What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

[ApeNotKillApe]

There wasn't an "abhorrent slave of invisible tyrant" option, so I chose 'Other'.

[The Valkyrie]

A lobotomised monkey has more intellectual integrity than WLC

[ApeNotKillApe]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

He's sincere about his lies.

[Jehanne]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

He believes that Christianity is true, and that it is okay to lie in "its defense."  Look at the modern Catholic hierarchy and their cover-up of the pedophile scandal as an example.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

He's sincere about his lies.

I doubt he'd successful deceive people with his bullshit if he sincerely told people he was lying.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

He believes that Christianity is true, and that it is okay to lie in "its defense."  Look at the modern Catholic hierarchy and their cover-up of the pedophile scandal as an example.

Oh right. Well the way it was phrased confused me, to be a "sincere liar" seemed like a contradiction.

[Pat Mustard]

I chose other, I tend not to think of those who make a conscious decision to deny reality unless the issue is put to me or I'm otherwise obliged to think of them (e.g. a Hitler figure had arisen in a country of a similar stature to Germany)

[robvalue]

I don't understand option 2 in the poll by the way. How can he be "sincere" if he's a "lying manipulator"? By definition that's not sincere.

He believes that Christianity is true, and that it is okay to lie in "its defense."  Look at the modern Catholic hierarchy and their cover-up of the pedophile scandal as an example.

Yeah, this is spot on I think.

I imagine he knows his beliefs are not logically defensible, which is why he employs such dishonest techniques in justifying them and in debates. He probably has a big dose of cognitive dissidence which appears to affect many religious people.

I don't think he's ever going to convince anyone of anything unless they already believed it. All he wants to do is muddy the water, and get paid to pat believers on the back.

[Jehanne]

He believes that Christianity is true, and that it is okay to lie in "its defense."  Look at the modern Catholic hierarchy and their cover-up of the pedophile scandal as an example.

Yeah, this is spot on I think.

I imagine he knows his beliefs are not logically defensible, which is why he employs such dishonest techniques in justifying them and in debates. He probably has a big dose of cognitive dissidence which appears to affect many religious people.

I don't think he's ever going to convince anyone of anything unless they already believed it. All he wants to do is muddy the water, and get paid to pat believers on the back.

I watched Craig's debates with Professor Lawrence Krauss, the latter who is, IMO, "spot on":

http://lifeuniversenothing.org/

I disagree with Krauss; Craig is a charlatan.  He's making money, tons of it.  Besides, if he would ever "come clean," what would he do for a living?  Used car salesman?  No respectable academic institution would ever give him a job.  Another great debate is where Shermer & Krauss square-off against two Christian theists, Dinesh D'Souza and some other guy, a MIT prof, who comes across as a complete buffoon:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates...efutes-god