Thanks. I've looked at a lot of his videos, but didn't catch all the craziness. I made some rather innocuous comments on one of his sites, and I was promptly banned from all of them.
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
@fuck192ass under that logic, If sex between two lesbians is safer than heterosexual sex, then encouraging female homosexuality IS like encouraging behaviors like quitting smoking. Sorry for the poor sentence structure. I imitated the original commentor's, so it couldn't be helped.
Your arguments follow. You need to stay focused. You cannot say that Dr. Craig is wrong because you don't like his views on homosexuality. You need to focus on Dr. Craigs arguments supporting creation and debunking atheism. If you don't you are merely appealing to emotionalism.
@fuck192ass dont missrepresent the facts: it doenst kill you to get fucked in the ass by another guy. But to be promiscous, party every weekend, etc. Do you get the difference? does it kill to get fucked? why dont women die? These behaviors would decrease your life expectancy even if you were straight. It's not being gay, it's being promiscous. do you get the difference? you right wing facist bastard.
@fuck192ass what makes that life expectancy low is not that they are homosexuals, but their lifestyle. A homosexual that doesnt engage in intensive promiscuity and party wont have low life expectancy. Fascism and Discrimination, amen.
LMAO!! Dude, you got your ass handed to you on TV so bad. Even the moderator wanted to slap the stupid outta you lol
And this is how to build yourself back up, you confess to being obsessed enough to listen to Dr Craig's podcasts jumping at the very notion that he might say something out of context, just so you can point a finger like a school yard bully and make fun?!? Do you, as an adult, realise how pathetic that is?
well I know our take on morality is very different, but still, these same people tell me my view of ethics is crazy because I believe everything is morally neutral, but then they turn right around and say that in their view on ethics, actions which would normally be evil can be made good through the power to will it. God could always will genocidal maniacs to be doing righteous deeds. Then it wouldnt be "genocide" it would be a "moral duty"
Just so long as we're clear that homosexual lifestyles are of no more consequence than a trip to McDonald's than I welcome you to join me in laughing at the buffoonery of this so-called philosopher.
Michael, I have to say, you come across like a child that was bested on the playground and now, safe within the arcade with all your nerdy friends, you want to crow about how tough and how awesome you were. I'm sorry, but in the debate with WLC you were out-gunned, out-brained, and out of your depth.
Not to defend WL Craig, but It appear to me as if you quoted him out of context in the quote regarding homosexuality and heroin. I remember hearing these words in context, and if memory serves me correctly, he was not directly comparing the act/state of using/being addicted to heroin and homosexuality. He was making a point using the "fact" that the effect of an "homosexual lifestyle" on suicide rates and such, has similar effects as being addicted to heroin. Disgusting?, yes, but distinct.
Did that fucker just say it's good to murder someone if God tells you to do it!!!
:-0 Holy Fuuuuuuck!!!
That's AMAZING! Cos last night I had the most lucid dream in which I heard a clear voice telling me to rip the wind-pipe from William Craig's throat with my own teeth. I had decided to ignore it as merely a dream, but.... If God-commanded murder is OK, then, ready when you are WLC,
(Don't you think he has a really really really annoying voice - hence the windpipe dream)
WHAT?? WHAT?? DID HE JUST SAY THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT BE PROVEN???? WHAT???? AN ANIMATION OF THE EXPERIMENT IS EVEN HERE ON YOUTUBE. MAN, THE MORE I KNOW HIM, THE MORE I'M AMAZED OF HOW POORLY HE KNOWS SCIENCE.
@sirdelrio He said, the belief that the speed of light is constant in one direction between point 'a' and 'b' cannot be proven, and that we have to assume that. Where's the problem with this statement?
@bigspliffs what is wrong? that it is not 'a belief', it is an experimental fact, it has been demonstrated to be factually true for some time now. You dont have to take my word for it: Michelson–Morley experiment, or Philip Gibbs 1997 How is the speed of light measured?. Read carefully the last article beyond the first sentence, before you pop out to defend Craig.
@sirdelrio The question, is of whether or not the speed of light is constant over distances, in this case 'a' and 'b'
I'm not concerned if the LHC at Cern can produce the speed of light or not.
There have been studies that show that both the magnetic permeability and the magnetic field intensity contribute towards the magnetic flux density. It then follows that in general, the speed of light will depend on the magnetic flux density. Meaning, non constant speed over great distnaces.
@bigspliffs "the speed of light will depend on the magnetic flux density" yes, true. Special Relativity never says the speed of light is ALWAYS constant, but that it is an upper limit, and that such limit is the speed of photons in a vacuum, like in space. So in astrophysics (and this is not an assumption, but an experimental fact demonstrated by hundreds of experiments) the speed of light is always the same. You know what's the point? that Craig was BShiting, he doesnt know physics.
@bigspliffs Craig is a perfect case of intellectual imposture. He has written books about relativity. Ja! and he says that the speed of light invariance is an assumption. Maybe he just read a couple of divulgative books, but never concerns with peer reviewed articles (because he cant understand them), so he's likely to say these things. If you want to pursue rationalizing his stupid statement, go ahead, you know more physics than him, you should have noticed too that he was bullshiting.
@bigspliffs "magnetic flux density" MAGNETIC FIELD. Dont buzzword me. Find one single physicist that will say that between two hypothetical points, the speed of light is necessarily c. Not a single one. The will reply "well, that depends, it's light in a vacuum? if it is, the answer is c; if not it depends on the perturbation of the media". But Craig said that Relativity asserts is necessarily c (wrong), and not only that, but that it is an assumption that cant be proved (wrong again). B-S.
@bigspliffs He says "the invariance of speed of light between a and b IS AN ASSUMPTION of the theory, that cant be demonstrated", and that the theory has to assume this and go along. THAT, IS BULL-SHIT. Sorry if you have him, dogmatically, in a high regard. Sorry, your hero is a fraud, at least when he deals with physics.
@sirdelrio Well see, theres the thing, i don't have him dogmatically in high regard. I've only known of WLC for under 2 years and i'm not of any denomination, so its not like i'm taking sides lol
But what he says is true, we do have to assume that the speed of light is constant for the math to work, at least the way things are now. But all that will change soon enough.
I've nothing against you personally, i just thought you were taking sides with someone you may be dogmatically associated with
@bigspliffs "we do have to assume that the speed of light is constant for the math to work" FACTUALLY WRONG, and you dont know the theory, evidently. "at least the way things are now"??? WHAT? DID YOU JUST SAY THE INVARIANCE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT OR HASNT BEEN PROVEN???? WHAT????
@bigspliffs HE SAID "WE SIMPLY HAVE TO ASSUME THAT" AND I ASK YOU. IS IT AN ASSUMPTION???? HASNT IT BEEN PROVEN ALREADY? ISNT IT FACTUALLY RIGHT THAT C IS CONSTANT IN VACUUM? IS IT AN ASSUMPTION OR A FACT?!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?? HE WAS ARGUING FOR THINGS THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. TALK ABOUT A HUUUUGE BLUNDER.
@sirdelrio It is assumed to be factual, but cannot be strictly proven considering the holes in the general theory of relativity.
Open your mind, we don't know everything. It would be ignorant to assume we do.
For all you know, the the 'facts' could change tomorrow, and all the shouting and ranting you are doing now, could make you look like a gullible fool.
@bigspliffs it is not assumed, boy. and it's not 'general' but special relativity. evidently we are not talking in the same degree of information or knowledge. And what 'holes' does GR have. Not accounting for everything? what did you mean? Of course i know we dont know everything, if i thought otherwise i wouldnt be a scientist. "...the 'facts' could change tomorrow" give me one single example of facts that changed. facts not beliefs.
@bigspliffs do i need to give you the reference to every single experiment that has measured the speed of light: in atomic clocks, in outerspace, in distant stars, and galaxies, in quasars. It might not be true that the speed of light is constant everywhere in the universe, but Craig wasnt talking about the cosmological principle, he thought that the invariance of the speed of light couldnt be 'demonstrated with the scientific method' and that is plain wrong back to front.
@bigspliffs "...the the 'facts' could change tomorrow" now you are just hoping that i would be wrong in the future. you are refusing to admit that you made a mistake or where misinformed. I wont look like i gullible fool, because i'd be all over the new experiments and theories that could account for a change in a constant in nature with fascination, and that also would be subject to the scientific method. Which was the whole point, and the source of Craig's blunder.
@bigspliffs Craig never contended that the speed of light 'could' change with time or space. He said that its invariance CANNOT be proven scientifically. AND THAT IS WRONG TWO FOLD: IT CAN AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN.
@sirdelrio Hmmmm, i think i'm not giving you enough credit. Maybe you are right about Craig. I don't know enough about him to argue in his corner, which i certainly am not...My attention was toward speed of light etc...
@sirdelrio Btw...the Holes in GR i was referring to were in regards to the static nature it represents, and how the spin of the Universe and everything in it was not incorporated originally.
I'm not sure myself how experiments "clocking" the speed of light would prove that the speed of light was always and everywhere the same. Of course, it was noted correctly, that einstinian relativity assumes that the speed of light is the same always and everywhere.
@migkillertwo He said that its invariance CANNOT be proven scientifically. And that is wrong two fold: it can and it has been. If you're not sure yourself, fine, learn physics. Because the great thing about special relativity is not so much that SoL is constant, but that it is so independent of any reference frame. And there are a number of experiments that show it. Also, its invariance is unlike other constants that are 'statistical' averages. It's always the same.
@migkillertwo And i wonder why you said 'was and has been always'. Where are you going with this, the hovind approach? Constants of nature can be measured TODAY as they were MILLIONS of years ago, in distant stars and galaxies. Even here on earth it can be done in Oklo's natural nuclear reactor. Science is done by serious people buddy, not by apologists.
@migkillertwo Ok, now i know what I'm dealing with here. If you took some time to check how is it that they measure these things, you'd know that they reproduce every possible set of conditions: if C was higher then and slower now, If C was lower and has increased, if the change was exponential, linear, logarithmitc, polynomial, and if it was invariant. The only one that matches the results is when C is invariant. Sorry if the truths of science don't let you sleep at night.
and of course one can amend their system of physical laws and say that another law was different, and then another (and they have), until we can't predict the results with the laws that are leftover.
@migkillertwo do you think that astronomers and astrophysicists have wasted their time during decades just going about confirming some unchallenged dogma? when a scientist tells you a thing is 'this way' they have examined and tested alternative interpretations. From your comments I infer you are a YEC, do you think that experiments that measure distant stars just 'rely' on an unproven assumption? THE WHOLE of observations match theory ONLY in this cases discussed: results not assumptions.
@migkillertwo In a certain way i sense we're you might be standing. And the only thing you could ever argue here against what are indeed measurements, are epistemological considerations that would deny that we could ever prove something with scientific method. At least give me an example of what you consider fact and not an assumption, to see what your reasoning method is about.
Truths of reason and mathematics are the only things I would call "facts", in the sense of incorrigible facts. I might be open to moral truths as facts.
@migkillertwo Ok, then no knowledge derive from science is at all a fact. No the bigbang, not the beginning of the universe, not the fine tunning of the fundamental constants, not the resurrection of jesus, nothing.
@MichaelPayton67 But assuming you have a cursory understanding of common Christian perspectives (rejection of homosexual lifestyle, belief in Heaven, Hell, etc...) none of these excerpts really point to the kind of deficiency that warrants this characterization of Dr.Craig. You refer to him as an idiot on another thread, but with all due respect, you weren't in the same arena as WLC on your appearance on the MC show let alone the same game. This video conveys a kind of impression management.
The statements that Haitians made a pact with Satan, that non-Christian children are better off when they are butchered to death and that homosexuality is comparable to being a heroin addict are inexcusable and disgusting. Only someone who was completely dead to the feeling of any human suffering could repeat these things. The fact that he can say them to a so called Christian audience without raising an eyebrow is a better argument for atheism than any I could ever provide.
@MichaelPayton67 Do you have a link to your second statement re: children? The first is a theological contention that locks horns with any number of religions, the third I believe you've filtered beyond it's description, the comment of which speaks to the sexually active homosexual lifestyle, and not to the worth of the gay individual in and of itself. And you can't be serious in accusing Christianity en masse of being indifferent to human suffering, surely?
The second statement is in the video. Under Craig stated that the heathen children which were killed in the old testament were "spared." This would be revolting if it weren't for the fact that we have absolutely no indication that any of these events actually occured. As for Christianity en masse, please read more carefully, the statement was directed at Craig. I stand by it.
@MichaelPayton67 I did read the statement carefully, and found the characterization to be generalized.to Craig and his audience, means you state which would continue to enhance your overall resolve in being, an atheist. Take your "creepy" comment on Christ's resurrected body. The reference is to the body the resurrected in Christ receive. A glorified, superior existence. To express hope for a far superior existence is "creepy", assuming you have that cursory apprehension of Christian theology?
The first statement does not "lock horns" with any number of religions. He is making a statement about history which is almost comically insane. Again Craig has a charming way of mixing the complete absurdity of his statements with a complete disregard for the moral consequences. He is perpetuating the lie that Haitians are being punished from a divine source for a transgression that never occurred and unfortunately this impacts the way people view this tragedy.
@MichaelPayton67 "Locks horns" in that the same conflict exists, theologically, with a number of contrary religions. In a theological context (which I assume has no place in any real appeal in your consideration) where salvific implications are as real as the here and the now, Craig's assertions are compatible with the larger Judeo-Christian worldview. Not sure you could attribute negative moral consequences to that particular position. Certainly didnt dissuade Christian relief in the region.
The finches idea was an example, it was not meant to be the ONLY argument. I didn't hear that anywhere. It really sounds to me like you've been scouring these podcasts trying to find some dirt on Craig's record. Far from establishing any arguments against Craig's arguments, you've just shown an incredible ignorance of Biblical knowledge and terminology.
Craig proved that he is far more intellectual than you in that embarrassing debate he had with you on the Coren show. Give it up. Being a “cognitive scientist” I would imagine you would know the difference between protecting a hurt ego and accepting a reality that you fall short in your arguments against Theism and Deism.
God's morality? The wholesome morality + virtues of the bible. God raped Joseph's woman, got her pregnant, ignored the child until he allowed him to be tortured and killed to pay for the sins of another who'd taken some fruit generations earlier after being told not to. Then transfers that sin unto all and threatens all with more than a trillion trillion yrs of torture if they don't suck up to him. All this because of the shoddy workmanship in his design of woman and a talking snake?
Criag is about money, ego, power, ignorance and delusion. His fans are the same sort that enjoy a good boxing match and see these 'debates' as matches rather than any serious search for truth. But religion isn't about truth and craigs fans could care less about such things they want a knock down punch they want blood and what if he's wrong or misleading so what? Of course his fans are about as delusional as he and of course he doesn't know what he's talking about he's scamming his fans, simple.
I saw your "debate" with Dr. Craig, and he TROUNCED your sorry ass. You are a pretentious, uneducated, ignorant boob, and your silly behavior continues.
Any normal person would have hidden his face in shame for the rest of his life after being philosophically spanked as hard as you were in public, and yet you amaze the world by making videos with the same stupid, pretentious crease in your eyebrows, as if grimacing could somehow transform you from a moron to an intellectual.
@1GodOnlyOne Yes Krishna is god, no wait, Brahma, oh, make that Siva, wrong, how about Zeus? Pick a god any god, are numbers of believers important? Couldn't the real god have zero believers? or if everyone believed real hard could that make one a god, is something true if enough believe. Clap your hands if you believe in fairies. You believe the god you believe because of the culture you grew up in. Are you willing to fly a plane into a building for your god? Would you kill a child for him?
I watched the debate. You got hammered! The smugness that you referred to is evident. However, it now looks more like the predatorial stare of a hunter taking yet another helpless ruminant down! You are no doubt a brilliant young man. With these petty youtube videos you just come off young! You are working overtime to validate WLC's claim that contemporary atheistic thinkers are still in the playpen. Surely you are capable of better?
I thought Dr. Craig's comments with regards to heroin addicts and homosexuality was along the lines that both (generally speaking) are counter-productive to health and longevity and therefore prohibitions of a loving God. I have read that heroin addicts die within15-20 years after starting to take heroin if they are smart enough not to overdose, and the homosexual lifestyle (typically not anywhere near monogamous) knocks 20 years off.
@bobscottjnr Your comment is disgusting and false. Why don't you show some supporting evidence that homosexuals live 20 years less than non-homosexuals?
You won't, because there is none. Which makes you a failure.
Or...you can provide supporting evidence that they don't! You won't, because there is none. However, I do not think that makes you a failure, just wrong. Question: does AIDS impact the homosexual/bisexual population disproportionately? Mmmm.
Amusing. The question now is can lesbians actually have intercourse? Funny stuff. How about the male population? I am sure there is nothing either of us can say to sway the other. I guess my main contention is not a moral one, but one of practicality. The logical conclusion of homosexuality is extinction. I reject the lifestyle on practical grounds. On the other hand I do not deny a person the right to choose their lifestyle. The lesbian reference was funny, though.
he's a fundamentalist - he makes shit sound so delicious though.. and his sweatervest is sexy as!... he'll probably be found mainlining heroin, chainsmoking with his boyfriend soon enough.
At what point do we begin not taking someone seriously? Is it when they attempt to quote mine a person and can only come up with statements "experiencing the Risen Lord" or when they claim that this person advocates actions that are objectively wrong while simultaneous embracing a philosophy that denies objective moral values?
'I'm not saying that god can command you to murder someone'
This guy is a fucking slimy little eel. What he's SAYING is that it's not murder (unlawful killing) because if it's an edict from god, then that supersedes any man-made laws. That it's 'above the law' - therefore not murder.
WLC is a joke and a disgrace to professional philosophy. He is on record, in his own damn book, that no evidence or argument could possibly change his views about Christianity. If that is not an admission that he is not a philosopher, then nothing is.
I'm Catholic but I think you're right, there needs to me more respect in these discussions. Also, I think Craig thinks some wack stuff. But I don't believe in something like "the point where you stop taking somebody seriously." You still have to address people's arguments. It's never a rebuttal to go, "Well, he doesn't know anything about evolution and he thinks homosexuality is as bad as heroin, so I can safely dismiss what he says completely."
About homosexuals, I think Dr. Craig is referring to the health risks of prolonged exposure to anal sex to which homosexuals take part in more frequently than heterosexuals. Also, the lifespans of homosexuals is shorter, and they have more psychological problems than heterosexuals.
I however don't care and I think people should be allowed to do what they like to their own bodies.
@MauricXe - "and they have more psychological problems than heterosexuals."
I wonder if that's anything to do with the fact that they have to live in a society where it is acceptable, and even commendable, for some to declare that encouraging someone to be true to themselves is the equivalent of encouraging someone to take heroin.
Craig wasn't referring to the health risks, and you know it. He was talking about 'whats good for the soul'.
@Skindoggiedog Too bad you aren't familiar with Dr. Craig's work because you have no idea what you are talking about w.r.t to his claims about homosexuality. Please read the material, in its full context, before responding. Look at his book "Hard Questions, Real Answers" on pages 140-142.
You can actually search it on Google. Search this with the quotes with Google:
"For example, I think many people would agree with the principle"
@MauricXe - I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all.
The point is that even if the claim is .. that encouraging a homosexual lifestyle is irresponsible because of the physical dangers .. it's not comparable in the slightest to mainlining heroin, AND it all stems from the christian bible's view of homosexuality. It's HIS BIBLE. He's never going to say 'homosexuality is okay'.
It's a cover for bigotry, not a concern for a fellow human, no matter how it's disguised.
@Skindoggiedog How does it not compare? Both heroin and chain smoking pose physical damage to the participant. If one champions the view that homosexual lifestyles should not be tolerated based on the negative physical effects then they are comparable.
Further, Craig has no problem with someone being born a homosexual or identifying as a homosexual, he doesn't agree with acting on it. He is concerned for its physical implications, and yes the spiritual BUT that's NOT apart of his case.
I'm glad to see so many Christians here think quote mining is a bad thing. Now I'd love to see you all go to those videos that try to make Craig's opponents look stupid, and tell them the same thing.
You talk about quote-mining! Why don't you quote Craig in full? Put in the links of where those audio clips came from. Also, Dr. Craig didn't say that finches is the only proof for evolution. Craig is actually open to evolution and believes its compatible with Christianity: watch?v=K1lBK7ye0VU
He endorses intelligent design, which shows me he doesn't actually understand evolution at all. A true understanding of evolutionary science or even basic burdens of proof would categorically reject the entire "Intelligent Design" program.
@rationalresponseguy No, he doesn't truly believe it's compatible with Christianity or else he'd accept it at face-value. The only people who truly have fundamental issues or are "skeptical" with evolution are theists.
@rationalresponseguy bullshit. w.craig is only open to evolution that is guided by his god. so how does he explain the overwhelming consensus among biologists that random mutations and natural selection were the driving force behind evolution? -- he hypocritically asserts that they can't(!!) follow the evidence where they lead, and the consensus is a result of a philosophical disposition. no wonder no scientist takes this clown seriously
It appears that you are quote-mining as well. You take awkward and out of context phrases to make them sound weird or ridiculous. Why do you feel like making cheap shots against someone? These videos seem like damage control more than anything else. I'm interested in your contribution to the discussion, not divisive quote-mining.
dude......really? you don't understand anything about what dr. craig presents. i dont claim to be the smartest person in the world, but your rebuttlas at the end of the clips were just plain juvenile, and youre suppose to be a scientist or something? lets try to think constructively next time. oh.....and that necklace has got to come off sometime dude.
@guitarcreation07 it's blatantly obvious, what did he get wrong?... craig is a homophobic morally clouded bumbling theologian, tell me what he got wrong
I agree with Epydemic2020 and KnowNoMore, but I'd like to add one more minor detail that bothers me with this video. In the video you mentioned the series of videos posted by (I think) "drcraigvideos" or a user of some similar name. Anyways, I'd like to specify that the video entitled "The New Atheists Are Not Intellectually Bright" was not posted by Dr. Craig himself, but rather a fanboy of his. So why then are you attacking the "wit" of Dr. Craig? It makes no sense to me...
I find it very telling that Epydemic, yourself and KnowNoMore are more concerned with the fact that I quoted him, then what he actually said. No one seems to be rushing to the defense of his warped moral equivalence between heroin addicts and homosexuals, instead they say I quotemined him. The podcasts are free. If you can edit them in such a way that WLC does NOT sound like a bigot then I would love to see you try.
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not as concerned with any quote mining that occurred. (Although I do feel you've misunderstood Craig's statement on homosexuality, which I'll explain in a succeeding comment) What I'm more concerned with is that Dr. Craig did not in any way attack you personally, yet you are bashing him. (Instead of the rude youtuber) I feel that's uncalled for... Maybe it's just me, if so, please explain why he deserves to have someone attempting to embarrass him.
When he is comparing homosexuality to heroin I immediately assumed he's comparing them in such a way within the Christian understanding. Meaning, that if I allow my friend to be a homosexual (Sounds a bit odd, but I think we get the point) or don't try to help him, it will be sin that he will wallow in the same way that God will see a heroin addict as wallowing in his sin as well. They are both sins, and both will receive a punishment... Maybe not as severe, but I'd think homosexuality (Cont)
@BurntTreeProduct - 'Meaning, that if I allow my friend to be a homosexual (Sounds a bit odd, but I think we get the point) or don't try to help him, it will be sin that he will wallow in the same way that God will see a heroin addict as wallowing in his sin'
You've got that right, but boy oh boy how utterly ignorant that view is. If the bible said hopping was a sin, would he/you be on every one-legged man and woman to quit hopping?
@MichaelPayton67 nice video. I watched your appearance on Michael Coren Show along with Craig, and I only regret that you let him get away with too much of his bullshit: for ex. his insistence that atheists should somehow "prove" atheism (as if atheism is a claim to knowledge), or his usual shifting of the burden of proof when it comes to the problem of evil given that HE makes the claim that god has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering. I think craig is nothing but a hypocrite
@MichaelPayton67 btw I'm not sure if you've read craig's article about the slaughter of the Canaanites posted on ReasonableFaith*org, but there one can see craig's veil slip and reveal his true nature- a fundamentalist with mad and despicable "ethics". as Dawkins commented on his webseite: "I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful(...) It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work (...) Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream"
@MichaelPayton67 I think the distinction lies between Craig's assertion about the harmful effects of the active sexual homosexual lifestyle vs your misquote that the comment was about being gay full stop. Pressed further I would think that the difference between a sexually active homosexual vs a celibate homosexual might have been the nuance missed. That may not make a difference to some, but for accuracy's sake, the distinction does differ one from the other.
I'm not sure that represented quote mining and I would challenge accusers to show the part of the conversation that would suggest quote mining. Exposing one's views is not the same as distorting one's views, which is what quote mining is used to do.
The thing about relativity is bollocks. We have every reason to believe that the speed of light is constant. Of course there never is a mathematical proof of anything in science. There are evidences, correlations, correlations again, mathematical relations that stand the tests, correlations again and again and again, and a consistent framework. A changeable framework that is.
Is there any quote mining going on here? I see and hear a mining for the quotes. To quote someone is just so horrible. We need to stop quoteing people and just........................welll.....................please stop with the quotes because it makes them look bad. Especially the quote comparing gays to taking heroin......the quotemine....rearranged his words. What he meant was...........ok........will that quote mine was ok. OHHHH the horrible quotemines, it makes people look so bad
You quotemined worse than the one you are accusing of quotemining. I was excited when you were recommended by theowarner and urbanelf. I like those two, I hope you don't make them look bad with your tactics.
@Epydemic2020 Could you demonstrate how he "quote-mined"? I think the definition of quote-mining is when one takes quotes from someone out of context or leaves out relevant parts in order to misrepresent their position on a matter. Has Dr Craig's position been misrepresented?
Quote mining implies you are trying to change the context of the point the speaker is making. How are the quotes he used changing the context of what Craig means in any way?
@Epydemic2020 um.... i disagree, peppered moths and darwins finches... fuck, that's just incredibly stupid.. what about the fossil records, what about genetics?... who has he talked to?... students who studied biology for a week?.. does he not know any practical use for evolution?... where is there any practical use for creationism or intelligent design... craig is just as bad as the creotards on facebook
@Epydemic2020 alright, but you did say a fair bit about quote mining... the evolution was very very ignorant.. that's just one thing i'm quite passionate about.. the homosexual thing is also quite absurd..
@lifeandphilosophy i was actually going to bring that up... Darwins theory was 150 years ago... leaps and bounds in evolution as u know has happened... so i guess he's um, choosing his wording? wisely and not saying evolution... when the evidence is just to overwhelming he'll have to accept it... i don't think craig has a static mind.... but he's highly sceptical of evolution, yet cosmology which is in its infancy, he gets a hard on for because it supports his kalams 2nd premise...
But I would contend that none of WLC's opponents have ever said anything as awful as "genocide isn't really genocide if God tells you to do it." Because that could potentially justify... well just about every genocide ever propagated on the face of the planet
@MichaelPayton67 Why are you so readily admitting to quote-mining when as far as I understand it. It is a method of dishonestly taking quotes or parts of statements out of context in order to misrepresent an opponents position on a matter. This is a dishonest tactic. I don't think that it was you are doing but if you are then you shouldn't be here. If you are not, then don't let such accusations stand.
My admitted purpose in this exercise was to find the more ridiculous and offensive things that Dr. Craig has said, I was under the impression that was a 'type' of quotemining. I don't think I misrepresented his views in the slightest. I just showed a side of his views that is rarely seen.
And considering the hopeless love affair that Christian Youtubers seem to have for Dr. Craig, I think it's a good idea to investigate what he says when he thinks he's preaching to the choir.
@MichaelPayton67 That should have been your initial response then. These people are trying to score points by accusing you of quote-mining. Quote-mining is a well recognized dishonest tactic. It has been perfected by fundamentalist Christians and they would love nothing better than to be able to successfully accuse an opponent of doing this. Never admit to it if that was not your intention. They are trying to conflate "quoting" with "quote-mining" in order to weaken your position.
@cobol528 Pretty much every quote from craig except the first one seemed to an an example of quotemining. Trying to twist "I want to experience the resurrected body of Jesus" into something "creepy". The clip from Craig talking about Hati is cut suspiciously short, and the ending clip misrepresents his view by only showing one piece. That would not be an excuse to do immoral acts, although some people may attempt to use that as an excuse. Consequences never make a statement false anyway.
// taking quotes or parts of statements out of context ... misrepresent //
You correctly said "parts" and "out of context" and "misrepresent"
Any quotation is necessarily a "part" of what was said. However, are you suggesting that WLC preceded/followed those remarks with statements that completely overturned the quoted comments? If not, then those segments are not examples of "quote mining." Instead they are merely quotes. When did quotes become dishonest?
@cobol528 Cobol, I posted the discussion about homosexuality and heroin in full on my channel. I could not have taken it out of context, since it's in context. Check it out there if you think Payton was "dishonest", although I realize he had a different intention than I do.
Just a question, do you have a link to that debate with Atkins, and did he respond to the other guy's 'Things that Science can't prove'? I've been having a debate with my uncle about almost the exact same thing, and I've been scrounging for a good comeback. :)
I agree. WLC uses the Holocaust as an example of absolute immorality when arguing for absolute morality but uses "Divine Command" to justify the slaughter of the Amalekites by the Hebrews. Genocide is absolutely immoral or it isn't. Craig can't decide.
Hahaha It's so stupidly obvious that WLC picks and chooses very carefully who the greatest philosophers of our time are. I wonder how he would fare if we did a quick rundown of folks at NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Arizona, etc.
Michael, I agree that Craig is generally off base and I disagree with a lot of the things he has said, however, I don´t think that the new atheist movement can take the intellectual high ground in this debate. It is true that he is not a great thinker, but that can also be said about most of the new atheists on the other side, and based on your Craig debate, that includes you.
Thank you for you lovely comment. Personally, I think truth is a property of statements, not people. I don't think it matters in the slightest who is smarter.
I'd prefer not to agree because all people stumble into error and even ultimately absurdity when they persist with arguments aimed at justifying or bolstering their stated position. Craig is only as wrong as everybody else. We should keep arguing until we gain the intellectual upper ground and not resort to dismissing our opponents out of hand simply because they are occasionally unjustified or even dead wrong.
Wow, I knew Craig was off but that comment about homosexuals is just unscrupulous. In a debate with Eddie Tabash, Craig says that God may have had morally sufficient reasons for the holocaust in that it may have helped centralize the Jews back to Jerusalem so we can have the rapture. These types of apologetics show just how twisted Christianity makes people and I look forward to you demolishing his rhetoric.
The irony is that in other debates Craig has said that Christians can reserve the right to say that Hitler was objectively evil for the holocaust. If God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing the holocaust to happen, wouldn't that mean that Hitler did the morally correct thing by inciting it?
There's a lot of room for subjectivity in Craig's objective morality, it seems.
Seriously, he's arguments may seem more articulate ans well-formed than your common theist, however that does not mean that the content is any less different. Although, being more so of the Continental tradition, I'm not sure any amount or argumentation is going to change the minds of people like this. Or those who blindly follow his reasoning without any critical judgment.
I meant banned from making comments on any of them.
steveinchelsea 2 weeks ago
Thanks. I've looked at a lot of his videos, but didn't catch all the craziness. I made some rather innocuous comments on one of his sites, and I was promptly banned from all of them.
steveinchelsea 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
@fuck192ass under that logic, If sex between two lesbians is safer than heterosexual sex, then encouraging female homosexuality IS like encouraging behaviors like quitting smoking. Sorry for the poor sentence structure. I imitated the original commentor's, so it couldn't be helped.
tnordloh 2 months ago
Your arguments follow. You need to stay focused. You cannot say that Dr. Craig is wrong because you don't like his views on homosexuality. You need to focus on Dr. Craigs arguments supporting creation and debunking atheism. If you don't you are merely appealing to emotionalism.
DebateRobo 2 months ago
Craig is an idiot when it comes to ethics
RPFS2008 4 months ago
@fuck192ass dont missrepresent the facts: it doenst kill you to get fucked in the ass by another guy. But to be promiscous, party every weekend, etc. Do you get the difference? does it kill to get fucked? why dont women die? These behaviors would decrease your life expectancy even if you were straight. It's not being gay, it's being promiscous. do you get the difference? you right wing facist bastard.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@fuck192ass what makes that life expectancy low is not that they are homosexuals, but their lifestyle. A homosexual that doesnt engage in intensive promiscuity and party wont have low life expectancy. Fascism and Discrimination, amen.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
LMAO!! Dude, you got your ass handed to you on TV so bad. Even the moderator wanted to slap the stupid outta you lol
And this is how to build yourself back up, you confess to being obsessed enough to listen to Dr Craig's podcasts jumping at the very notion that he might say something out of context, just so you can point a finger like a school yard bully and make fun?!? Do you, as an adult, realise how pathetic that is?
Man up, you got schooled, now just deal with it.
Peace!
bigspliffs 5 months ago 2
@ 8:13 in laymen's terms: By this rational argument, any action that we consider evil by our own standards is justified if it's commanded by God.
Now I can say I fully understand a suicide bomber's perspective.
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
well I know our take on morality is very different, but still, these same people tell me my view of ethics is crazy because I believe everything is morally neutral, but then they turn right around and say that in their view on ethics, actions which would normally be evil can be made good through the power to will it. God could always will genocidal maniacs to be doing righteous deeds. Then it wouldnt be "genocide" it would be a "moral duty"
AbusiveAntitheist 7 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 How did you get the opportunity to debate William Lane Craig?
tacojohn9 7 months ago
@fuck192ass
Just so long as we're clear that homosexual lifestyles are of no more consequence than a trip to McDonald's than I welcome you to join me in laughing at the buffoonery of this so-called philosopher.
MichaelPayton67 8 months ago
@fuck192ass
By that logic so in encouraging people to eat cheeseburgers.
MichaelPayton67 8 months ago
Michael, I have to say, you come across like a child that was bested on the playground and now, safe within the arcade with all your nerdy friends, you want to crow about how tough and how awesome you were. I'm sorry, but in the debate with WLC you were out-gunned, out-brained, and out of your depth.
ZealfortheCross 8 months ago
Not to defend WL Craig, but It appear to me as if you quoted him out of context in the quote regarding homosexuality and heroin. I remember hearing these words in context, and if memory serves me correctly, he was not directly comparing the act/state of using/being addicted to heroin and homosexuality. He was making a point using the "fact" that the effect of an "homosexual lifestyle" on suicide rates and such, has similar effects as being addicted to heroin. Disgusting?, yes, but distinct.
qonf 8 months ago
Did that fucker just say it's good to murder someone if God tells you to do it!!!
:-0 Holy Fuuuuuuck!!!
That's AMAZING! Cos last night I had the most lucid dream in which I heard a clear voice telling me to rip the wind-pipe from William Craig's throat with my own teeth. I had decided to ignore it as merely a dream, but.... If God-commanded murder is OK, then, ready when you are WLC,
(Don't you think he has a really really really annoying voice - hence the windpipe dream)
USERNAMEfieldempty 9 months ago
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS 'ASSUMED' TO BE CONSTANT?? TWO WORDS: LIGHT CLOCK.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
WHAT?? WHAT?? DID HE JUST SAY THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT BE PROVEN???? WHAT???? AN ANIMATION OF THE EXPERIMENT IS EVEN HERE ON YOUTUBE. MAN, THE MORE I KNOW HIM, THE MORE I'M AMAZED OF HOW POORLY HE KNOWS SCIENCE.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
@sirdelrio
Oh wow, even a year later and we still find things that are just plain wrong in this work. Good ears!
MichaelPayton67 9 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 wait a minute. ur the guy that appeared on the michael coren show along with craig? oh, that's rich. lol
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@sirdelrio He said, the belief that the speed of light is constant in one direction between point 'a' and 'b' cannot be proven, and that we have to assume that. Where's the problem with this statement?
bigspliffs 5 months ago
@bigspliffs what is wrong? that it is not 'a belief', it is an experimental fact, it has been demonstrated to be factually true for some time now. You dont have to take my word for it: Michelson–Morley experiment, or Philip Gibbs 1997 How is the speed of light measured?. Read carefully the last article beyond the first sentence, before you pop out to defend Craig.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio Interesting. And these experiments. Were they conducted under static conditions or with magnetic flux density incorporated?
bigspliffs 5 months ago
@bigspliffs what do you think? does the LHC reach speed of light? what would be the point? could you make it go faster?
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio The question, is of whether or not the speed of light is constant over distances, in this case 'a' and 'b'
I'm not concerned if the LHC at Cern can produce the speed of light or not.
There have been studies that show that both the magnetic permeability and the magnetic field intensity contribute towards the magnetic flux density. It then follows that in general, the speed of light will depend on the magnetic flux density. Meaning, non constant speed over great distnaces.
bigspliffs 5 months ago
@bigspliffs "the speed of light will depend on the magnetic flux density" yes, true. Special Relativity never says the speed of light is ALWAYS constant, but that it is an upper limit, and that such limit is the speed of photons in a vacuum, like in space. So in astrophysics (and this is not an assumption, but an experimental fact demonstrated by hundreds of experiments) the speed of light is always the same. You know what's the point? that Craig was BShiting, he doesnt know physics.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs Craig is a perfect case of intellectual imposture. He has written books about relativity. Ja! and he says that the speed of light invariance is an assumption. Maybe he just read a couple of divulgative books, but never concerns with peer reviewed articles (because he cant understand them), so he's likely to say these things. If you want to pursue rationalizing his stupid statement, go ahead, you know more physics than him, you should have noticed too that he was bullshiting.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs "magnetic flux density" MAGNETIC FIELD. Dont buzzword me. Find one single physicist that will say that between two hypothetical points, the speed of light is necessarily c. Not a single one. The will reply "well, that depends, it's light in a vacuum? if it is, the answer is c; if not it depends on the perturbation of the media". But Craig said that Relativity asserts is necessarily c (wrong), and not only that, but that it is an assumption that cant be proved (wrong again). B-S.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs He says "the invariance of speed of light between a and b IS AN ASSUMPTION of the theory, that cant be demonstrated", and that the theory has to assume this and go along. THAT, IS BULL-SHIT. Sorry if you have him, dogmatically, in a high regard. Sorry, your hero is a fraud, at least when he deals with physics.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio Well see, theres the thing, i don't have him dogmatically in high regard. I've only known of WLC for under 2 years and i'm not of any denomination, so its not like i'm taking sides lol
But what he says is true, we do have to assume that the speed of light is constant for the math to work, at least the way things are now. But all that will change soon enough.
I've nothing against you personally, i just thought you were taking sides with someone you may be dogmatically associated with
bigspliffs 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigspliffs "we do have to assume that the speed of light is constant for the math to work" FACTUALLY WRONG, and you dont know the theory, evidently. "at least the way things are now"??? WHAT? DID YOU JUST SAY THE INVARIANCE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT CANNOT OR HASNT BEEN PROVEN???? WHAT????
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs HE SAID "WE SIMPLY HAVE TO ASSUME THAT" AND I ASK YOU. IS IT AN ASSUMPTION???? HASNT IT BEEN PROVEN ALREADY? ISNT IT FACTUALLY RIGHT THAT C IS CONSTANT IN VACUUM? IS IT AN ASSUMPTION OR A FACT?!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?? HE WAS ARGUING FOR THINGS THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. TALK ABOUT A HUUUUGE BLUNDER.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio It is assumed to be factual, but cannot be strictly proven considering the holes in the general theory of relativity.
Open your mind, we don't know everything. It would be ignorant to assume we do.
For all you know, the the 'facts' could change tomorrow, and all the shouting and ranting you are doing now, could make you look like a gullible fool.
Peace.
bigspliffs 5 months ago
@bigspliffs it is not assumed, boy. and it's not 'general' but special relativity. evidently we are not talking in the same degree of information or knowledge. And what 'holes' does GR have. Not accounting for everything? what did you mean? Of course i know we dont know everything, if i thought otherwise i wouldnt be a scientist. "...the 'facts' could change tomorrow" give me one single example of facts that changed. facts not beliefs.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs do i need to give you the reference to every single experiment that has measured the speed of light: in atomic clocks, in outerspace, in distant stars, and galaxies, in quasars. It might not be true that the speed of light is constant everywhere in the universe, but Craig wasnt talking about the cosmological principle, he thought that the invariance of the speed of light couldnt be 'demonstrated with the scientific method' and that is plain wrong back to front.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs "...the the 'facts' could change tomorrow" now you are just hoping that i would be wrong in the future. you are refusing to admit that you made a mistake or where misinformed. I wont look like i gullible fool, because i'd be all over the new experiments and theories that could account for a change in a constant in nature with fascination, and that also would be subject to the scientific method. Which was the whole point, and the source of Craig's blunder.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@bigspliffs Craig never contended that the speed of light 'could' change with time or space. He said that its invariance CANNOT be proven scientifically. AND THAT IS WRONG TWO FOLD: IT CAN AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio Hmmmm, i think i'm not giving you enough credit. Maybe you are right about Craig. I don't know enough about him to argue in his corner, which i certainly am not...My attention was toward speed of light etc...
I think we have had our wires crossed here.
Apologies.
Peace!
bigspliffs 5 months ago
@sirdelrio Btw...the Holes in GR i was referring to were in regards to the static nature it represents, and how the spin of the Universe and everything in it was not incorporated originally.
bigspliffs 5 months ago
I'm not sure myself how experiments "clocking" the speed of light would prove that the speed of light was always and everywhere the same. Of course, it was noted correctly, that einstinian relativity assumes that the speed of light is the same always and everywhere.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo He said that its invariance CANNOT be proven scientifically. And that is wrong two fold: it can and it has been. If you're not sure yourself, fine, learn physics. Because the great thing about special relativity is not so much that SoL is constant, but that it is so independent of any reference frame. And there are a number of experiments that show it. Also, its invariance is unlike other constants that are 'statistical' averages. It's always the same.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@migkillertwo And i wonder why you said 'was and has been always'. Where are you going with this, the hovind approach? Constants of nature can be measured TODAY as they were MILLIONS of years ago, in distant stars and galaxies. Even here on earth it can be done in Oklo's natural nuclear reactor. Science is done by serious people buddy, not by apologists.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
"Constants of nature can be measured today as they were millions of years ago"
That is an assumption. A warranted assumption, yes, but an assumption no less.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo Ok, now i know what I'm dealing with here. If you took some time to check how is it that they measure these things, you'd know that they reproduce every possible set of conditions: if C was higher then and slower now, If C was lower and has increased, if the change was exponential, linear, logarithmitc, polynomial, and if it was invariant. The only one that matches the results is when C is invariant. Sorry if the truths of science don't let you sleep at night.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio
and of course one can amend their system of physical laws and say that another law was different, and then another (and they have), until we can't predict the results with the laws that are leftover.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo do you think that astronomers and astrophysicists have wasted their time during decades just going about confirming some unchallenged dogma? when a scientist tells you a thing is 'this way' they have examined and tested alternative interpretations. From your comments I infer you are a YEC, do you think that experiments that measure distant stars just 'rely' on an unproven assumption? THE WHOLE of observations match theory ONLY in this cases discussed: results not assumptions.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@migkillertwo In a certain way i sense we're you might be standing. And the only thing you could ever argue here against what are indeed measurements, are epistemological considerations that would deny that we could ever prove something with scientific method. At least give me an example of what you consider fact and not an assumption, to see what your reasoning method is about.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
Truths of reason and mathematics are the only things I would call "facts", in the sense of incorrigible facts. I might be open to moral truths as facts.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo Ok, then no knowledge derive from science is at all a fact. No the bigbang, not the beginning of the universe, not the fine tunning of the fundamental constants, not the resurrection of jesus, nothing.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
Yup. Some theories, like the ones you mention, are better than all the others put forth, but they're not "facts"
migkillertwo 3 months ago
Are you bitter because he made you look foolish?
kdcox1205 10 months ago
@kdcox1205
I'm more concerned that someone who claims to be an intellectual would believe in the devil and tell us that sometimes genocide is a good thing.
MichaelPayton67 10 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 But assuming you have a cursory understanding of common Christian perspectives (rejection of homosexual lifestyle, belief in Heaven, Hell, etc...) none of these excerpts really point to the kind of deficiency that warrants this characterization of Dr.Craig. You refer to him as an idiot on another thread, but with all due respect, you weren't in the same arena as WLC on your appearance on the MC show let alone the same game. This video conveys a kind of impression management.
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
@NilDesperandum777
The statements that Haitians made a pact with Satan, that non-Christian children are better off when they are butchered to death and that homosexuality is comparable to being a heroin addict are inexcusable and disgusting. Only someone who was completely dead to the feeling of any human suffering could repeat these things. The fact that he can say them to a so called Christian audience without raising an eyebrow is a better argument for atheism than any I could ever provide.
MichaelPayton67 9 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 Do you have a link to your second statement re: children? The first is a theological contention that locks horns with any number of religions, the third I believe you've filtered beyond it's description, the comment of which speaks to the sexually active homosexual lifestyle, and not to the worth of the gay individual in and of itself. And you can't be serious in accusing Christianity en masse of being indifferent to human suffering, surely?
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
@NilDesperandum777
The second statement is in the video. Under Craig stated that the heathen children which were killed in the old testament were "spared." This would be revolting if it weren't for the fact that we have absolutely no indication that any of these events actually occured. As for Christianity en masse, please read more carefully, the statement was directed at Craig. I stand by it.
MichaelPayton67 9 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 I did read the statement carefully, and found the characterization to be generalized.to Craig and his audience, means you state which would continue to enhance your overall resolve in being, an atheist. Take your "creepy" comment on Christ's resurrected body. The reference is to the body the resurrected in Christ receive. A glorified, superior existence. To express hope for a far superior existence is "creepy", assuming you have that cursory apprehension of Christian theology?
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
@NilDesperandum777
The first statement does not "lock horns" with any number of religions. He is making a statement about history which is almost comically insane. Again Craig has a charming way of mixing the complete absurdity of his statements with a complete disregard for the moral consequences. He is perpetuating the lie that Haitians are being punished from a divine source for a transgression that never occurred and unfortunately this impacts the way people view this tragedy.
MichaelPayton67 9 months ago
@MichaelPayton67 "Locks horns" in that the same conflict exists, theologically, with a number of contrary religions. In a theological context (which I assume has no place in any real appeal in your consideration) where salvific implications are as real as the here and the now, Craig's assertions are compatible with the larger Judeo-Christian worldview. Not sure you could attribute negative moral consequences to that particular position. Certainly didnt dissuade Christian relief in the region.
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
The finches idea was an example, it was not meant to be the ONLY argument. I didn't hear that anywhere. It really sounds to me like you've been scouring these podcasts trying to find some dirt on Craig's record. Far from establishing any arguments against Craig's arguments, you've just shown an incredible ignorance of Biblical knowledge and terminology.
hayakain 10 months ago
Craig proved that he is far more intellectual than you in that embarrassing debate he had with you on the Coren show. Give it up. Being a “cognitive scientist” I would imagine you would know the difference between protecting a hurt ego and accepting a reality that you fall short in your arguments against Theism and Deism.
rumbashane 11 months ago
God's morality? The wholesome morality + virtues of the bible. God raped Joseph's woman, got her pregnant, ignored the child until he allowed him to be tortured and killed to pay for the sins of another who'd taken some fruit generations earlier after being told not to. Then transfers that sin unto all and threatens all with more than a trillion trillion yrs of torture if they don't suck up to him. All this because of the shoddy workmanship in his design of woman and a talking snake?
scotty 1 year ago
Criag is about money, ego, power, ignorance and delusion. His fans are the same sort that enjoy a good boxing match and see these 'debates' as matches rather than any serious search for truth. But religion isn't about truth and craigs fans could care less about such things they want a knock down punch they want blood and what if he's wrong or misleading so what? Of course his fans are about as delusional as he and of course he doesn't know what he's talking about he's scamming his fans, simple.
scotty 1 year ago
I saw your "debate" with Dr. Craig, and he TROUNCED your sorry ass. You are a pretentious, uneducated, ignorant boob, and your silly behavior continues.
Any normal person would have hidden his face in shame for the rest of his life after being philosophically spanked as hard as you were in public, and yet you amaze the world by making videos with the same stupid, pretentious crease in your eyebrows, as if grimacing could somehow transform you from a moron to an intellectual.
atheist total fail
1GodOnlyOne 1 year ago
@1GodOnlyOne Yes Krishna is god, no wait, Brahma, oh, make that Siva, wrong, how about Zeus? Pick a god any god, are numbers of believers important? Couldn't the real god have zero believers? or if everyone believed real hard could that make one a god, is something true if enough believe. Clap your hands if you believe in fairies. You believe the god you believe because of the culture you grew up in. Are you willing to fly a plane into a building for your god? Would you kill a child for him?
scotty 1 year ago
I don't think I could've debated Craig without breaking his nose.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
Dr Craig's statement on the Divine Command to commit genocide is just epic face palming.
supersmash43 1 year ago
you got owned---get over it.
EastofForever 1 year ago
@EastofForever LOL Right on!
rumbashane 1 year ago
I watched the debate. You got hammered! The smugness that you referred to is evident. However, it now looks more like the predatorial stare of a hunter taking yet another helpless ruminant down! You are no doubt a brilliant young man. With these petty youtube videos you just come off young! You are working overtime to validate WLC's claim that contemporary atheistic thinkers are still in the playpen. Surely you are capable of better?
bobscottjnr 1 year ago
I thought Dr. Craig's comments with regards to heroin addicts and homosexuality was along the lines that both (generally speaking) are counter-productive to health and longevity and therefore prohibitions of a loving God. I have read that heroin addicts die within15-20 years after starting to take heroin if they are smart enough not to overdose, and the homosexual lifestyle (typically not anywhere near monogamous) knocks 20 years off.
bobscottjnr 1 year ago
@bobscottjnr Your comment is disgusting and false. Why don't you show some supporting evidence that homosexuals live 20 years less than non-homosexuals?
You won't, because there is none. Which makes you a failure.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal
Or...you can provide supporting evidence that they don't! You won't, because there is none. However, I do not think that makes you a failure, just wrong. Question: does AIDS impact the homosexual/bisexual population disproportionately? Mmmm.
bobscottjnr 1 year ago
@bobscottjnr Actually yes. Lesbians have a hugely reduced chance of contracting the disease. Much lower than the heterosexual poulation.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal
Amusing. The question now is can lesbians actually have intercourse? Funny stuff. How about the male population? I am sure there is nothing either of us can say to sway the other. I guess my main contention is not a moral one, but one of practicality. The logical conclusion of homosexuality is extinction. I reject the lifestyle on practical grounds. On the other hand I do not deny a person the right to choose their lifestyle. The lesbian reference was funny, though.
bobscottjnr 1 year ago
he's a fundamentalist - he makes shit sound so delicious though.. and his sweatervest is sexy as!... he'll probably be found mainlining heroin, chainsmoking with his boyfriend soon enough.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 the term "ad hominem' is grossly inadequate to describe your biased, boneheaded argument.
EastofForever 1 year ago
@EastofForever it's pretty fabulous hey
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 oh yeah....mind-bogglingly stupid. Guinness World Book boneheaded even
EastofForever 1 year ago
At what point do we begin not taking someone seriously? Is it when they attempt to quote mine a person and can only come up with statements "experiencing the Risen Lord" or when they claim that this person advocates actions that are objectively wrong while simultaneous embracing a philosophy that denies objective moral values?
momoseth2 1 year ago
Hooooolllllyyy Craaaaaap.
I had literally no respect for Craig coming into this video, but to hear him side with Pat Robertson on the Haiti issue is beyond belief.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
I have a more pertinent question than any posted thus far. How are you so awesome?
zarathustralives21 1 year ago
Yeah they edited the debate to make it look like you had nothing to say except 'Um.. Um..'
CMO999 1 year ago
'I'm not saying that god can command you to murder someone'
This guy is a fucking slimy little eel. What he's SAYING is that it's not murder (unlawful killing) because if it's an edict from god, then that supersedes any man-made laws. That it's 'above the law' - therefore not murder.
The guy is a slime-ball of the first order.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Skindoggiedog So your position is that edicts from God are not above the laws of man? Showing this is the only way to debunk Divine Command Theory.
MauricXe 1 year ago
WLC is a joke and a disgrace to professional philosophy. He is on record, in his own damn book, that no evidence or argument could possibly change his views about Christianity. If that is not an admission that he is not a philosopher, then nothing is.
UnBeguiled 1 year ago
I'm Catholic but I think you're right, there needs to me more respect in these discussions. Also, I think Craig thinks some wack stuff. But I don't believe in something like "the point where you stop taking somebody seriously." You still have to address people's arguments. It's never a rebuttal to go, "Well, he doesn't know anything about evolution and he thinks homosexuality is as bad as heroin, so I can safely dismiss what he says completely."
Jugglable 1 year ago
About homosexuals, I think Dr. Craig is referring to the health risks of prolonged exposure to anal sex to which homosexuals take part in more frequently than heterosexuals. Also, the lifespans of homosexuals is shorter, and they have more psychological problems than heterosexuals.
I however don't care and I think people should be allowed to do what they like to their own bodies.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe - "and they have more psychological problems than heterosexuals."
I wonder if that's anything to do with the fact that they have to live in a society where it is acceptable, and even commendable, for some to declare that encouraging someone to be true to themselves is the equivalent of encouraging someone to take heroin.
Craig wasn't referring to the health risks, and you know it. He was talking about 'whats good for the soul'.
Quit kidding yourself.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Skindoggiedog Too bad you aren't familiar with Dr. Craig's work because you have no idea what you are talking about w.r.t to his claims about homosexuality. Please read the material, in its full context, before responding. Look at his book "Hard Questions, Real Answers" on pages 140-142.
You can actually search it on Google. Search this with the quotes with Google:
"For example, I think many people would agree with the principle"
It should return the Google Books.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe - I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all.
The point is that even if the claim is .. that encouraging a homosexual lifestyle is irresponsible because of the physical dangers .. it's not comparable in the slightest to mainlining heroin, AND it all stems from the christian bible's view of homosexuality. It's HIS BIBLE. He's never going to say 'homosexuality is okay'.
It's a cover for bigotry, not a concern for a fellow human, no matter how it's disguised.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@Skindoggiedog How does it not compare? Both heroin and chain smoking pose physical damage to the participant. If one champions the view that homosexual lifestyles should not be tolerated based on the negative physical effects then they are comparable.
Further, Craig has no problem with someone being born a homosexual or identifying as a homosexual, he doesn't agree with acting on it. He is concerned for its physical implications, and yes the spiritual BUT that's NOT apart of his case.
MauricXe 1 year ago
I'm glad to see so many Christians here think quote mining is a bad thing. Now I'd love to see you all go to those videos that try to make Craig's opponents look stupid, and tell them the same thing.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
You talk about quote-mining! Why don't you quote Craig in full? Put in the links of where those audio clips came from. Also, Dr. Craig didn't say that finches is the only proof for evolution. Craig is actually open to evolution and believes its compatible with Christianity: watch?v=K1lBK7ye0VU
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy
He endorses intelligent design, which shows me he doesn't actually understand evolution at all. A true understanding of evolutionary science or even basic burdens of proof would categorically reject the entire "Intelligent Design" program.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago 8
@MichaelPayton67 - "He endorses intelligent design, which shows me he doesn't actually understand evolution at all."
Correct. He doesn't have to, nor does he want to. What he likes to do is something akin to this:
Evolution is something. That means it's not nothing. Let's call something 'one' and nothing 'zero'.
Now, how do we know 'one' is REALLY one? Aren't we just basing that on what our senses tell us? We can't PROVE it's one. Zero might be one.
Therefore evolution is just a bad guess.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy "You talk about quote-mining! Why don't you quote Craig in full"
Why don't you quote people in full? I don't think you're someone who should act indignant about quote mining.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy No, he doesn't truly believe it's compatible with Christianity or else he'd accept it at face-value. The only people who truly have fundamental issues or are "skeptical" with evolution are theists.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy bullshit. w.craig is only open to evolution that is guided by his god. so how does he explain the overwhelming consensus among biologists that random mutations and natural selection were the driving force behind evolution? -- he hypocritically asserts that they can't(!!) follow the evidence where they lead, and the consensus is a result of a philosophical disposition. no wonder no scientist takes this clown seriously
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
agreed!
cjeffers101 1 year ago
It appears that you are quote-mining as well. You take awkward and out of context phrases to make them sound weird or ridiculous. Why do you feel like making cheap shots against someone? These videos seem like damage control more than anything else. I'm interested in your contribution to the discussion, not divisive quote-mining.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
i can prove scientifically that the earth wasn't created 5 minutes ago... i have videos...
lukeism2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lukeism2 - 'i can prove scientifically that the earth wasn't created 5 minutes ago... i have videos... '
Those videos were put there to test you.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
Horrifying!
pknvdw 1 year ago
dude......really? you don't understand anything about what dr. craig presents. i dont claim to be the smartest person in the world, but your rebuttlas at the end of the clips were just plain juvenile, and youre suppose to be a scientist or something? lets try to think constructively next time. oh.....and that necklace has got to come off sometime dude.
guitarcreation07 1 year ago
@guitarcreation07 it's blatantly obvious, what did he get wrong?... craig is a homophobic morally clouded bumbling theologian, tell me what he got wrong
lukeism2 1 year ago
I agree with Epydemic2020 and KnowNoMore, but I'd like to add one more minor detail that bothers me with this video. In the video you mentioned the series of videos posted by (I think) "drcraigvideos" or a user of some similar name. Anyways, I'd like to specify that the video entitled "The New Atheists Are Not Intellectually Bright" was not posted by Dr. Craig himself, but rather a fanboy of his. So why then are you attacking the "wit" of Dr. Craig? It makes no sense to me...
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
@BurntTreeProduct
I find it very telling that Epydemic, yourself and KnowNoMore are more concerned with the fact that I quoted him, then what he actually said. No one seems to be rushing to the defense of his warped moral equivalence between heroin addicts and homosexuals, instead they say I quotemined him. The podcasts are free. If you can edit them in such a way that WLC does NOT sound like a bigot then I would love to see you try.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago 6
@MichaelPayton67 I'm not as concerned with any quote mining that occurred. (Although I do feel you've misunderstood Craig's statement on homosexuality, which I'll explain in a succeeding comment) What I'm more concerned with is that Dr. Craig did not in any way attack you personally, yet you are bashing him. (Instead of the rude youtuber) I feel that's uncalled for... Maybe it's just me, if so, please explain why he deserves to have someone attempting to embarrass him.
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
When he is comparing homosexuality to heroin I immediately assumed he's comparing them in such a way within the Christian understanding. Meaning, that if I allow my friend to be a homosexual (Sounds a bit odd, but I think we get the point) or don't try to help him, it will be sin that he will wallow in the same way that God will see a heroin addict as wallowing in his sin as well. They are both sins, and both will receive a punishment... Maybe not as severe, but I'd think homosexuality (Cont)
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
Cont 2... would actually have a worse punishment considering Paul is very austere in the way he approaches the issue.
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
@BurntTreeProduct - 'Meaning, that if I allow my friend to be a homosexual (Sounds a bit odd, but I think we get the point) or don't try to help him, it will be sin that he will wallow in the same way that God will see a heroin addict as wallowing in his sin'
You've got that right, but boy oh boy how utterly ignorant that view is. If the bible said hopping was a sin, would he/you be on every one-legged man and woman to quit hopping?
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 nice video. I watched your appearance on Michael Coren Show along with Craig, and I only regret that you let him get away with too much of his bullshit: for ex. his insistence that atheists should somehow "prove" atheism (as if atheism is a claim to knowledge), or his usual shifting of the burden of proof when it comes to the problem of evil given that HE makes the claim that god has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering. I think craig is nothing but a hypocrite
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 btw I'm not sure if you've read craig's article about the slaughter of the Canaanites posted on ReasonableFaith*org, but there one can see craig's veil slip and reveal his true nature- a fundamentalist with mad and despicable "ethics". as Dawkins commented on his webseite: "I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful(...) It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work (...) Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream"
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 I think the distinction lies between Craig's assertion about the harmful effects of the active sexual homosexual lifestyle vs your misquote that the comment was about being gay full stop. Pressed further I would think that the difference between a sexually active homosexual vs a celibate homosexual might have been the nuance missed. That may not make a difference to some, but for accuracy's sake, the distinction does differ one from the other.
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
I'm not sure that represented quote mining and I would challenge accusers to show the part of the conversation that would suggest quote mining. Exposing one's views is not the same as distorting one's views, which is what quote mining is used to do.
cowboycoco 1 year ago
The thing about relativity is bollocks. We have every reason to believe that the speed of light is constant. Of course there never is a mathematical proof of anything in science. There are evidences, correlations, correlations again, mathematical relations that stand the tests, correlations again and again and again, and a consistent framework. A changeable framework that is.
arsenelupin123 1 year ago
Is there any quote mining going on here? I see and hear a mining for the quotes. To quote someone is just so horrible. We need to stop quoteing people and just........................welll.....................please stop with the quotes because it makes them look bad. Especially the quote comparing gays to taking heroin......the quotemine....rearranged his words. What he meant was...........ok........will that quote mine was ok. OHHHH the horrible quotemines, it makes people look so bad
freedomtruthfreedom 1 year ago
I would agree.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
You quotemined worse than the one you are accusing of quotemining. I was excited when you were recommended by theowarner and urbanelf. I like those two, I hope you don't make them look bad with your tactics.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
I hope so too!
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Could you demonstrate how he "quote-mined"? I think the definition of quote-mining is when one takes quotes from someone out of context or leaves out relevant parts in order to misrepresent their position on a matter. Has Dr Craig's position been misrepresented?
cobol528 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
Quote mining implies you are trying to change the context of the point the speaker is making. How are the quotes he used changing the context of what Craig means in any way?
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 um.... i disagree, peppered moths and darwins finches... fuck, that's just incredibly stupid.. what about the fossil records, what about genetics?... who has he talked to?... students who studied biology for a week?.. does he not know any practical use for evolution?... where is there any practical use for creationism or intelligent design... craig is just as bad as the creotards on facebook
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
I did not say all of the quotes were examples of quotemining. Dr. Craig and I differ when it comes to arguments about evolution.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 alright, but you did say a fair bit about quote mining... the evolution was very very ignorant.. that's just one thing i'm quite passionate about.. the homosexual thing is also quite absurd..
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
Although I believe in evolution, Craig was attacking the Darwinian mechanism, not common descent or anything else.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy i was actually going to bring that up... Darwins theory was 150 years ago... leaps and bounds in evolution as u know has happened... so i guess he's um, choosing his wording? wisely and not saying evolution... when the evidence is just to overwhelming he'll have to accept it... i don't think craig has a static mind.... but he's highly sceptical of evolution, yet cosmology which is in its infancy, he gets a hard on for because it supports his kalams 2nd premise...
lukeism2 1 year ago
Murdering Hitler would be ethically justified. Also murdering someone who's attacking you... To protect yourself or your family.
lovingboarding 1 year ago
@lovingboarding
yes, but not just because god says so.
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
arent your clips of Craig not just as much quotemining? At least the second and third one and especially the last one?
KnownNoMore 1 year ago
@KnownNoMore
yes, yes they are.
But I would contend that none of WLC's opponents have ever said anything as awful as "genocide isn't really genocide if God tells you to do it." Because that could potentially justify... well just about every genocide ever propagated on the face of the planet
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67 Why are you so readily admitting to quote-mining when as far as I understand it. It is a method of dishonestly taking quotes or parts of statements out of context in order to misrepresent an opponents position on a matter. This is a dishonest tactic. I don't think that it was you are doing but if you are then you shouldn't be here. If you are not, then don't let such accusations stand.
cobol528 1 year ago
@cobol528
My admitted purpose in this exercise was to find the more ridiculous and offensive things that Dr. Craig has said, I was under the impression that was a 'type' of quotemining. I don't think I misrepresented his views in the slightest. I just showed a side of his views that is rarely seen.
And considering the hopeless love affair that Christian Youtubers seem to have for Dr. Craig, I think it's a good idea to investigate what he says when he thinks he's preaching to the choir.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago 5
@MichaelPayton67 That should have been your initial response then. These people are trying to score points by accusing you of quote-mining. Quote-mining is a well recognized dishonest tactic. It has been perfected by fundamentalist Christians and they would love nothing better than to be able to successfully accuse an opponent of doing this. Never admit to it if that was not your intention. They are trying to conflate "quoting" with "quote-mining" in order to weaken your position.
cobol528 1 year ago
@cobol528 Pretty much every quote from craig except the first one seemed to an an example of quotemining. Trying to twist "I want to experience the resurrected body of Jesus" into something "creepy". The clip from Craig talking about Hati is cut suspiciously short, and the ending clip misrepresents his view by only showing one piece. That would not be an excuse to do immoral acts, although some people may attempt to use that as an excuse. Consequences never make a statement false anyway.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "The clip from Craig talking about Hati is cut suspiciously short..."
Then bring us the rest of that clip and show us what he said that nullifies what it sounded like he said.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@ManicEightBall
I have no idea where that clip came from.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
It would help if he gave a reference. If you want to find the full context, I'll watch it (or read it).
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@cobol528
// taking quotes or parts of statements out of context ... misrepresent //
You correctly said "parts" and "out of context" and "misrepresent"
Any quotation is necessarily a "part" of what was said. However, are you suggesting that WLC preceded/followed those remarks with statements that completely overturned the quoted comments? If not, then those segments are not examples of "quote mining." Instead they are merely quotes. When did quotes become dishonest?
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Not sure what you are asking. I was thinking that Payton was probably quoting not quote-mining.
cobol528 1 year ago
@cobol528
Sorry, I misunderstood you. We are in agreement on the difference.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Cheers!
cobol528 1 year ago
@cobol528 Cobol, I posted the discussion about homosexuality and heroin in full on my channel. I could not have taken it out of context, since it's in context. Check it out there if you think Payton was "dishonest", although I realize he had a different intention than I do.
I'd like to embarrass Craig in his own words :)
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar I don't think Payton was dishonest. Thanks for the info I will check it out. Cheers :)
cobol528 1 year ago
Hi, I really like your vids. :)
Just a question, do you have a link to that debate with Atkins, and did he respond to the other guy's 'Things that Science can't prove'? I've been having a debate with my uncle about almost the exact same thing, and I've been scrounging for a good comeback. :)
Maelwysii 1 year ago
I agree. WLC uses the Holocaust as an example of absolute immorality when arguing for absolute morality but uses "Divine Command" to justify the slaughter of the Amalekites by the Hebrews. Genocide is absolutely immoral or it isn't. Craig can't decide.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
Ouch...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
curse you, now I have to watch your debate with WLC.
justintempler 1 year ago
@justintempler
Please don't, I was not well prepared and what we ended up having can only loosely be described as a debate.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
Hahaha It's so stupidly obvious that WLC picks and chooses very carefully who the greatest philosophers of our time are. I wonder how he would fare if we did a quick rundown of folks at NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Arizona, etc.
anrchyvk 1 year ago
Michael, I agree that Craig is generally off base and I disagree with a lot of the things he has said, however, I don´t think that the new atheist movement can take the intellectual high ground in this debate. It is true that he is not a great thinker, but that can also be said about most of the new atheists on the other side, and based on your Craig debate, that includes you.
solid444 1 year ago
@solid444
Thank you for you lovely comment. Personally, I think truth is a property of statements, not people. I don't think it matters in the slightest who is smarter.
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
I'd prefer not to agree because all people stumble into error and even ultimately absurdity when they persist with arguments aimed at justifying or bolstering their stated position. Craig is only as wrong as everybody else. We should keep arguing until we gain the intellectual upper ground and not resort to dismissing our opponents out of hand simply because they are occasionally unjustified or even dead wrong.
MarkLucasTube 1 year ago
Wow, I knew Craig was off but that comment about homosexuals is just unscrupulous. In a debate with Eddie Tabash, Craig says that God may have had morally sufficient reasons for the holocaust in that it may have helped centralize the Jews back to Jerusalem so we can have the rapture. These types of apologetics show just how twisted Christianity makes people and I look forward to you demolishing his rhetoric.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
@adrenacrumb
The irony is that in other debates Craig has said that Christians can reserve the right to say that Hitler was objectively evil for the holocaust. If God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing the holocaust to happen, wouldn't that mean that Hitler did the morally correct thing by inciting it?
There's a lot of room for subjectivity in Craig's objective morality, it seems.
army103 1 year ago
Yes.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
I assume that was in reference to my question: Wouldn't you agree?
MichaelPayton67 1 year ago
@MichaelPayton67
Maybe more generally just an affirmatin. Good work. Strong work. Better. Strong. Faster. All that.
theowarner 1 year ago
Silly Dr. Craig...
Seriously, he's arguments may seem more articulate ans well-formed than your common theist, however that does not mean that the content is any less different. Although, being more so of the Continental tradition, I'm not sure any amount or argumentation is going to change the minds of people like this. Or those who blindly follow his reasoning without any critical judgment.
Also, your hat is badass as always, Mike.
DaimonTheFallen 1 year ago
Good times. Although I'm no fan of WLC, it's really neat you got to go toe to toe with him!
Vic92084 1 year ago