Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:

Craig uses the "plate of spaghetti" tactic. You can't address each noodle in the same amount of time it took to dish out the plate of spaghetti so it creates the illusion that his arguments stand and the atheist didn't do the job. Also most atheists don't try to disprove God like Craig tries to prove God, so that also creates another illusion that Craig has more conviction.

However, when he is confronted with Atheists who do try to disprove God with the same conviction as Craig tries to prove God, Craig falls apart like in his debate with Austin Dacey.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WLC is a very cunning and seasoned debater and is good at what he does. Almost everything he says is a load of crap, and I'm sure he knows this, but his debating skills are so refined he still gets away with it.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 11:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't get what's so great about him. It surprises me that I keep hearing his name.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:34:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:

He is a clown, much like Htchens...a very happy couple Im sure
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:11:11 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
WLC is a very cunning and seasoned debater and is good at what he does. Almost everything he says is a load of crap, and I'm sure he knows this, but his debating skills are so refined he still gets away with it.

The Fool: but that what gets me. I how could he know and still do . And no feel unconfortable about it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:44:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:01:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:

Craig uses the "plate of spaghetti" tactic. You can't address each noodle in the same amount of time it took to dish out the plate of spaghetti so it creates the illusion that his arguments stand and the atheist didn't do the job. Also most atheists don't try to disprove God like Craig tries to prove God, so that also creates another illusion that Craig has more conviction.

However, when he is confronted with Atheists who do try to disprove God with the same conviction as Craig tries to prove God, Craig falls apart like in his debate with Austin Dacey.

That I believe was a feckless assessment of William Lane Craig. He uses the same cumulative arguments nearly EVERY TIME. Anyone who is unprepared to deal with it is a fool.

Austin Dacey lost the debate even worse than Hitchens. The only close debate was with Shelly Kagan and I still give that to Craig as Shelley Kagan did not actually respond to the debate arguments.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:51:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was talkin to my pastor the other day about popular theists - turns out he knows most of them personally.

He said WLC was a brilliant apologist and debater - however his theology was horrible and continues to get worse as the years go on.

Frank Turek i think is pretty BA as well, but he doesn't get as much exposure. Also has horrible theology - I disagree with most evangelicals. The whole "You choose God" things really bothers me.

Hitchens has only got his accent goin for him.
Dude just rambles on and hardly ever addresses his opponents arguments..

Dinesh d'souza tore hitchens a new one a few times as well.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 9:25:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 7:44:27 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/11/2012 9:01:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:

Craig uses the "plate of spaghetti" tactic. You can't address each noodle in the same amount of time it took to dish out the plate of spaghetti so it creates the illusion that his arguments stand and the atheist didn't do the job. Also most atheists don't try to disprove God like Craig tries to prove God, so that also creates another illusion that Craig has more conviction.

However, when he is confronted with Atheists who do try to disprove God with the same conviction as Craig tries to prove God, Craig falls apart like in his debate with Austin Dacey.

That I believe was a feckless assessment of William Lane Craig. He uses the same cumulative arguments nearly EVERY TIME. Anyone who is unprepared to deal with it is a fool.

Austin Dacey lost the debate even worse than Hitchens. The only close debate was with Shelly Kagan and I still give that to Craig as Shelley Kagan did not actually respond to the debate arguments.

"He uses the same cumulative arguments nearly EVERY TIME"

You mean the same fallacies every time?

"Anyone who is unprepared to deal with it is a fool."

I deal with it by laughing at the fact that anyone buys his nonsense, regardless of the clever way he puts it together it's all clearly fallacious.

"Austin Dacey lost the debate even worse than Hitchens."

Hitchens was more entertaining than Craig but I agree that Craig had better arguments for God than Hitchens had against God...However it's clear that Dacey wiped the floor with Craig.

Dacey mentioned all the ways the universe would be given God's properties and Craig with responded with "Man can't understand the mind of God". Dacey mentioned that Craig lost all his foundation if that's the case then it was the end of debate.

Craig can't claim the universe had a cause anymore after saying" man can't understand the mind of God", I mean, man can't understand the mind of God so maybe God created an energy field where universes just pop up uncaused? Craig can no longer claim that the universe was fine tuned for life, I mean, man can't understand the mind of God so maybe God would have created a universe with life and wasn't bound to fine tuning because he was 'all powerful".

Basically it's called the special pleading fallacy. Theists love to claim to know the mind of God (he loves us, wants to judge us when we die, he would create the universe this way ect.) but claim Atheists can't do it to show he doesn't exist.

As Sam Harris would say, "This is what you call playing tennis without the net".
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 10:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 7:39:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: but that what gets me. I how could he know and still do . And no feel unconfortable about it.

I'm sure the monetary benefits of his apologetic career prove to be quite motivational. Personally, I could not do it–lie for money–but I can understand the appeal.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 10:43:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 9:25:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2012 7:44:27 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/11/2012 9:01:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 8:38:26 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What do you all think of Christian apologist William Lane Craig? His debates against prominent atheists (Hitchens, Harris, etc.) can be found on YouTube.

Craig seems unique among leading religious scholars in the manner in which he debates. His speeches could almost be posted on DDO; they are organized cases with contentions, sub-points, and impacts. Craig also "flows" all his debates, calling out dropped points and extended arguments (and using this very lingo). Everyone else he debates maintains a more informal discussion-like format.

Do you think Craig's style makes him more persuasive and/or lends credence to his arguments? As a high school debater, I'm predisposed to say yes, even though I understand that the person who does the better job debating is not necessarily right.

Craig vs Hitchens. where the contrast is very easy to see:

Craig uses the "plate of spaghetti" tactic. You can't address each noodle in the same amount of time it took to dish out the plate of spaghetti so it creates the illusion that his arguments stand and the atheist didn't do the job. Also most atheists don't try to disprove God like Craig tries to prove God, so that also creates another illusion that Craig has more conviction.

However, when he is confronted with Atheists who do try to disprove God with the same conviction as Craig tries to prove God, Craig falls apart like in his debate with Austin Dacey.

That I believe was a feckless assessment of William Lane Craig. He uses the same cumulative arguments nearly EVERY TIME. Anyone who is unprepared to deal with it is a fool.

Austin Dacey lost the debate even worse than Hitchens. The only close debate was with Shelly Kagan and I still give that to Craig as Shelley Kagan did not actually respond to the debate arguments.

"He uses the same cumulative arguments nearly EVERY TIME"

You mean the same fallacies every time?

"Anyone who is unprepared to deal with it is a fool."

I deal with it by laughing at the fact that anyone buys his nonsense, regardless of the clever way he puts it together it's all clearly fallacious.

"Austin Dacey lost the debate even worse than Hitchens."

Hitchens was more entertaining than Craig but I agree that Craig had better arguments for God than Hitchens had against God...However it's clear that Dacey wiped the floor with Craig.

Dacey mentioned all the ways the universe would be given God's properties and Craig with responded with "Man can't understand the mind of God". Dacey mentioned that Craig lost all his foundation if that's the case then it was the end of debate.

Craig can't claim the universe had a cause anymore after saying" man can't understand the mind of God", I mean, man can't understand the mind of God so maybe God created an energy field where universes just pop up uncaused? Craig can no longer claim that the universe was fine tuned for life, I mean, man can't understand the mind of God so maybe God would have created a universe with life and wasn't bound to fine tuning because he was 'all powerful".

Basically it's called the special pleading fallacy. Theists love to claim to know the mind of God (he loves us, wants to judge us when we die, he would create the universe this way ect.) but claim Atheists can't do it to show he doesn't exist.

As Sam Harris would say, "This is what you call playing tennis without the net".

What is the strongest fallacy that you believe Craig uses?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 12:17:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Austin Dacey was the only person to defeat Lane Craig. He presented a well thought out case that had Craig in trouble.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 12:18:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I thought Shelly Kagan might have beat him, or at least adequately answered his questions on secular morality.

I agree that Kagan was the only one who came close. He presented a perfect moral ideal person for secular grounds of objective morality.

Of course he lost in that God is exactly that perfect moral person claimed by Theists, but Kagan presented very well and was prepared for Craig with a secular argument.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 12:17:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Austin Dacey was the only person to defeat Lane Craig. He presented a well thought out case that had Craig in trouble.

This is another place where any atheist that comes close or does a slightly good job at debate is claimed to have won by atheists and even they do not agree.
Strictly by debate rules and objective standards Craig still won.

Via argumentation Dacey did nothing to prove his position, though he was clear in laying out his position.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:30:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:11:11 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
WLC is a very cunning and seasoned debater and is good at what he does. Almost everything he says is a load of crap, and I'm sure he knows this, but his debating skills are so refined he still gets away with it.

While as an atheist I can understand you think all of his arguments are BS (you wouldn't make a very good atheist if you didn't), I don't think he thinks his arguments are BS. That would undermine his life's work, don't you think? I, for one, wouldn't devote my life to debating for something I didn't believe in using arguments I didn't believe in.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:28:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/14/2012 12:17:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Austin Dacey was the only person to defeat Lane Craig. He presented a well thought out case that had Craig in trouble.

This is another place where any atheist that comes close or does a slightly good job at debate is claimed to have won by atheists and even they do not agree.
Strictly by debate rules and objective standards Craig still won.

Via argumentation Dacey did nothing to prove his position, though he was clear in laying out his position.

Admittedly, I have a vague memory of that debate given that I saw it over a year ago.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat