tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4476617203000422674..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Dr. William Lane Craig: "I Will Not Debate John W. Loftus"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57912856885353718482010-10-04T16:54:53.962-04:002010-10-04T16:54:53.962-04:00I just don't get it. The "religious"...I just don't get it. The "religious" who continue to claim that the bible is "real" are beginning to sounds as if they are truly mentally ill....or like small children at about the age of 5 years...who think that Cinderella, Santa Claus, and Mighty Mouse are real. <br /><br />There is no proof that any part of the bible or the one-dimensional characters populating the bible ever existed.<br /><br />Therefore, what is the point in the religious "debating" ...there is nothing to debate. One's imagination is not proof, evidence of anything, and is certainly not a discussion of Facts. <br /><br />And how can anyone debate that some guy who committed suicide by cop (Roman soldier) was the son of god? <br /><br />And it gets even more silly...when if as the bible states...Jesus is god and god is Jesus...then Jesus had sex with his own mother...and that is nothing more than incest. <br /><br />Freud must have had a chuckle, and a field day getting into the minds of the religious. I certainly have.<br /><br />Judy Weismonger PhDWeismongerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743452589443697977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17467967969385152842010-10-03T17:02:14.022-04:002010-10-03T17:02:14.022-04:00mennoknight typed: "I don't believe that ...mennoknight typed: "I don't believe that Craig refuses to debate former students because of fear of losing, or even any remote threat."<br /><br />Aren't you overstating your point? Since there are no sound or valid arguments for your god or christ fantasies and since there is not the slightest wisp of actual evidence that a god fantasy of any sort actually exists, then Craig's beliefs are only self indulgent delusions that are probably rooted in mental illness. At best Craig and his ilk are religious charlatans exploiting the mental illness of fools.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2043520922519799642010-10-03T08:16:11.920-04:002010-10-03T08:16:11.920-04:00Personally, and intellectually I'm getting ver...Personally, and intellectually I'm getting very tired of the use of the word "faith" as if that particular word means anything.<br /><br />Faith means...that without proof, evidence, or verifiable facts...one "believes" something is true. <br /><br />Faith actually means in terms of psychological processes, that the individual person is lying to themselves...and worse, use the word "faith" as a shield against all investigation of any religious claims.<br /><br />The word faith...is interchangeable with the word "magic." Somehow...having "faith" is just as irrational as "believing" a magician can magically pull a rabbit out of hat by waving a magic wand. <br /><br />The religious believe like magicians, that mumbling magic words, prayers, singing, crossing one's self, genuflecting, rolling beads around, can then cause an imaginary god to "do something" for the person of faith...or give them something they didn't earn...without working for it.<br /><br />Praying and having faith is like asking for an imaginary god to interrupt the laws of physics, and block all negative consequences of one's actions... <br /><br />Now how is that possible? Not once in 10,000 years of recorded history, or 12.5 billion years of cosmological history has there been a single event whereby the "laws of physics" have been blocked, interrupted, redirected, or changed. <br /><br />To believe that such laws of physics can be interrupted by magic words, prayers, etc...is verging on a mental illness. <br /><br />I predict that about 50-100 years from now...those who claim that god speaks to them, or that they have "faith" and are "religious" will be found to be insane. <br /><br />By the way, the original concept and translation of the word "faith" as described by the original Christians, i.e. the gnostics...meant "hope." One "hoped" god was listening, or that god could do something...it did not mean anything close to such absolute beliefs in religious magic...as it does today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84547991918572786942010-10-03T00:06:15.335-04:002010-10-03T00:06:15.335-04:00People on this site seem to be milking a lot from ...People on this site seem to be milking a lot from Craig's comment. I'd suggest that John Loftus has hit on the reason most closely.<br /><br />I don't believe that Craig refuses to debate former students because of fear of losing, or even any remote threat. I highly doubt that John Loftus has too much to throw at Craig that he hasn't encountered in the last 3 decades. I've also personally seen Craig engage in an inpromptu debate with a former student who came at him very aggressively, so I know that he doesn't actually run away.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that he doesn't like the idea of debating former students because of the dangers of hurting someone you have personally invested in and care for. Regardless of what Loftus believes now, Craig still invested in him at one time and Craig probably has a soft spot in his heart for Loftus (and all other students).<br /><br />I've had the unfortunate eventuality of having to engage in debate with someone I had previously taught, and it was very painful. Even though they were angry and took it out on me as the embodyment of what they rejected, I was still, in some way, their teacher. I still cared for them, tried to listen to them, considered what they said, responded gentle and gracious in honest effort to instruct them, etc. It was amazingly difficult and I'd rather not do that again.<br /><br />For that reason, I also don't pursue engagement with former students. I'll much rather let someone else deal with them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27714756162356164892009-04-08T17:30:00.000-04:002009-04-08T17:30:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35688043902849250592009-04-07T16:44:00.000-04:002009-04-07T16:44:00.000-04:00Just imagine 5 of the well-known theological schol...Just imagine 5 of the well-known theological scholars aka Christian snake oil salesmen attempting to use the magic of belief to defeat Hitchens. How funny. If anything, with Hitchens winning the debate at ever single corner...is it no wonder that so many people are concluding they are Atheists. Religion is just a belief in magic, and we all know magic doesn't exist. Logic and reality exists...religion does not have anything but fairy tales and magic to promote, all for money and power.Judy Weismongerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01326339537688644426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12221626300309053162009-04-07T07:15:00.000-04:002009-04-07T07:15:00.000-04:00Yea..He is afraid. He is afraid of being owned and...Yea..He is afraid. He is afraid of being owned and schooled by a former student.Dane Eidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763037705885277542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41696248887589309252009-04-07T05:59:00.000-04:002009-04-07T05:59:00.000-04:00Well, when he said it he was serious. I was there....Well, when he said it he was serious. I was there. Maybe he changed his mind and thinks otherwise. But then maybe not. As I said I'm goading him. He can tell us what he now thinks if he wants to. <BR/><BR/>BTW Glenn I responded on your blog a bit ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9085545654061887512009-04-07T05:56:00.000-04:002009-04-07T05:56:00.000-04:00I wouldn't read much into Craig's comment about fe...I wouldn't read much into Craig's comment about fearing pupils. My best guess is that it was intended to be humorous, suggesting that he arms his students very well with arguments, so they would make formidable opponents for anyone.<BR/><BR/>I doubt that he had in mind the scenario of a student rejecting the christian faith and debating him from"the other side."Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12240919444953725872009-04-07T04:50:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:50:00.000-04:00DJ if I attempted to refute Craig before a debate ...DJ if I attempted to refute Craig before a debate took place I would be tipping my hand. I know his standard opening really well but he won't know mine until we debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15504545375842458652009-04-07T00:44:00.000-04:002009-04-07T00:44:00.000-04:00Why not refute his presentation, as mention above,...Why not refute his presentation, as mention above, but use video. Refute each aspect of his argument and post it here and to youtube.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure it could a attrack a great audience there. I'd love to see it.<BR/><BR/>I cringe everytime I hear Craig in a debate with his tired presentation, but then it gets me fired up to confront this kind of stuff. One of Craig's obvious weaknesses is his unwillingness to argue his case. He consistently falls back on Ad Poppulum arguments, about how the majority of scholars believe this or that. He refuses to tell the audience WHY they believe it and therefore WHY the audience should believe it too. He just insist the audience let the majority of scholars - filtered through him - do their thinking for them. Then there are all the things the majority of scholars believe that he doesn't present.<BR/><BR/>It's only a matter of time before his fans are forced to wake up to his game. Doesn't he realize he's building a "house of cards" legacy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07486969163384679137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7837556445550510732009-04-06T20:34:00.000-04:002009-04-06T20:34:00.000-04:00Great Link Robert. Thanks.-evanGreat Link Robert. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66250128478403751942009-04-06T19:52:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:52:00.000-04:00Steven Carr: Greetings Sir. It is my hope you and ...Steven Carr: Greetings Sir. It is my hope you and yours are well and feeling fine.<BR/><BR/>SC: <I>So where is Craig's evidence for an empty tomb?<BR/><BR/>Does one person in history name himself as having seen an empty tomb?</I><BR/><BR/>Here is a list of ancient authors that should have know about the Christian human sacrifice but didn't mention it.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm" REL="nofollow">Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus<BR/>Quintilian, Lucanus. Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones<BR/>Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian<BR/>Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus,. Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria</A><BR/><BR/>Best RegardsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65737348459804394222009-04-06T17:43:00.000-04:002009-04-06T17:43:00.000-04:00DVD said:As for Richard Carrier, that is a total r...DVD said:<BR/><I>As for Richard Carrier, that is a total ridiculous request for a debate. The reliability of the gospels. Do you not realize that a debate of that sort, would have so much relevant ground to cover that it would be untenable.</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't take two weeks to make a good case for why the Gospels are not reliable history. The Gospel stories are the only source we have for the biography of this supposed God-Man of Christianity. Despite his widespread fame & popularity at the time he is supposed to have lived, we have no corroborative evidence that he even existed. To rely on the Canonical gospels as "evidence" for the resurrection is like relying on Agatha Christie to prove that Hercule Poirot was the greatest detective who ever cracked a case.<BR/><BR/>Craig's arguments depend totally on this one assumption (i.e. that the Canonical Gospels are reliable history). It is not a difficult task to show that this is an untenable assertion. These anonymously authored, Midrashic & plagiarized stories written well after the "fact" CANNOT be considered reliable history by any reasonable standard.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that Craig has a sense of this & is therefore quite reluctant to debate this question with someone like Carrier (even if Carrier lacks a lot of Craig's rhetorical power).<BR/><BR/>It is a crucial question. If the Gospels fail this question of documentary veracity, Christianity has no credibility.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45269989304542645862009-04-06T13:35:00.000-04:002009-04-06T13:35:00.000-04:00Deist Dan: Greetings Sir. You typed:1. The majorit...Deist Dan: Greetings Sir. You typed:<I>1. The majority of NT scholars agree with these four "facts"... snip</I><BR/><BR/>That's a good point. Could Craig be guilty of an inverse genetic fallacy? Isn't he saying his religious fairy tale is true because so called Christian scholars say its true? Would that be an instance of a reverse of inverse genetic fallacy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90747161165625179272009-04-06T12:58:00.000-04:002009-04-06T12:58:00.000-04:00Steve CarrWhat exactly is your obsession with Will...Steve Carr<BR/><BR/>What exactly is your obsession with William Lane Craig? Seriously, it doesn't seem very healthy to me. You are all over the internet always talking about debates he is avoiding. You have been doing this for a number of years. It seems an odd way to go about one's life to be after a man you feel is delusional and has no real arguments! <BR/><BR/>Who cares if William Lane Craig, wins or looses. Does that matter that much to you?<BR/><BR/>As for Richard Carrier, that is a total ridiculous request for a debate. The reliability of the gospels. Do you not realize that a debate of that sort, would have so much relevant ground to cover that it would be untenable.<BR/><BR/>Judging by Richard Carrier's Logic and his use of "coincidences" to try and prove a point, I don't think Craig would have any difficulty in correcting Carrier given if the debate was 2 weeks long!<BR/><BR/>AS for Richard CArrier, the Great Greek Expert, said he would fail one of his translations and thought that Richard was being "deceitful" but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. To me that is damning. When Daniel B Wallace says something like that, you can't "twist" it. He is one of the greatest experts on the langauge.<BR/><BR/>If your looking for a good close debate with Craig, it already happend. Last year in Saskatoon a Canadian Philosopher from Saskatoon gave a good hard case.<BR/><BR/>Here is what William Lane Craig said about the debate in his newsletter:<BR/><BR/>"The small convocation hall at the U of S quickly filled to its capacity of 290, and another 500-plus people packed the overflow room to watch the debate on the live video feed. I presented my usual five arguments for God’s existence, and Williamson countered with three arguments for atheism. As I look back on this debate, I can’t help but reflect that Williamson’s arguments were actually far more formidable than Shook’s, but the atmosphere was completely different. The Shook debate appeared to be closely contested only because of the interruptions of the raucous atheists, whereas poor Williamson seemed easily dispatched, when in fact quite the opposite was the case."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I hope you can sleep now Steve. It wans't anyone from the internet, nor from the infidel crowd who offered a formidable debate, but a little known philosopher from Saskatoon Canada.dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64567438437337749762009-04-06T12:46:00.000-04:002009-04-06T12:46:00.000-04:00I don't think William Lane Craig would enjoy a deb...I don't think William Lane Craig would enjoy a debate with John Loftus. I think his emotions would be to unsettled before and after the debate and it probably would take toll on him that way. At this stage and age of his life, that type of burden is not what he wants to shoulder, as he probably already feels somewhat responsible as a teacher. In terms of "debating," Craig won't loose, the only way Craig would or could loose a debate is for him to be off his game.dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89669602137682569162009-04-06T08:23:00.000-04:002009-04-06T08:23:00.000-04:00I read Craig's non-answer.Apparently we atheists a...I read Craig's non-answer.<BR/><BR/>Apparently we atheists are now perfectly entitled to write reports of Craig debates that are not generally reliable, and tell people that they must get their facts about Craig debates from reports which are not generally reliable.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to doing just that!<BR/><BR/>So where is Craig's evidence for an empty tomb?<BR/><BR/>Does one person in history name himself as having seen an empty tomb?<BR/><BR/>All Craig has is the ridiculous position that multiple Jews were attesting early to the disciples having stolen the body, using sleeping witnesses as the source of this story - sleeping witnesses not being considered credible witnesses in the first century.<BR/><BR/>But despite the anonymous Gospel of Matthew claiming that this story was being spread by the chief priests, there is absolutely no confirmation of it.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60407573026993487092009-04-06T07:17:00.000-04:002009-04-06T07:17:00.000-04:00Steven Carr, read WlC's response to Carrier on...Steven Carr, read WlC's response to Carrier on the non-debate on the reliability of the Gospels:<BR/><BR/>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6981Erlendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854528556692898657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65060978243623864962009-03-31T17:37:00.000-04:002009-03-31T17:37:00.000-04:00Can't you have all the "debates" with whomever you...Can't you have all the "debates" with whomever you want by systematically linking to their articles and responding to their points in detail?<BR/><BR/>I've seen plenty, and there's really not a whole lot of ground that can be covered in 90 minutes of talking, anyway.<BR/><BR/>It seems that debates serve mostly to direct the attention of a wider audience to the fact that there *is* something to debate.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46368942521841947662009-03-30T13:20:00.000-04:002009-03-30T13:20:00.000-04:00John,That makes sense and it is a very "Christian"...John,<BR/><BR/>That makes sense and it is a very "Christian" kind of response. I remember leaving the Presybterian Church In America for a small Reformed Baptist pastorate. One of the most respected Pastor's of the Presbytery wrote to me and said, "How saddened I am to hear of you departure." There was no, "well wishing", as you can imagine. It was expressed as a saddness for leaving the fold of faith. I didn't know how to take it. I was both disappointed by the patronizing that I read in to the message and hurt that I was viewed as someone tantamount to an apostate. And you know that Reformed Baptists are very close to Reformed Presbyterians.Joe Staubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354614785249175583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32511966909829724962009-03-29T12:02:00.000-04:002009-03-29T12:02:00.000-04:00Joe said...I just have a simple question. Why does...Joe said...<I>I just have a simple question. Why doesn't Craig even acknowledge you anywhere.</I><BR/><BR/>He has done so in a few places. And he'll talk of me if you ask him personally. But from what I hear it grieves him to do this because he cares for me, at least that's what my friend Kevin Harris tells me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23730833182099905422009-03-25T17:04:00.000-04:002009-03-25T17:04:00.000-04:00John,I just have a simple question. Why doesn't C...John,<BR/><BR/>I just have a simple question. Why doesn't Craig even acknowledge you anywhere. I mean, I have not even heard or read a peep out of him about you???<BR/><BR/>Am I missing something?<BR/><BR/>Just wondering what you think the reason is.Joe Staubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354614785249175583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91778793608916163312009-03-24T19:15:00.000-04:002009-03-24T19:15:00.000-04:00On Craig's webpage this week he has this to say:"S...On Craig's webpage this week he has this to say:<BR/><BR/><I>"So God exists changelessly (though not immutably) without creation with a timeless intention that a world with a beginning exist, and by exercising His causal power brings such a world into being at the first moment of time.</I>"<BR/><BR/>According to my dictionary "changeless" and "immutable" are synonyms. Is anybody able to explain what Craig means by this seeming contradiction?<BR/><BR/>As to his general thesis that God can have "a timeless intention", to my mind such an argument is without meaning. Am I right or do I need a much bigger mind?Samphirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327984071854007032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82135164251789836272009-03-23T09:22:00.000-04:002009-03-23T09:22:00.000-04:00"the person I fear debating the most is a former s..."the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."<BR/><BR/>I would propose that what it means not that he's afraid of debating a former student so much as he's afraid of encountering that situation which could in his view be considered a personal failure. <BR/><BR/>A student who turned away from all of Craig's teachings could be a failure for him. <BR/><BR/>Honestly, i don't know much about WLC, but if he's not afraid of debating you John, that's the best interpretation I have.Eternal Critichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05079232411668840329noreply@blogger.com