William Lane Craig
Posted on: March 15, 2007 - 5:11pm
Offline
William Lane Craig
Anyone ever hear of him? I was told he's never lost a debate, blah, blah.
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
Yeah, I've heard of him.
I've never seen him debate though, I'm pretty sure he's just like the other theists we've debated with on the forums.
He's an article about him from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Atheist Books
I've never heard of him, but the suggestion that he's never been defeated in a debate is ridiculous. These two words would defeat him each and every time: Prove it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah I know he's nothing special. I just keep seeing his name and stuff. But thanks.
Here's a video, actually.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/debate_eddie_tabash_vs_william_lane_craig
I actually went to a debate of his when I was in college. I can see why he would make such a claim. His style is similar to the "Gish Gallop" where he just spits out obsurdities which take 10 seconds to claim but 10 minutes to take apart. So at the end of the debate he'll have several issues which never get addressed and he claims victory.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Surely that's cheating? I hate it when people sudenly throw you with a chunk of unrelated nonsense.
Atheist Books
That sounds like some of the theists I've debated, American Atheist knows what I mean.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Atheist Books
Here's their method: make up crap, twist the atheist's words completely, and when they've been defeated post more nonsense in an attempt to get the last word in and then claim they won.
Oh, and I remember hearing that Gregory Bahnsen was "the man atheists fear most" (which seems to be an attempt to scare atheists off - probably because they know his arguments are lacking in logic)
Which is the reason debate isn't the way to go. The other party cannot refute until it's their turn.
Reasonable discussion makes much more sense when trying to actually make a point.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I agree. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with almost any theist, but would refuse an official debate style meeting. Most thesis claims -- especially those of YECs don't have any backing and require much more time to take apart than it does to make the claim.
I forget who it was that made the comparison (I think it was Eugenie Scott) between a debate against creationists and going to a Globetrotters game. People don't really care about the outcome, they go to see their team play. All of the creationists that go now get the idea of "this has to be legit because he's debating a real scientist" then they only listen to the creationists claims but never to the scientists rebuttle. It's a lose-lose situation for scientists and they really shouldn't engage in official debates of this kind.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Actually, it's really not as hard to "debate" such people as it seems to be. All you have to do is throw a whole shitload of bigger questions at them while it's your turn to speak. It's a question-off, not a debate. Never waste time answering questions when you can ask a hundred a minute. Whoever asks the most unanswered questions wins. And since the theist is believing in stuff that doesn't exist, while we believe in things that do exist, they literally don't have a leg to stand on.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I have the feeling you would lose just about the entire audience after the first round of question blurting.
Also, what WLC does is when it's his turn he goes back over all the questions that weren't answered as is like "well you didn't answer that one, so I guess that's ok, and you didn't answer that one so that one's ok" So not only does he just ask a bunch of rediculous questions, he then goes back and points out that they were never answered.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
You can do the same thing. And losing the audience is the goal. They see both sides have equal status in such an absurd contest. Then they'll go see a real debate where the theist gets owned.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah, I'm seeing debates in a bit of a different light. I'm starting to think they're a waste of time (for us).
Discussions work much better. That's the only time I've ever gotten people to really think. Whenever you become somewhat confrontational with people, they tend to get defensive (no way, lol) and just tune out whatever you're saying, whether it's true or not.
Discussions are the way to go.