Christian philosopher is ready to debate but finds few challengers

[Stuckinthebush]

I had a student post this on facebook and I found it unbelievable (and said so to him). Of course, it is fox news, but who is this yahoo Lane Craig? I'll have to look him up. He sounds full of himself.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

{snip}

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."

[DavidDvorkin]

1. It's not a matter of debate or clever rhetoric

Debates can be entertaining, and delightful for those on the side that is seen as winning the debate. But the issues involved in this matter are issues of logic and personal need.

[Stuckinthebush]

2. To some theists, bible thumbing is an effective debate strategy

Once the theist gets to the "faith" argument then there is nowhere to go.

I've seen Hitchens and Dawkins "debate" theists before on stage. They were good conversations. I wonder if this Lane Craig guy has a different view of what a debate is.

[darkstar3]

3. It's FN, I would doubt that supposed Harris quote.

[lazarus]

4. he should give me a call

I'll debate anybody, any time, any topic. Heck, I can argue both sides of the topic. It's fun!

[sakabatou]

5. Craig? He's already been defeated by ThisWasATriumph

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?gl=US&hl=hi&client=mv-google&v=veB1uUOv6Vg

[onager]

6. And Lawrence Krauss...

The link below is a good (and detailed) analysis of Krauss' debate with William Lane Craig earlier this year.

Craig is the standard-issue Cretinist blowhard and bully. He likes to pick his venues, preferably in Cretinist-friendly locations, and drive his points home, Mack-truck-like, while ignoring the standard rules for debates.

I saw something interesting when I Googled him and tried to find some of these debates where he has "embarassed the atheists." On pro-Craig sites, I usually did not find a link to the original debate, or even a transcript of it. What I usually found was multiple links to OTHER Cretinists describing the debate and praising Craig.

As for Craig's debating technique:

Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craig
by Lawrence Krauss

...In each and every case the actual syllogism that one ended up with was:

1.Craig either doesn't understand how something could happen, or instead believes that events happened that confirmed his pre-existing belief system.

2.In the absence of understanding physical causes or exploring alternatives, this implies evidence for the existence of God.

3.Therefore there is evidence that God exists.


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php

[Deep13]

7. Debating is not a good way to find the truth. nt