Craig is nothing but a 'theological' celebrity. He spouts silliness and irrational thought constantly and is considered intelligent only because he is famous is his narrow world. He is consistently destroyed in debates, but it doesnt matter because those who like him consider him one of their own, so they are merely unthinking fanboys who cheer on every silly notion he throws out.
great, more videos that have nothing to do with theology or God, just more law-related crap that only Americans who have had an intensive legal education understand
Err.. I am in England and have never in my life been to America. I have ZERO legal education and yet i understood this video perfectly. and (he said smugly) without recourse to google.
Also, court's often refer to the need for construing statutes strictly when they are in derogation of the common laws, e.g. "adoption statutes must be strictly construed." Nothing is wrong with construing statutes or constitutions strictly--one can still be reasonable. What I wonder is how, to Scalia, analyzing legislative history differs fundamentally from analyzing cultural history when looking for "intent." Aren't both subject to 'searching for your friends at the party?'
I agree about the "literalist" part, but "strict constructionist" is used by many people as a synonym for textualism, and it is really playing word games to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about just because they didn't use the in-phrase.
He may not be a logician but he doesn't claim to be. And if you watch the debates on here between him and the apostles of atheism (Peter Atkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert et al), you will see, assuming you are not retarded, that he completely wipes the floor with them. He certainly knows more about logic than any of this shower do. (In case you are wondering, I am an atheist, but unlike yours, my attitude is not driven by emotion and ideology,)
@worc1296 Wow, 6 comments boxes filled (it would have been 7 but for the fact that you removed one of your own comments) all to say that Craig isn't a logician. Clearly, you have an abundance of time on your hands.
@ProfMTH Yes, that's right, "Professor". I haven't been on here before and thought my comments hadn't successfully posted. So I removed the duplicates. Your response is feeble. Why don't you try making a substantial non-ad hominem point? Or should I assume that you have none?
@worc1296: The last sentence under "()", well, you may not be "emotional" but you sound like one. Why would you care to self-label yourself if it's not "driven by ideology"? And "assuming you are not retarded" (???) "he completely wipes the floor with them" I wonder how someone like you would conclude that. William Lame Craig is more worried about changing the topic, the rules, and being the refer, and he still couldn't make it. Apostles of Atheism? They talk like closet-islamophobic-christian.
Im glad someone has done their research, and knows what they are talking about. Its easy for someone to bash another man via the internet, quick ProfMTH go google something, instead of making a video about a man, that knows far more about what hes talking about, than you could ever imagine, Id go read up on this for atlest a year before making another comment or video. when it comes down to it,.Science cant explain all. so is it so hard to believe in something greater than yourself.
@ProfMTH: Hume wrote that science explains anything, it can only describes. The whole thing that science have better explanations is exactly what you're quoting here, in the opposite order (being relativist toward faith). In the Lame Craig X Harris debate, Sam Harris said "if you could say a number of 20 digits I have here, you will have a point" alluding to miracles. This is an agnostic, that would wash his doubts after meeting Derren Brown.
"Strict Constructionist" is just a political code word. What it means is "conservative activist judge"--i.e., someone who will rule in favor of the Republic Party's causes, and against Democratic party policies.
@GoodyBob "...the man does indeed speak the truth!"
Not on this topic he doesn't. And not on a great many topics I've heard him speak on. But no doubt there must be *something* he "speak[s] the truth" about.
@ProfMTH Thanks. Believe or block what ya want friend. It sounds like you might also think the ridiclous twisting of Archarya, zeitgeist, & Horus, etc. comparisons are correct & proven too. Take care.
@ProfMTH Sorry, I took a peek at your channel. I didn't mean to jump you, but I had just fought off/debated with, with evidence, about 25 unresearched viscious atheist & zeitgeist attacks on my messages. Just got tired of the new age thinkers blocking history & twisting. Peace.
@ProfMTH I happen to agree with Scalia's view about the incorporation doctrine. But he uses the topic only to show the need for adhering to precedent. I understand how "Congress shall make no law" cannot be taken literally, if we are to have religious freedom, etc., in the states. One must admit though that the First Amendment can apply to the states only if you change--rather than "incorporate"--the Amendment to "States shall enact no law abridging..."
@edenstore "One must admit though that the First Amendment can apply to the states only if you change--rather than "incorporate"--the Amendment to "States shall enact no law abridging...""
I disagree that "[o]ne must admit" that. I think the propositions that certain rights are inherent in the concept of liberty itself and that without those rights one does not have a free society provide a perfectly sound basis on which to regard the rights protected by the Bill of Rights as protected by...
(con't) @edenstore ...the 14th Amendment against violation by the states and their political subdivisions. Clearly, that's what the 14th Amendment was meant to accomplish. Alas, it took the Court several decades to get there.
@edenstore i disagree congress shall make no law. in no way prevents or impedes religous freedom. its designed to prevent religions from impeding or infringing on the rights of others or forcing their opinion on everyone else
You falsely claim he is not a philospher, historian or theologian; Dr. Craig holds earned masters degrees in philosophy and history (Wheaton), an earned doctorate in theology (University of Munich), and an earned doctorate in (of all things) philosophy (University of Birmingham). Dr, Craig is a credentialed scholar.
@ytuseruber "You falsely claim he is not a philospher, historian or theologian; Dr. Craig holds earned masters degrees in philosophy and history (Wheaton), an earned doctorate in theology (University of Munich), and an earned doctorate in (of all things) philosophy (University of Birmingham)."
Perhaps you're not familiar with the series to which this video was a contribution. There's a link in the description box. In any case, a degree in philosophy doesn't ipso facto make one a...
(con't) @ytuseruber ...philosopher; a degree in history doesn't ipso facto make on an historian. Among other things, philosophers are committed to following the evidence wherever it leads. William Lane Craig was once asked whether he'd still believe in Jesus' resurrection in he were transported back to 1st-century Palestine and shown Jesus' tomb with his body still very much in it several weeks after the crucifixion. Craig said he *would* still believe Jesus rose from the dead, evidence to...
(con't) @ytuseruber ...the contrary notwithstanding. That's not how a philosopher approaches things. And, it's worth noting, that's not how historians approach such matters.
"In the lack of substantive ideas, ad hominem."
Craig is clueless about constitutional interpretation. That's not ad hominem; it's a fact.
Technically, the 14th amendment prohibits states from banning Christianity, etc. It basically says that the Bill of Rights also applies to state governments.
@ProfMTH i'm even less of a constitutional lawyer than craig but i too was under the impression that the 14th amendment made the bill of rights applicable to the states. what did i misunderstand? this is a shameless attempt to get a brief (and free) tutorial on the subject ! ciao.
@6ganey9 The 14th Amendment *was* the vehicle by which the provisions of the Bill of Rights were made applicable to states--specifically, the amendment's Due Process Clause (even more specifically, the "liberty" provision of that clause). However, that took an act of interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and the process (called "incorporation") did not begin until the 1920s (see the 1925 decision Gitlow v. New York), nearly 6 decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It...
(con't) @6ganey9 ...continued through the 20th century and into the 21st century. The religion clauses weren't incorporated until the 1940s. It was argued that the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but the Sup Ct shot that idea out of the water in 1873 in The Slaughterhouse Cases. It's also worth noting that Justice Scalia believes incorporation was a mistake--albeit a mistake he's willing to live with.
@ProfMTH much thanks for your time and knowledge professor. it's disconcerting to realize that what i assumed to be certain fundamental rights were not constitutionally guaranteed until relatively recently. that a sitting justice thinks our rights should be subject to popular vote i find downright disturbing. you've now got me so interested in this stuff i wish i could take your class ! ciao.
@mattetho If its a real parrot then he would also be smart enough to see the lies of Willy. But strangely... you are not. Funny that. I guess you don't know that Willy actually studied sophistry,that's how to lie convincingly. You are right, he is brilliant, a brilliant liar who knows how to make money. By selling his bullshit to idiots like you.
@mattetho "It seems that people who rant that Dr Craig is not a scholar actually provide NO proof themselves"
I've provided the argument in this video that he is no expert on American constitutional law, much less a scholar of it. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
"Names? I can give."
Go ahead. And sources. And the substance of what they said.
@mattetho In terms of educating myself, I guarantee you that I am way more well read on the historical context on the bible than you ever will be. Also, don't falter yourself as a "philosopher" as you even fail to point out your WLC's fallacies that a first year student taking a philosophy class can point out. Seriously, how stupid are you to not see his circular reasonings and strawmen. I am sure you're going to ask me to point it out for you so you can take the offense and attack the points.
@mattetho If you EVER read ANY of William Lane Craig's work, you would know that he regards the bible as a historical document to prove the resurrection. I know you want to pick a fight and use the same rhetorical strategy that WLC does so well. I also know you are trying to "poison the well". Unfortunately, you still lose. You will still back-peddle and congratulate yourself. As I said before, I won't change your mind no matter what evidence because you're simply trying to pick a fight.
@mattetho So everything that is true requires a peer-reviewed article? You seem to assume that this statement is true, so where is the peer-reviewed article that shows that true statements require a peer-reviewed article?
@mattetho If you seen ANY debate on morality or god with WLC, you will get that. You seem to not know what you're talking about or are so delusional, you will take his side since he agrees with your worldview. You're a philosopher.....and? Everyone is a philosopher that have cognitive abilities; I guess you're the exception. Sorry but I don't need to play your little game as I see no benefit in it nor will it change your mind even when I give you ample evidence. Already a waste of time.
@mattetho You don't have to believe me. You can base this on the numerous debates that WLC has been in. Do I seriously need a peer reviewed paper on why he is a douchebag which is AN OPINION? You seem not to understand how peer review works so I will save you the embarrassment and let you research it on your own. You can think that I am a dbag just as I think you and WLC are as well.
@mattetho That's funny you say that because that's WLC's entire tactic; appeal to emotion and appeal to ignorance. His premise is already faulty as he goes from the premise that the bible is true and Jesus is real to prove the Christian god exists. If they don't see the circular logic from that right away....yeah.......
You're an atheist of every other religion as well. The only difference is that complete atheists take it one step further and deny the last mythical illusion religion.
@mattetho "Just to name three atheist professors: Dr Quintin Smith, Dr. Peter Slezac, who has commented in 2003 that although I do not agree with Craig, his work is amongst the finest" and Dr. Kai Neilsen - all defenders of atheism and academics who have written widely on the topic."
3 people. OK. Where do they make these statements?
"You know you are scared"
Not of William Lane Craig. No. As I said, the uncritical allegiance he receives from many of his devotees & epigones, yes.
I will say that this is probably the best criticism of craig I've ever seen on youtube but it's pretty weak. The majority of the time is spent on the semantics of what strict constructionist means. I had con law professors who used that term so saying that Dr. Craig is not a con scholar because he uttered those two words doesn't work because that would also exclude con law professors who really are scholars. I do acknowledge that Craig is not a con scholar but he never claims to be.
@ProfMTH While the status of a person who makes a point is worth investigating, it's nowhere near as important as the point that's being made. In discussing the existence of God, I don't think Dr. Craig's education counts as evidence for or against atheism. It simply doesn't make a difference to the discussion.
Here's an analogy: if an eight-year-old boy found a legitimate cure for cancer, would the cure be any less real because the finder wasn't a scientist, or someone older?
@TheSeanWilson "While the status of a person who makes a point is worth investigating, it's nowhere near as important as the point that's being made."
Quite right. I suspect you're taking the title too seriously. This video was an entry I was asked to do for a series of videos pointing out the many and various areas in which William Lane Craig has made unsound claims. Each of the videos in the series had a title that started with "William Lane Craig Is Not." That's all.
I am a strict constructionist and that isn't accurate. The state of California also has it's own constitution or an equivalent document that prevents this. Also, it receives a ton of federal money on condition that it provides for certain freedoms. However, you could make a case for banning CLS because it was receiving state money and tax dollars. I wouldn't do that though, I would just stop funding student organizations with state university money.
@Darian1m Even if that's true--and I'm not sure it is--Craig would still be wrong. There's a reason academic consensuses are not reached through debate.
I can tell you what WLC is; a disingenuous douchebag who happens to be a good debater. However, when facts don't matter, it's easy to debate based on using pathos alone.
The very fact that you are questioning complex issues regarding the constitution of the US actually proves that he IS a constitutional scholar. As for your denial of his qualifications I suggest you check his resume. Denial is unhealthy not only in respect to religion but also all the other sciences.
@hdregmore "The very fact that you are questioning complex issues regarding the constitution of the US actually proves that he IS a constitutional scholar."
LOL! The blind devotion of Dr. Craig's fans reaches a new high (or low, as the case may be): in pointing out Craig's ignorance, I'm demonstrating that he's a scholar. Of course, I suppose that should be too surprising coming from people who believe, e.g., that because the gospels contradict one another they are more credible.
@ProfMTH You misunderstand me. I am not a Craig fan. I refer only to your denial of his debating qualifications. I suggest you take your assumptive foot out of your denying mouth.
@ProfMTH Ummm, in the video. You deny the theological and philosophical qualifications with which he puts forward his arguments of debate. It's called playing the player instead of the game. I do not agree with all his views and ideas but I challenge them. I do not ridicule him for them. It's called basic professional respect.
@hdregmore "You deny the theological and philosophical qualifications with which he puts forward his arguments of debate."
One needn't be a philosopher or a theologian in order to be a debater--to have "debating qualifications," as you put it in your previous comment. Dr. Craig is a skiled debater. Good sophists and apologists often are. In short, I'm not questioning, much less denying Dr. Craig's qualifications and skills as a debater at all. Whole different kettle of fish.
@ProfMTH Firstly, please don't mirror my remarks. It is annoying for myself and the viewers. Secondly, you attack the qualifications Craig calls upon for his very platform. You suggest that you are of the opinion that a person can somehow automatically win because her or she is "good at debating". That is nonsense for facts in principle never change. However the dullards offering postmortems obviously do.
@hdregmore No he doesnt. He denies Craig's educational qualifications. Anyone who gets in front of an audience and pretends to know things he doesn't know is either a comedian doing a bit, or he deserves all the ridicule that he gets.
@jumpoutatree Another atheist denier. It appears that is all you are capable of. Look up his resume and deny that if you like. Attacking the speaker personally is a tactic of desperation used when one is devoid of any relevant argument.
I would never take it upon myself to give medical advice to my physician. I wonder why conservatives who have never spent a day in law school fell compelled to interpret the Constitution.
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but doest the 13th or the 14th amendment to the constitution apply the restrictions on government intrusion and the guarantee of rights to the states.
@quinndiesel1977 The incorporation of the provisions of the Bill of Rights into the "liberty" provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is an act of interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. This process did not begin until nearly 60 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It took even longer for the 1st Amendment's religion clauses to be incorporated and made applicable to the states; it didn't happen until the 1940s. A literalist reading of the 14th...
(con't) @quinndiesel1977 ...Amendment's Due Process Clause does not demand this incorporation. So, the short answer to your question about the 14th Amendment is "yes", but it wasn't a literalist reading of the amendment that made that happen. It's also worth noting--and I believe I've put a link in the description box to an interview in which he discusses this--Justice Scalia is among those who believe incorporation was a MISinterpretation and mistake.
Where is the real issue here Prof? You would like to close the free and open marketplace to religion. You have inferred this in other videos. Even given your atheist enthusiasm I would say that you don't have a problem with the outcome that Craig is warning against. Sure! This was a way to nail Dr. Craig with a quote from Justice Scalia but otherwise your agenda is against religion. Your dogma is equality and you want religion defeated.
@rusty2029 "You would like to close the free and open marketplace to religion."
Not at all.
"You have inferred this in other videos."
First, the word you want is 'implied', not inferred. But, second, you have inadvertently made an accurate statement here, i.e., *you* have inferred this from my videos. But the inference is baseless because nothing I've said even remotely hints at this and it's not my position. Facts, Rusty, facts. You might want to teach yourself to care about them.
@ProfMTH let me stand corrected in that I clearly see the suggestion, hint, guess, or otherwise proper inference from this and other videos that you want religion to be out of the public square. Is it not a fact that you promote a false equality paradigm? You are the scholar atheist tell me how a sexual orientation is equivalent to other Civil Rights in the 1964 act. I care about truth, but see your effort to spin things to your own ideology. --we all have an agenda amIrigtht?
@rusty2029 "Is it not a fact that you promote a false equality paradigm?"
I haven't a clue what you mean by "false equality paradigm."
"tell me how a sexual orientation is equivalent to other Civil Rights in the 1964 act."
That's irrelevant to this video, but is something I've discussed in many other videos. Moreover, it would take more than a comment box or two to discuss in any meaningful way. In any case, I've never advocated excluding religion from the public square.
your videos never cease to amaze me. You're truly the only person on youtube that I watch (and wait for) their videos every single time. You did a few videos yourself on the subject, do you consider yourself a constitutional scholar, and it seems though you think you need to be a scholar to have an opinion on the subject. Would you disagree? Keep up the good videos!
@Fmarion66666 The title of the video is a jab at Craig's articulating ignorance and erroneous notions in yet another area. No, I don't believe one must be a constitutional scholar to thave an opinion about these matters. And, yes, I do consider myself a constitutional scholar.
Indeed, William Lane Craig is not a constitutional scholar (and neither are you ProfMTH just in case you forgot that). He's a philosopher and theologian.
@ProfMTH "sensitive"? Actually I meant that remark in good fun (given all the seemingly in depth analysis and work you put into making this well thought out video (and props to you on it...because I think you demonstrated your points well). That said, I do wish you, especially as a professor, could extend a little more respect and courtesy to your fellow collegues. Maybe I'm a little sensitive there, but I guess I'm just old school on that.
@ProfMTH Prof, don't be so vulgar. People like Dr. Craig are embarrasing enough that no one has to use vulgarity to describe him. Dr. Craig may be a "philosopher," but so was Donald Duck. God bless secular government and secular states. Can you imagine the horror of having people like Craig having political power in a non-secular state?
@JamesWitte "Are you an impressionable college student?"
Nope.
"your arrogance"
lol You must be another hypersensitive devotee of Craig's who resents his/her idol's bullshit being pointed out. Let me know whether you ever have anything of substance to say about the video. Thanks.
"Strict Constructionists" = "This is what we'll call them if they rule our way, if not, then they're "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench." Fundy/right wing speak.
Did you not know a real Christian is an expert on almost anything?
Get a good biblical course and the great mysteries of the universe will be unveiled to you!
Are you not satisfied with relative and incomplete truths of human science?!?... why do not try the one, absolute TRUTH of super-human being(s)! Not satisfied with just one tiny life? Why do you not try ETERNAL life! Not satified with this world? Wait for the new one coming. If you destroy this one in the meantime, do not worry.
Truly, I can tolerate most people. Even people whose opinions on most subjects are opposite to mine. However, I find William Lane Craig to be one of the most obnoxious shitheads (Egads! I swore!) on the planet.
I think it's the combination of mindless drivel, propaganda, an annoying voice, and the dripping arrogance that excretes from his mouth.
I just went to the net to see if I could find out what he's a *doctor* of ... I'm guessing theology.(which to me means the study of litterally *NOTHING*)
@0ElaEnchanted0 Don't be sorry. I heard about it on the news today. ¡Felicidades! I am pleased every time I see the bar to marriage equality fall, no matter where it happens.
I am convinced that debating William Lane Craig would be too much like picking on a quadruple amputee except you'll feel bad about yourself after picking on the amputee.
But, it's like you had said in an earlier video, his arguments are bullshit. He is calling for "strict constructionism" because he didn't get his way. If strict contructionism were the norm on the court and they still ruled against in the case, he would be calling for leniency.
I've not had an iota of respect for Craig as a carbon based life form for a couple years now. I find his arguments as lazy and poorly thought out as the average internet christian. Which should not be surprising as many christians just copy & paste from Craig's website.
But I have no training and I can see through his arguments. This doesn't speak well of his skills.
@theantithesis1 " He is calling for 'strict constructionism' because he didn't get his way."
Indeed. That's one of the primary, if not *the* primary use of that buzzword: as a proxy for saying, "I don't like this decision and you shouldn't either."
I prefer to use Contextual Constructionist as a term. The text does not need interpretation. It means what it means strictly in context to the times and the definition of words as they were used at that time. Once you do that, the structure can be understood. If Craig doesn't want to be bothered with studying what the political, cultrural and philosphical underpinnings of the world of 1776 have to teach us, then he can go and try to interpret the Roscharch patterns of used bathroom tissue.
@RyuDarragh "I prefer to use Contextual Constructionist as a term. The text does not need interpretation. It means what it means strictly in context to the times and the definition of words as they were used at that time."
@ProfMTH: Would that not mean paying attention only to the definitions of the words as used at the time and not how they were used and what the text meant to accomplish in relationship to the political, religious and financial milleu?
@RyuDarragh I'm not sure I'm getting your suggested distinction between "the definitions of the words at the time" and "how they were used at the time." The latter part of your comment seems to be bleeding into intentional originalism--the bit about "what the text meant to accomplish...."
@ProfMTH: I've met a few "textualists" and noticed that, like the "strict constructionist" types, they want to bend the language their own way so they tend to take the Constitution and isolate it like a component in some machine. Taking the text and trying to make sense of it without understanding the political and philosophical environment it was couched in is kind of like trying to understand ancient Egyptian culture by studying the wrappings of the mummy alone. Wish I could explain better :P
Craig is nothing but a 'theological' celebrity. He spouts silliness and irrational thought constantly and is considered intelligent only because he is famous is his narrow world. He is consistently destroyed in debates, but it doesnt matter because those who like him consider him one of their own, so they are merely unthinking fanboys who cheer on every silly notion he throws out.
funcpl2741054 2 months ago
craig is an ignorant tool on any level
scorand 3 months ago
great, more videos that have nothing to do with theology or God, just more law-related crap that only Americans who have had an intensive legal education understand
blackoutninja 5 months ago
@blackoutninja LOTS of other channels for you to watch if you find the offerings here unappealing.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH definitely
blackoutninja 5 months ago
@ProfMTH sorry, no offence intended.
blackoutninja 5 months ago
@blackoutninja
Err.. I am in England and have never in my life been to America. I have ZERO legal education and yet i understood this video perfectly. and (he said smugly) without recourse to google.
Now excuse me while i go polish my ego....
eutexian 2 weeks ago
@eutexian LOL! Well done. Enjoy that polish.
ProfMTH 2 weeks ago
@ProfMTH Thanks for this! Any word on Dr. John Eidsmoe's book, 'Christianity and the Constitution' (he has a couple of lecture vids on YT as well)?
BigIdeaSeeker 9 months ago
Also, court's often refer to the need for construing statutes strictly when they are in derogation of the common laws, e.g. "adoption statutes must be strictly construed." Nothing is wrong with construing statutes or constitutions strictly--one can still be reasonable. What I wonder is how, to Scalia, analyzing legislative history differs fundamentally from analyzing cultural history when looking for "intent." Aren't both subject to 'searching for your friends at the party?'
edenstore 9 months ago
I agree about the "literalist" part, but "strict constructionist" is used by many people as a synonym for textualism, and it is really playing word games to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about just because they didn't use the in-phrase.
edenstore 9 months ago
@edenstore "...it is really playing word games to claim someone doesn't know what they are talking about just because they didn't use the in-phrase."
That wasn't my claim.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
he is not a constructionist in the same way the constitution supports the Christian religion.
they both reject it, but when the propaganda suits them it doesn't matter what they actually said
nailo1 9 months ago
He may not be a logician but he doesn't claim to be. And if you watch the debates on here between him and the apostles of atheism (Peter Atkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert et al), you will see, assuming you are not retarded, that he completely wipes the floor with them. He certainly knows more about logic than any of this shower do. (In case you are wondering, I am an atheist, but unlike yours, my attitude is not driven by emotion and ideology,)
worc1296 11 months ago
@worc1296 Wow, 6 comments boxes filled (it would have been 7 but for the fact that you removed one of your own comments) all to say that Craig isn't a logician. Clearly, you have an abundance of time on your hands.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH Yes, that's right, "Professor". I haven't been on here before and thought my comments hadn't successfully posted. So I removed the duplicates. Your response is feeble. Why don't you try making a substantial non-ad hominem point? Or should I assume that you have none?
worc1296 11 months ago
@worc1296 "Your response is feeble."
I give only as good as I get.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH That logically entails that you can never win an argument.
worc1296 11 months ago
@worc1296 No, it just means I save my best efforts for those who have something that merits substantive response.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH I understand.
worc1296 11 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
@worc1296: The last sentence under "()", well, you may not be "emotional" but you sound like one. Why would you care to self-label yourself if it's not "driven by ideology"? And "assuming you are not retarded" (???) "he completely wipes the floor with them" I wonder how someone like you would conclude that. William Lame Craig is more worried about changing the topic, the rules, and being the refer, and he still couldn't make it. Apostles of Atheism? They talk like closet-islamophobic-christian.
strattfordcrass 10 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
Im glad someone has done their research, and knows what they are talking about. Its easy for someone to bash another man via the internet, quick ProfMTH go google something, instead of making a video about a man, that knows far more about what hes talking about, than you could ever imagine, Id go read up on this for atlest a year before making another comment or video. when it comes down to it,.Science cant explain all. so is it so hard to believe in something greater than yourself.
Bullettoothfighter 11 months ago
@Bullettoothfighter "Science cant explain all. so is it so hard to believe in something greater than yourself."
What the hell are you blathering about?
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH: Hume wrote that science explains anything, it can only describes. The whole thing that science have better explanations is exactly what you're quoting here, in the opposite order (being relativist toward faith). In the Lame Craig X Harris debate, Sam Harris said "if you could say a number of 20 digits I have here, you will have a point" alluding to miracles. This is an agnostic, that would wash his doubts after meeting Derren Brown.
strattfordcrass 10 months ago
@strattfordcrass I haven't a clue what you're on about here or what, if anything, it has to do with the topic of this video.
ProfMTH 10 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
Comment removed
worc1296 11 months ago
"Strict Constructionist" is just a political code word. What it means is "conservative activist judge"--i.e., someone who will rule in favor of the Republic Party's causes, and against Democratic party policies.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
This is BS. Sad & if really research Dr, Lane, the man does indeed speak the truth! Research.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@GoodyBob "...the man does indeed speak the truth!"
Not on this topic he doesn't. And not on a great many topics I've heard him speak on. But no doubt there must be *something* he "speak[s] the truth" about.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 12
@ProfMTH Thanks. Believe or block what ya want friend. It sounds like you might also think the ridiclous twisting of Archarya, zeitgeist, & Horus, etc. comparisons are correct & proven too. Take care.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@GoodyBob Not sure what, if anything, any of that has to do with this video. But, yeah, you take care, too.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 4
@ProfMTH Sorry, I took a peek at your channel. I didn't mean to jump you, but I had just fought off/debated with, with evidence, about 25 unresearched viscious atheist & zeitgeist attacks on my messages. Just got tired of the new age thinkers blocking history & twisting. Peace.
GoodyBob 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I happen to agree with Scalia's view about the incorporation doctrine. But he uses the topic only to show the need for adhering to precedent. I understand how "Congress shall make no law" cannot be taken literally, if we are to have religious freedom, etc., in the states. One must admit though that the First Amendment can apply to the states only if you change--rather than "incorporate"--the Amendment to "States shall enact no law abridging..."
edenstore 9 months ago
@edenstore "One must admit though that the First Amendment can apply to the states only if you change--rather than "incorporate"--the Amendment to "States shall enact no law abridging...""
I disagree that "[o]ne must admit" that. I think the propositions that certain rights are inherent in the concept of liberty itself and that without those rights one does not have a free society provide a perfectly sound basis on which to regard the rights protected by the Bill of Rights as protected by...
ProfMTH 9 months ago
(con't) @edenstore ...the 14th Amendment against violation by the states and their political subdivisions. Clearly, that's what the 14th Amendment was meant to accomplish. Alas, it took the Court several decades to get there.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@edenstore i disagree congress shall make no law. in no way prevents or impedes religous freedom. its designed to prevent religions from impeding or infringing on the rights of others or forcing their opinion on everyone else
scorand 3 months ago
1079 really know the consitution. 8 need to read it again.
carnypimp 1 year ago
You falsely claim he is not a philospher, historian or theologian; Dr. Craig holds earned masters degrees in philosophy and history (Wheaton), an earned doctorate in theology (University of Munich), and an earned doctorate in (of all things) philosophy (University of Birmingham). Dr, Craig is a credentialed scholar.
In the lack of substantive ideas, ad hominem.
ytuseruber 1 year ago
@ytuseruber "You falsely claim he is not a philospher, historian or theologian; Dr. Craig holds earned masters degrees in philosophy and history (Wheaton), an earned doctorate in theology (University of Munich), and an earned doctorate in (of all things) philosophy (University of Birmingham)."
Perhaps you're not familiar with the series to which this video was a contribution. There's a link in the description box. In any case, a degree in philosophy doesn't ipso facto make one a...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @ytuseruber ...philosopher; a degree in history doesn't ipso facto make on an historian. Among other things, philosophers are committed to following the evidence wherever it leads. William Lane Craig was once asked whether he'd still believe in Jesus' resurrection in he were transported back to 1st-century Palestine and shown Jesus' tomb with his body still very much in it several weeks after the crucifixion. Craig said he *would* still believe Jesus rose from the dead, evidence to...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @ytuseruber ...the contrary notwithstanding. That's not how a philosopher approaches things. And, it's worth noting, that's not how historians approach such matters.
"In the lack of substantive ideas, ad hominem."
Craig is clueless about constitutional interpretation. That's not ad hominem; it's a fact.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
0:52 - "As if often the case, Craig combines ignorance and a penchant for propaganda here. Among the ways one can know this is by..."
... the fact that Craig is speaking?
firefly4f4 1 year ago 2
@firefly4f4 Yes, that as well. lol
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Technically, the 14th amendment prohibits states from banning Christianity, etc. It basically says that the Bill of Rights also applies to state governments.
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid "It basically says that the Bill of Rights also applies to state governments."
Does it? Please quote the part that says this. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH i'm even less of a constitutional lawyer than craig but i too was under the impression that the 14th amendment made the bill of rights applicable to the states. what did i misunderstand? this is a shameless attempt to get a brief (and free) tutorial on the subject ! ciao.
6ganey9 1 year ago
@6ganey9 The 14th Amendment *was* the vehicle by which the provisions of the Bill of Rights were made applicable to states--specifically, the amendment's Due Process Clause (even more specifically, the "liberty" provision of that clause). However, that took an act of interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and the process (called "incorporation") did not begin until the 1920s (see the 1925 decision Gitlow v. New York), nearly 6 decades after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @6ganey9 ...continued through the 20th century and into the 21st century. The religion clauses weren't incorporated until the 1940s. It was argued that the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, but the Sup Ct shot that idea out of the water in 1873 in The Slaughterhouse Cases. It's also worth noting that Justice Scalia believes incorporation was a mistake--albeit a mistake he's willing to live with.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH much thanks for your time and knowledge professor. it's disconcerting to realize that what i assumed to be certain fundamental rights were not constitutionally guaranteed until relatively recently. that a sitting justice thinks our rights should be subject to popular vote i find downright disturbing. you've now got me so interested in this stuff i wish i could take your class ! ciao.
6ganey9 1 year ago
@mattetho If its a real parrot then he would also be smart enough to see the lies of Willy. But strangely... you are not. Funny that. I guess you don't know that Willy actually studied sophistry,that's how to lie convincingly. You are right, he is brilliant, a brilliant liar who knows how to make money. By selling his bullshit to idiots like you.
alianchild 1 year ago
@mattetho "It seems that people who rant that Dr Craig is not a scholar actually provide NO proof themselves"
I've provided the argument in this video that he is no expert on American constitutional law, much less a scholar of it. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
"Names? I can give."
Go ahead. And sources. And the substance of what they said.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
@mattetho In terms of educating myself, I guarantee you that I am way more well read on the historical context on the bible than you ever will be. Also, don't falter yourself as a "philosopher" as you even fail to point out your WLC's fallacies that a first year student taking a philosophy class can point out. Seriously, how stupid are you to not see his circular reasonings and strawmen. I am sure you're going to ask me to point it out for you so you can take the offense and attack the points.
a012345 1 year ago
@mattetho If you EVER read ANY of William Lane Craig's work, you would know that he regards the bible as a historical document to prove the resurrection. I know you want to pick a fight and use the same rhetorical strategy that WLC does so well. I also know you are trying to "poison the well". Unfortunately, you still lose. You will still back-peddle and congratulate yourself. As I said before, I won't change your mind no matter what evidence because you're simply trying to pick a fight.
a012345 1 year ago
@mattetho So everything that is true requires a peer-reviewed article? You seem to assume that this statement is true, so where is the peer-reviewed article that shows that true statements require a peer-reviewed article?
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
@mattetho If you seen ANY debate on morality or god with WLC, you will get that. You seem to not know what you're talking about or are so delusional, you will take his side since he agrees with your worldview. You're a philosopher.....and? Everyone is a philosopher that have cognitive abilities; I guess you're the exception. Sorry but I don't need to play your little game as I see no benefit in it nor will it change your mind even when I give you ample evidence. Already a waste of time.
a012345 1 year ago
@mattetho You don't have to believe me. You can base this on the numerous debates that WLC has been in. Do I seriously need a peer reviewed paper on why he is a douchebag which is AN OPINION? You seem not to understand how peer review works so I will save you the embarrassment and let you research it on your own. You can think that I am a dbag just as I think you and WLC are as well.
a012345 1 year ago
@mattetho That's funny you say that because that's WLC's entire tactic; appeal to emotion and appeal to ignorance. His premise is already faulty as he goes from the premise that the bible is true and Jesus is real to prove the Christian god exists. If they don't see the circular logic from that right away....yeah.......
You're an atheist of every other religion as well. The only difference is that complete atheists take it one step further and deny the last mythical illusion religion.
a012345 1 year ago
@mattetho That should be " one of the most deceptive and creative liars of our era."
alianchild 1 year ago
@noelectricmonk Mattheho makes that claim with nothing to back it up.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@mattetho "Just to name three atheist professors: Dr Quintin Smith, Dr. Peter Slezac, who has commented in 2003 that although I do not agree with Craig, his work is amongst the finest" and Dr. Kai Neilsen - all defenders of atheism and academics who have written widely on the topic."
3 people. OK. Where do they make these statements?
"You know you are scared"
Not of William Lane Craig. No. As I said, the uncritical allegiance he receives from many of his devotees & epigones, yes.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
@mattetho "Dr. Craig’s is known among leading scholars (both theist and atheist) as “one of the most learned and creative thinkers of our era.”"
Whom are you quoting there?
"you are obviously so scared and nervous"
Nothing scares or makes me nervous about William Lane Craig except for the uncritical allegiance he receives from many of his devotees and epigones.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 2
side note-- it bothers me you had to point out who scalia was. or any of the supreme court justices. everyone should know who they are. sigh...
reduciblycomplex 1 year ago
@reduciblycomplex Research pretty consistently shows that most Americans don't know the names of the Supreme Court justices.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH and that's where the sigh comes in.... looking forward to you next vid proff. - RC
reduciblycomplex 1 year ago
I will say that this is probably the best criticism of craig I've ever seen on youtube but it's pretty weak. The majority of the time is spent on the semantics of what strict constructionist means. I had con law professors who used that term so saying that Dr. Craig is not a con scholar because he uttered those two words doesn't work because that would also exclude con law professors who really are scholars. I do acknowledge that Craig is not a con scholar but he never claims to be.
miggetymike1 1 year ago
@miggetymike1 "saying that Dr. Craig is not a con scholar because he uttered those two words doesn't work"
That's not actually what I said.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
miggetymike1 1 year ago
When you're out of refutations: "Oh yeah? Well, you're not a constitutional scholar!"
TheSeanWilson 1 year ago
@TheSeanWilson Not sure what you mean.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH While the status of a person who makes a point is worth investigating, it's nowhere near as important as the point that's being made. In discussing the existence of God, I don't think Dr. Craig's education counts as evidence for or against atheism. It simply doesn't make a difference to the discussion.
Here's an analogy: if an eight-year-old boy found a legitimate cure for cancer, would the cure be any less real because the finder wasn't a scientist, or someone older?
TheSeanWilson 1 year ago
@TheSeanWilson "While the status of a person who makes a point is worth investigating, it's nowhere near as important as the point that's being made."
Quite right. I suspect you're taking the title too seriously. This video was an entry I was asked to do for a series of videos pointing out the many and various areas in which William Lane Craig has made unsound claims. Each of the videos in the series had a title that started with "William Lane Craig Is Not." That's all.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Fair call. Carry on :)
TheSeanWilson 1 year ago
William Lane Craig is a pitiful clown. I do think that if he wore his big red nose and funny wig people might realize it quicker. ROFLOL
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@4:12,
I am a strict constructionist and that isn't accurate. The state of California also has it's own constitution or an equivalent document that prevents this. Also, it receives a ton of federal money on condition that it provides for certain freedoms. However, you could make a case for banning CLS because it was receiving state money and tax dollars. I wouldn't do that though, I would just stop funding student organizations with state university money.
TheFlanker35 1 year ago
not a philosopher, not a theologian? Well what about I tell you that you aren't a human?
Non-theist are really funny...
marteco 1 year ago
@marteco "Well what about I tell you that you aren't a human?"
I'd ask you to make your case in support of that proposition and then I'd have something to evaluate.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
'He's just making stuff up...' Beautiful.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
@stevehayes13 ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Could you please link me to your debate with Dr. Craig?
LoooveLikeFire 1 year ago
@LoooveLikeFire My debate with Dr. Craig? I had no debate with him.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH that's because you would get smoked. William Lane IS a debater and would whoop you!
Darian1m 1 year ago
@Darian1m "that's because you would get smoked. William Lane IS a debater and would whoop you!"
LOL!
You may now return to making out with your poster of Dr. Craig.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH that's because you would get smoked. William Lane IS a debater and would whoop you!
Darian1m 1 year ago
@ProfMTH that's because you would get smoked. William Lane IS a debater and would whoop you!
Darian1m 1 year ago
@Darian1m Even if that's true--and I'm not sure it is--Craig would still be wrong. There's a reason academic consensuses are not reached through debate.
HasimirFenring1106 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Ha WLC hater
Darian1m 1 year ago
I can tell you what WLC is; a disingenuous douchebag who happens to be a good debater. However, when facts don't matter, it's easy to debate based on using pathos alone.
a012345 1 year ago 16
The very fact that you are questioning complex issues regarding the constitution of the US actually proves that he IS a constitutional scholar. As for your denial of his qualifications I suggest you check his resume. Denial is unhealthy not only in respect to religion but also all the other sciences.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "The very fact that you are questioning complex issues regarding the constitution of the US actually proves that he IS a constitutional scholar."
LOL! The blind devotion of Dr. Craig's fans reaches a new high (or low, as the case may be): in pointing out Craig's ignorance, I'm demonstrating that he's a scholar. Of course, I suppose that should be too surprising coming from people who believe, e.g., that because the gospels contradict one another they are more credible.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You misunderstand me. I am not a Craig fan. I refer only to your denial of his debating qualifications. I suggest you take your assumptive foot out of your denying mouth.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore " I refer only to your denial of his debating qualifications."
Where did I deny his "debating qualifications"?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Ummm, in the video. You deny the theological and philosophical qualifications with which he puts forward his arguments of debate. It's called playing the player instead of the game. I do not agree with all his views and ideas but I challenge them. I do not ridicule him for them. It's called basic professional respect.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "You deny the theological and philosophical qualifications with which he puts forward his arguments of debate."
One needn't be a philosopher or a theologian in order to be a debater--to have "debating qualifications," as you put it in your previous comment. Dr. Craig is a skiled debater. Good sophists and apologists often are. In short, I'm not questioning, much less denying Dr. Craig's qualifications and skills as a debater at all. Whole different kettle of fish.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Firstly, please don't mirror my remarks. It is annoying for myself and the viewers. Secondly, you attack the qualifications Craig calls upon for his very platform. You suggest that you are of the opinion that a person can somehow automatically win because her or she is "good at debating". That is nonsense for facts in principle never change. However the dullards offering postmortems obviously do.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Firstly, please don't mirror my remarks."
You mean don't quote you. I will if I like. It's my channel. You can make the rules on your channel, but not on this one.
"You suggest that you are of the opinion that a person can somehow automatically win because her or she is 'good at debating.'"
Oh, I don't merely suggest it. I'm quite explicit about it. There's no doubt Craig is a skilled debater.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 5
@hdregmore No he doesnt. He denies Craig's educational qualifications. Anyone who gets in front of an audience and pretends to know things he doesn't know is either a comedian doing a bit, or he deserves all the ridicule that he gets.
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Another atheist denier. It appears that is all you are capable of. Look up his resume and deny that if you like. Attacking the speaker personally is a tactic of desperation used when one is devoid of any relevant argument.
hdregmore 1 year ago
I would never take it upon myself to give medical advice to my physician. I wonder why conservatives who have never spent a day in law school fell compelled to interpret the Constitution.
LarcheOsborne 1 year ago
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but doest the 13th or the 14th amendment to the constitution apply the restrictions on government intrusion and the guarantee of rights to the states.
quinndiesel1977 1 year ago
@quinndiesel1977 The incorporation of the provisions of the Bill of Rights into the "liberty" provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is an act of interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. This process did not begin until nearly 60 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. It took even longer for the 1st Amendment's religion clauses to be incorporated and made applicable to the states; it didn't happen until the 1940s. A literalist reading of the 14th...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @quinndiesel1977 ...Amendment's Due Process Clause does not demand this incorporation. So, the short answer to your question about the 14th Amendment is "yes", but it wasn't a literalist reading of the amendment that made that happen. It's also worth noting--and I believe I've put a link in the description box to an interview in which he discusses this--Justice Scalia is among those who believe incorporation was a MISinterpretation and mistake.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Where is the real issue here Prof? You would like to close the free and open marketplace to religion. You have inferred this in other videos. Even given your atheist enthusiasm I would say that you don't have a problem with the outcome that Craig is warning against. Sure! This was a way to nail Dr. Craig with a quote from Justice Scalia but otherwise your agenda is against religion. Your dogma is equality and you want religion defeated.
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 "You would like to close the free and open marketplace to religion."
Not at all.
"You have inferred this in other videos."
First, the word you want is 'implied', not inferred. But, second, you have inadvertently made an accurate statement here, i.e., *you* have inferred this from my videos. But the inference is baseless because nothing I've said even remotely hints at this and it's not my position. Facts, Rusty, facts. You might want to teach yourself to care about them.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH let me stand corrected in that I clearly see the suggestion, hint, guess, or otherwise proper inference from this and other videos that you want religion to be out of the public square. Is it not a fact that you promote a false equality paradigm? You are the scholar atheist tell me how a sexual orientation is equivalent to other Civil Rights in the 1964 act. I care about truth, but see your effort to spin things to your own ideology. --we all have an agenda amIrigtht?
rusty2029 1 year ago
@rusty2029 "Is it not a fact that you promote a false equality paradigm?"
I haven't a clue what you mean by "false equality paradigm."
"tell me how a sexual orientation is equivalent to other Civil Rights in the 1964 act."
That's irrelevant to this video, but is something I've discussed in many other videos. Moreover, it would take more than a comment box or two to discuss in any meaningful way. In any case, I've never advocated excluding religion from the public square.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Is there no end to little willy's talents?
QuillerBarracuda 1 year ago
scratch that! the question should be "Is there no beginning to his talent's?"
QuillerBarracuda 1 year ago
@QuillerBarracuda lol
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Love ProfMTH's voice and his pure debating skills.
So it's not surprising he converted me.
(later I also became an atheist.. ;) )
-
Kidding asside, wonderfull vids ProfMTH, thanks, there is still a lot to learn for me.
gilgameshismist 1 year ago
@gilgameshismist "Love ProfMTH's voice and his pure debating skills. So it's not surprising he converted me. (later I also became an atheist.. ;) )"
LOL!
"wonderful vids ProfMTH, thanks, there is still a lot to learn for me."
Thank *you*. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Maybe not gay.
drandersw 1 year ago
I love these William Lane Craig pwnage videos.
tommylehman 1 year ago
@tommylehman ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Owned!
stagism 1 year ago
Is he actually resected in his field of work? (Among other philosophers?)
Sacr0sanctity 1 year ago
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present a little musical pwnage of WLC
/watch?v=V1NuLtoQmKA
grungefreak10 1 year ago
@grungefreak10 He gets some good notices, yes.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
your videos never cease to amaze me. You're truly the only person on youtube that I watch (and wait for) their videos every single time. You did a few videos yourself on the subject, do you consider yourself a constitutional scholar, and it seems though you think you need to be a scholar to have an opinion on the subject. Would you disagree? Keep up the good videos!
Fmarion66666 1 year ago
@Fmarion66666 The title of the video is a jab at Craig's articulating ignorance and erroneous notions in yet another area. No, I don't believe one must be a constitutional scholar to thave an opinion about these matters. And, yes, I do consider myself a constitutional scholar.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
William Lan Craig: Professional Bullshit Artist
bodeezy 1 year ago
I envy your brain sir
fc007 1 year ago 3
@fc007 lol Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ProfMTH, you should send an email to Craig's website and make a video about it.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Indeed, William Lane Craig is not a constitutional scholar (and neither are you ProfMTH just in case you forgot that). He's a philosopher and theologian.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 "neither are you ProfMTH"
LOL. You Craig devotees are SO sensitive. It makes pointing out your idol's various bullshit, lack of expertise, and missteps all the more fun.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 20
@ProfMTH "sensitive"? Actually I meant that remark in good fun (given all the seemingly in depth analysis and work you put into making this well thought out video (and props to you on it...because I think you demonstrated your points well). That said, I do wish you, especially as a professor, could extend a little more respect and courtesy to your fellow collegues. Maybe I'm a little sensitive there, but I guess I'm just old school on that.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 "Actually I meant that remark in good fun...."
Really? Well, I'm sorry to have misread it then.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Prof, don't be so vulgar. People like Dr. Craig are embarrasing enough that no one has to use vulgarity to describe him. Dr. Craig may be a "philosopher," but so was Donald Duck. God bless secular government and secular states. Can you imagine the horror of having people like Craig having political power in a non-secular state?
allsaintsmonastery 1 year ago
@allsaintsmonastery The mere thought gives me shivers, Your Eminence.
By the way, how is the summer treating you, good sir? I hope well. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH he is the master of bullshit. All hail his art of spewing bovine excrement!
supersmash43 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Anyones who replies with 'Lol' does not deserve to have their opinion heard. Go get a degree
JamesWitte 1 year ago
@JamesWitte "Anyones who replies with 'Lol' does not deserve to have their opinion heard."
You should be FAR more concerned about your demonstrated inability to accomplish simple subject-verb agreement and the correct use of pronouns.
"Go get a degree."
Hilarious coming from someone who hasn't mastered elementary school grammar.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Are you an impressionable college student? Sounds like you are. I can hear it in your arrogance
JamesWitte 1 year ago
@JamesWitte "Are you an impressionable college student?"
Nope.
"your arrogance"
lol You must be another hypersensitive devotee of Craig's who resents his/her idol's bullshit being pointed out. Let me know whether you ever have anything of substance to say about the video. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago 3
WLC making stuff up!? No way!
Ansonidak 1 year ago
@Ansonidak No one was more shocked than I.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"Strict Constructionists" = "This is what we'll call them if they rule our way, if not, then they're "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench." Fundy/right wing speak.
ChuckyJesus666 1 year ago 4
@ChuckyJesus666 Precisely.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I bet he rolled around with some estrogen at some point...Tad Haggard did.
MercuryRis 1 year ago
Pretty interesting indeed, and gotta love how you always deem fit complete your more serious videos with funny interjections.
Kudos.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
@Azotadeth Thanks. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Did you not know a real Christian is an expert on almost anything?
Get a good biblical course and the great mysteries of the universe will be unveiled to you!
Are you not satisfied with relative and incomplete truths of human science?!?... why do not try the one, absolute TRUTH of super-human being(s)! Not satisfied with just one tiny life? Why do you not try ETERNAL life! Not satified with this world? Wait for the new one coming. If you destroy this one in the meantime, do not worry.
Amen!
barefootID 1 year ago
love the high pitched "oops" . . .
Heretikus 1 year ago
Lol, well done professor!
Truly, I can tolerate most people. Even people whose opinions on most subjects are opposite to mine. However, I find William Lane Craig to be one of the most obnoxious shitheads (Egads! I swore!) on the planet.
I think it's the combination of mindless drivel, propaganda, an annoying voice, and the dripping arrogance that excretes from his mouth.
threewiseman1 1 year ago
@threewiseman1 "Lol, well done"
Thanks! Yes, Dr. Craig can be a bit much to take. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"Yes, Dr. Craig can be a bit much to take. ;-)"
You said it, Prof! :)
threewiseman1 1 year ago
Is anyone surprised that Messr. Craig don't know Jack about what he's talking about?
Muljinn 1 year ago
I just went to the net to see if I could find out what he's a *doctor* of ... I'm guessing theology.(which to me means the study of litterally *NOTHING*)
msginca 1 year ago
@msginca According to his c.v., he has a Ph.D. in philosophy and a D.Theol.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Prof we have gay marrige in all Argentina!!! Im so happy!
Sorry I had to share it with you.
0ElaEnchanted0 1 year ago 3
@0ElaEnchanted0 Don't be sorry. I heard about it on the news today. ¡Felicidades! I am pleased every time I see the bar to marriage equality fall, no matter where it happens.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I am convinced that debating William Lane Craig would be too much like picking on a quadruple amputee except you'll feel bad about yourself after picking on the amputee.
But, it's like you had said in an earlier video, his arguments are bullshit. He is calling for "strict constructionism" because he didn't get his way. If strict contructionism were the norm on the court and they still ruled against in the case, he would be calling for leniency.
theantithesis1 1 year ago
I've not had an iota of respect for Craig as a carbon based life form for a couple years now. I find his arguments as lazy and poorly thought out as the average internet christian. Which should not be surprising as many christians just copy & paste from Craig's website.
But I have no training and I can see through his arguments. This doesn't speak well of his skills.
theantithesis1 1 year ago
@theantithesis1 " He is calling for 'strict constructionism' because he didn't get his way."
Indeed. That's one of the primary, if not *the* primary use of that buzzword: as a proxy for saying, "I don't like this decision and you shouldn't either."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Owned. Not much else to say.
PoliticsStudent 1 year ago 4
I prefer to use Contextual Constructionist as a term. The text does not need interpretation. It means what it means strictly in context to the times and the definition of words as they were used at that time. Once you do that, the structure can be understood. If Craig doesn't want to be bothered with studying what the political, cultrural and philosphical underpinnings of the world of 1776 have to teach us, then he can go and try to interpret the Roscharch patterns of used bathroom tissue.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh "I prefer to use Contextual Constructionist as a term. The text does not need interpretation. It means what it means strictly in context to the times and the definition of words as they were used at that time."
That's textual originalism.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: Would that not mean paying attention only to the definitions of the words as used at the time and not how they were used and what the text meant to accomplish in relationship to the political, religious and financial milleu?
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh I'm not sure I'm getting your suggested distinction between "the definitions of the words at the time" and "how they were used at the time." The latter part of your comment seems to be bleeding into intentional originalism--the bit about "what the text meant to accomplish...."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: I've met a few "textualists" and noticed that, like the "strict constructionist" types, they want to bend the language their own way so they tend to take the Constitution and isolate it like a component in some machine. Taking the text and trying to make sense of it without understanding the political and philosophical environment it was couched in is kind of like trying to understand ancient Egyptian culture by studying the wrappings of the mummy alone. Wish I could explain better :P
RyuDarragh 1 year ago