Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thoughts?

I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.

However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 8:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i've seen a lot of his debates. when i was about to lose my faith in god, i used to listen to his debates hoping that he would resolve the problem of evil and suffering for me (even though i was a muslim). it didn't work.
the kalaam cosmological argument (his bread and butter it seems) was never overly convincing from me. this is primarily because even our best physicists today (including Vilenkin whom he quotes profusely) are not even close to fully understanding the complexities and paradoxes of the universe and its origins.
he does an awful job defending the resurrection of jesus, and i think his debate with bart ehrman (the one about jesus rising from the dead) was his worst one. He did horribly against sam harris too and never really addressed harris's argument. I am not overly fond of sam harris either though.
Adam Deen and Hamza Tzortzis are two muslim 'apologists' who constantly recycle his arguments and constantly make egregious errors whilst doing so. it's quite comical.
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:23:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.

How so?


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit."

He never says this. He says that his belief in God isn't based on the arguments, but rather based on an internal witness or experience of God. Which I think relieves him of any claims of being biased towards the arguments! In fact he's quite flexible and comfortable in changing his views on the arguments he presents... unlike the atheist who HAS to belief their arguments.

Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments.

It doesn't follow that because one's belief in God is based on an internal something or other than therefore the external arguments used in order to show what one knows internally is not debating, nor does it show that Craig will ever be convinced of his internal something or other being defeated. Foundational beliefs like Craig's aren't indubitable nor are they incorrigible. They can be defeated!

I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

He never sets up a debate, he's always invited by student faculty or by professors and organizations. And what's wrong with evangelism? If a person is truly convicted of the notion that there is salvation from death or even hell, aren't they morally obligated and commanded by God to share the good news of salvation and personal redemption and healing?
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:50:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.

So you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Then may I recommend you stop using it until you DO learn?

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I did not reject a claim or an argument. Your assertion (and arrogance) are woefully unfounded.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:50:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.

So you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Then may I recommend you stop using it until you DO learn?

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I did not reject a claim or an argument. Your assertion (and arrogance) are woefully unfounded.

so you accept Craig's arguments but just think he's dishonest about them.. I feel enlightened.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:53:24 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:50:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.

So you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Then may I recommend you stop using it until you DO learn?

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I did not reject a claim or an argument. Your assertion (and arrogance) are woefully unfounded.

so you accept Craig's arguments but just think he's dishonest about them.. I feel enlightened.

I said nothing about his arguments in my original post, nor thereafter. Nice try, though! It's amazing the lengths some will go rather than say "I was wrong". You still have the opportunity, though.

This thread asked our "thoughts" on William Lane Craig. I provided my thoughts--my thoughts are that he is a dishonest hack. His arguments fail, too, but I wouldn't dismiss them because he's a dishonest hack--that would be fallacious and wrong. I'd dismiss them because they are bad arguments.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:58:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:53:24 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:50:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.

So you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Then may I recommend you stop using it until you DO learn?

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I did not reject a claim or an argument. Your assertion (and arrogance) are woefully unfounded.

so you accept Craig's arguments but just think he's dishonest about them.. I feel enlightened.

I said nothing about his arguments in my original post, nor thereafter. Nice try, though! It's amazing the lengths some will go rather than say "I was wrong". You still have the opportunity, though.

This thread asked our "thoughts" on William Lane Craig. I provided my thoughts--my thoughts are that he is a dishonest hack. His arguments fail, too, but I wouldn't dismiss them because he's a dishonest hack--that would be fallacious and wrong. I'd dismiss them because they are bad arguments.

Someone's been emotionally compromised.
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:00:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:58:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:53:24 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:50:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:36:50 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:33:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:30:10 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:27:30 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:26:07 PM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised..

Or someone has come to a conclusion based on their definition of the words. But if you'd like to ad hominem dismiss the assessment based on an inaccurate assumption, far be it from me to stop you.

Pot's calling the kettle names again.

How, exactly? It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him, particularly when asked--I have dismissed no arguments of his by virtue of my assessment of him as a dishonest hack, in contrast to YOU, who presented your (unjustified) assessment as though 'twere a response to what I said, and therefore implicitly dismissal of my assessment based purely on its being "emotionally compromised".

Surely, you understand what these words mean, otherwise you'd just seem foolish, right?

Lol, "It's not an ad hominem to give my assessment of him" ...this is all too easy.

So you don't know what an ad hominem is.

Then may I recommend you stop using it until you DO learn?

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I did not reject a claim or an argument. Your assertion (and arrogance) are woefully unfounded.

so you accept Craig's arguments but just think he's dishonest about them.. I feel enlightened.

I said nothing about his arguments in my original post, nor thereafter. Nice try, though! It's amazing the lengths some will go rather than say "I was wrong". You still have the opportunity, though.

This thread asked our "thoughts" on William Lane Craig. I provided my thoughts--my thoughts are that he is a dishonest hack. His arguments fail, too, but I wouldn't dismiss them because he's a dishonest hack--that would be fallacious and wrong. I'd dismiss them because they are bad arguments.

Somebody's been emotionally compromised.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:08:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?

You can be the pot and the kettle.

Learn what an ad hominem is before you try to claim anyone's using it.

That, or learn to troll better, if that's what you're doing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:09:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:08:03 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?

You can be the pot and the kettle.

Learn what an ad hominem is before you try to claim anyone's using it.

That, or learn to troll better, if that's what you're doing.

Pots aren't kettles, dishonest hack.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:15:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:09:51 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:08:03 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?

You can be the pot and the kettle.

Learn what an ad hominem is before you try to claim anyone's using it.

That, or learn to troll better, if that's what you're doing.

Pots aren't kettles, dishonest hack.

AAaaaaaaaand we're back to "learn to troll better".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:28:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:15:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:09:51 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:08:03 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?

You can be the pot and the kettle.

Learn what an ad hominem is before you try to claim anyone's using it.

That, or learn to troll better, if that's what you're doing.

Pots aren't kettles, dishonest hack.

AAaaaaaaaand we're back to "learn to troll better".

So you think Craig's a liar for whatever reason not given, you have an internet level education on fallacies, and now you think trolling has some sort of a standard? Man you gotta get out of the interwebs every now and then ya know? :/
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:42:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:28:52 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:15:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:09:51 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:08:03 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:06:14 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
At 11/4/2013 12:02:00 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/3/2013 11:59:45 PM, Bellerophon wrote:

Someone's been emotionally compromised.

Or someone has responded to you in a way you have no actual response for, and so you return back to your ad hominem attempt at dismissal.

Wait can I be the Pot and you the kettle now?

You can be the pot and the kettle.

Learn what an ad hominem is before you try to claim anyone's using it.

That, or learn to troll better, if that's what you're doing.

Pots aren't kettles, dishonest hack.

AAaaaaaaaand we're back to "learn to troll better".

So you think Craig's a liar for whatever reason not given,

And never asked.

you have an internet level education on fallacies,

Oh, please. I'm sorry that you don't like it when it's pointed out to you that you were wrong--did it bother you that you were so wrong that Wikipedia was the source I used since you seemed so profoundly ignorant of the term?

I'm not sure what magical depth you think you're pulling your usage out of--though I have a guess.

and now you think trolling has some sort of a standard? Man you gotta get out of the interwebs every now and then ya know? :/

Trolling has a standard, that of being good at it. You are not. You are getting neither a rise, nor a laugh. You are merely appearing to be a fool and, while that's your prerogative, it's more "sad" than "trolling".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 1:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Really? I've always see him as a slippery tortured soul. Smart people are great at coming up with smart reasons to believe whatever the hell they want. It is difficult to see how he uses the same arguments over and over that have been debunked so many times. Christians have a knack for this tho so I'm undecided if he is lying to others or to himself and others.

Maybe he realized the truth a long time ago and at this point its just a job but I've seen intelligent people talk themselves into all kinds of delusions.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:54:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 12:00:31 AM, Bellerophon wrote:
Somebody's been emotionally compromised.

Are you 5-years old and or just illiterate? Or are you saying that you're emotionally involved with WLC and can't be expected to act like an informed, intellectually competent adult when discussing him?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 8:42:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 1:55:06 AM, 2-D wrote:
At 11/1/2013 12:19:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 11:57:04 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
Thoughts?


I think he's a good debater, but his arguments are flawed - summed up.


However, he openly admitted that he will never stop believing because of "the witness of the Holy Spirit." Therefore, he's not really debating, because he will never be convinced by arguments. I think he uses his "debates" as a disguise for evangelism.

Your thoughts?

I think he's a dishonest hack who embodies everything about discussion that Plato hated about the sophists.

But opinions vary.

Really? I've always see him as a slippery tortured soul. Smart people are great at coming up with smart reasons to believe whatever the hell they want. It is difficult to see how he uses the same arguments over and over that have been debunked so many times. Christians have a knack for this tho so I'm undecided if he is lying to others or to himself and others.

Maybe he realized the truth a long time ago and at this point its just a job but I've seen intelligent people talk themselves into all kinds of delusions.

I believe his faith is honest.

But he has said some things flatly dishonest, things that I don't think can plausibly simply be a twisting of arguments in his own head. And considering his credentials, I consider it to be hackish for him to use some of the most terrible arguments he continues to use. I think, and this supposition is less easily defended than the original assessment, that he is one of those folks who is so convinced of the rightness of his cause, that lying in support of it is justified in his head, because it still helps further the cause.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:43:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The witness of the Holy Spirit, is, indeed, in intrinsic defeater of all defeaters brought against it." - William Lane Craig

What a croc of sh*t.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 10:05:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:47:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


I would be really interested in discussing this, because I think at points in this video Craig has been misrepresented. It may be accidental because clearly the kid in the video is clearly not a bible scholar, and neither am I, but I think Craig's arguments were, like I previously said, misrepresented even on the basic logical level. I'm in class and stuff for about 3 more hours so I won't be able to respond very often until then, but I would be more than willing to defend Craig's point of view if others are willing to discuss the topic.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 10:15:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 10:05:53 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/4/2013 9:47:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


I would be really interested in discussing this, because I think at points in this video Craig has been misrepresented. It may be accidental because clearly the kid in the video is clearly not a bible scholar, and neither am I, but I think Craig's arguments were, like I previously said, misrepresented even on the basic logical level. I'm in class and stuff for about 3 more hours so I won't be able to respond very often until then, but I would be more than willing to defend Craig's point of view if others are willing to discuss the topic.

He quoted the man himself, and played clips of what Dr.Craig was saying himself. He did not misrepresent him. If you think you can defend his outrageous position, then go ahead. I channel the Aliens in the other dimensions who are so smart that they know God doesn't exist. So, it doesn't matter how much evidence you have from Theism, I feel the Atheistic aliens who are so much smarter than us, then your arguments could never hold up. These Aliens are just too smart, and they assure me God does not exist.

Oh.... You want evidence that I channel these aliens? Where is the evidence of this spiritual ghost or w/e croc of made up crap you believe in?