasons for my belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn; unbelievers have no good reason for their disbelief in Her. 2) I get 20 minutes to present my reasons for my IPUism; 3) You (the unbeliever) get 20 minutes to tear down all my reasons for believing in the IPU, plus you must present reasons for your unbelief.

:rolleyes: