(Mirror) The humiliation of William Lane Craig

[HonestDiscussioner]

@NoonienSoongh The purpose of the test being what exactly?

[NoonienSoongh]

@HonestDiscussioner

I tried to make several comments but none worked so I wrote "test"

[HonestDiscussioner]

@NoonienSoongh Oh . . well it works now!

[noshabibis]

William Lane Craig and Christians aren't far apart, they are both DELUSIONAL.

[hornylink]

My god, Thunderf00t, you magnificant quake playing bastard xD. Cap that flag!

[kram83au]

WLC would make a great car salesman,i will give him that.

[ChaoticReverie1]

Ugh, two of the most annoying voices ever in the same video lol. This was a good catch on TF's part though.

[darktango78]

I would hardly consider this a humiliation. It just seems to me an instance of "tit for tat". If name dropping is enough to constitute an argument, then counter-name dropping should be enough to constitute a counter argument. The references are available and anyone interested is able to find them easily. As far as "humiliations" go, this is pretty banal and exactly the type of childish "pwning" attitude that made me unsubscribe from thunderf00t a long time ago.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@darktango78 I wouldn't call this a "tit for tat". This is WLC saying "these people are wrong for doing this" and then doing that exact same thing. Had he been doing it ironically, he'd easily get a pass, but this is akin to someone shooting someone with a gun and justifying it by saying they are people who shoot at others with guns and deserve punishment.

[darktango78]

@darktango78 I didn't mean to imply he was doing it ironically. What I'm saying is that if someone is using citations in lieu of arguments, then they themselves should be open to receiving citations as counterarguments. I've heard Craig elaborate on Hume and what he considers to be the refutations of his position, so it's not that he routinely uses citations in place of arguments. In any case this is a *far* cry from a "humiliation" and I feel Thunderf00t comes across looking petty and lame.

[Gravija1980]

Thumbs down for Thunderf00t's voice... I just can't stand to listen to it

[HonestDiscussioner]

@Gravija1980 That's certainly your right. I think TF fails have increased in recent years. However in this instance this video has the benefit of being not only accurate (assuming WLC doesn't add on the refutations later), but since it was false flagged it must be supported no matter the content.

[AHPMB]

For the life of me, I can't understand how people can still take Craig seriously as a theologian. Craig is to theology what Kent Hovind is to biology.

[NimbleWitz]

Everything out of Craig's mouth is pandering to those that already believe and who are looking to Craig for confirmation.

His 'arguments' do nothing to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of his god to those who have not already fallen prey to the pernicious indoctrinations of Christianity.

[AmazingSpiderDan]

Was Craig attempting irony or something?!? I really didn't think we was quite that stupid and delusional! I'm happy to see I was wrong though.....! Idiot! The man is a philosophical cul-de-sac, an intellectual midget of the highest order.

[BigBananaMan]

Lol, I didn't see the voice coming.

I don't think this guy is much of a problem. He seems to use the same logic that most religious people do and like them, assumes everybody WANTS to believe everything he says like a good congregation and will "believe" it if they believe it or not so why bother making the argument work.

If stupid people aren't following him then it's voodoo, or Islam, or witchcraft, or a cult, or a science fiction religion started by a third rate science fiction writer, etc.

[176smn]

lol, Unreal Tournament and Quake sounds fucking awesome. Those where the days! 

[176smn]

@176smn Thunderfoot sounds like a familiar name on UT... hmmmm

[uncleboring]

I wonder what honest christians feel about lying, dishonest scum bags like William Lane Craig associating dishonesty with christianity? It's just a matter of time before he is dealt with & his revenue stream is seriously reduced!!

[HonestDiscussioner]

@uncleboring How would we "deal" with him? Even if we beat him in a debate, I doubt that would change things. He's going to be doing damage to human race for a very long time it seems.

[uncleboring]

@HonestDiscussioner It is true that people seem to need a religion (I think Richard Dawkins may have said this). Religion will probably always be here but there is value in a joint fightback against religious control by these fundamentalists. WLC is quite clearly a charlatan & I am a strong believer in what goes around, comes around. His dishonesty will catch him out in time. Thunderf00t's video is quite interesting /watch?v=8T1LrC2cmHI as action is being taken to deal with WLC.

[IdeasAboveStation]

@uncleboring Do we need religion? Or do we, as social creatures and creatures of habit, just require ritual, routine and a sense of community?

The atheist must find their own rituals and routines, however, if they adopt humanistic values, they may see the world as their community. At least ideally that could be true. I suspect community is first realised at a more immediate and local level... something too that an atheist unfortunately must realise for themselves.

[uncleboring]

@IdeasAboveStation I don't accept that religion can provide any kind of sense of a world community. If anything it divides people in the most horrible way. We will be facing difficulties due to a failing monetary system and the squandering of the world's resources. Extremist christians are openly un-environmental because they believe the world is about to end (& have believed this for some time now). I see religion as a world problem on many levels.

[uncleboring]

@noshabibis William Lane Craig is a bit different because he knows he's a liar but continues as he is because it generates a great deal of cash for him. If he actually believes what he preaches (which I doubt) then he must be working hard fighting the cognitive dissonance in his brain!!

[strangetranceoffaith]

very nice

[cre599]

hahahaha... That was neat :D Wow... And this is their "best" guy :/ :D

[gupsphoo]

Stupid Christian apologists think they have the right to censor anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[spiffythealien]

WOW

[RuinSonic]

WLC has no humility and no class. Forget his religion and his apologetics. When he shamelessly misrepresents atheists on you tube and when caught admits it doesn't matter I don't have any respect for him. If you come up on stage telling everyone your a serious thinker who considers the atheists point of view and yet you never try to present the atheist position in good faith, you are a fox news douche bag.

[TruthSurge]

William LAME Craig - FATALITY!

[Jaygull]

William Lane Craig humiliates himself by simplying existing.

[vbfl920]

This is just nitpicking.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 Nitpicking? He criticize atheists for doing something, and then does that very same exact thing in the next sentence. That's not nitpicking, that's pointing out blatant hypocrisy.

[vbfl920]

@HonestDiscussioner Pointing out the hypocrisy is just nit-picking. It does precisely what to address the arguments? He could very well be a hypocrite, and this would have no bearing on the soundness of his arguments.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@vbfl920 " He could very well be a hypocrite, and this would have no bearing on the soundness of his arguments."

You don't think consistency is important in someone who is attempting to argue intellectually? It calls into question his entire ethics as a debated and scholar if he's willing to condemn things that he himself practices. I don't think Thunderf00t or anyone is arguing that name-dropping is okay, but rather that WLC is either a fool or is dishonest.

[TruthSurge]

@HonestDiscussioner he's not criticizing an atheist here.

[TruthSurge]

@TruthSurge at least whoever it is is a theologian which is 99% likely to be a theist.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@TruthSurge We'd have to double check on that, which would be difficult since we don't know exactly who he's talking about. The lines that concern me, however, come later when he quotes someone saying they've "never seen in the writings of any contemporary theologian the exposition of a single argument . . . which comes anywhere near to demolishing historical Christian doctrine or theological realism".

He'd have to be talking about non-theists here, as theists wouldn't be citing refutations.

[TruthSurge]

@HonestDiscussioner I understand that but again, it sounded like he was saying this particular theologian was the one dropping names, but maybe he's QUOTING that theologian when he's saying the "never seen" part.

and since this is chopped by TF, I have no idea of the context and what is really being said other than the pt TF was making. ah well.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@TruthSurge Yes he is. He's criticizing atheists who "name drop" philosophers that "supposedly" refuted an argument without referencing the actual refutation.

[TruthSurge]

@HonestDiscussioner All I heard was the mention of a theologian who was doing the name-dropping so maybe you are correct but I couldn't be sure with this clip. Whoever he is criticizing, the pt is clear. He's a hypocrite and a blind one too!

[HonestDiscussioner]

@TruthSurge You may wish to watch the video again. I'm quite sure he was talking about people name dropping philosophers who they claimed debunked Christian arguments for God.

[TruthSurge]

@HonestDiscussioner Actually, I've watched it several times. WLC is says that this guy (lederman?) is a theologian and he says that it is HE who is dropping names and that it's "all too typical" of theologians. So, I was going on what WLC said.