What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[Nihilist Virus]

Is WLC the one who invented that "properly basic" garbage?

I think that was Plantinga originally.

Wow I didn't know it was possible for my opinion of Plantinga to actually get worse.

[Cephus]

He thinks he has been touched by the holy spirit rob, so you're spot on. He's also said no amount of evidence will change his mind.

But was he touched inappropriately?  Bad touch!  Bad!

[robvalue]

He must have been, since he clearly can't ever get over it. He thinks it's still happening even now.

I did wonder what the Holy Spirit actually does. Now we know. It lives in WLCs pants.

[athrock]

So, while the clarion calls of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens may have stirred their followers to arms, they were also heard by other watchmen on the walls who have sounded their own alarms. A sleeping giant has been roused from slumber. 

The tide is beginning to turn.

Further evidence:

On February 2, Dr. Brant Pitre will release a new book entitled The Case for Jesus. According to the Amazon.com preview, the questions Dr. Pitre addresses in the book look very relevant to the types of discussions often taking place in this forum:

“This book will prove to be a most effective weapon… against the debunking and skeptical attitudes toward the Gospels that are so prevalent, not only in academe, but also on the street, among young people who, sadly, are leaving the Churches in droves.” – Robert Barron, author of Catholicism
 
For well over a hundred years now, many scholars have questioned the historical truth of the Gospels, claiming that they were originally anonymous. Others have even argued that Jesus of Nazareth did not think he was God and never claimed to be divine.

In The Case for Jesus, Dr. Brant Pitre, the bestselling author of Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, goes back to the sources—the biblical and historical evidence for Christ—in order to answer several key questions, including: 

   • Were the four Gospels really anonymous? 
   • Are the Gospels folklore? Or are they biographies?
   • Were the four Gospels written too late to be reliable?
   • What about the so-called “Lost Gospels,” such as “Q” and the Gospel of Thomas?
   • Did Jesus claim to be God?  
   • Is Jesus divine in all four Gospels? Or only in John?
   • Did Jesus fulfill the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah?
   • Why was Jesus crucified?
   • What is the evidence for the Resurrection? 

 As The Case for Jesus will show, recent discoveries in New Testament scholarship, as well as neglected evidence from ancient manuscripts and the early church fathers, together have the potential to pull the rug out from under a century of skepticism toward the traditional Gospels. Above all, Pitre shows how the divine claims of Jesus of Nazareth can only be understood by putting them in their ancient Jewish context.

It looks like it could be an interesting book.

[athrock]

I hadn't visited this thread in a few days, so I'm just catching up on all the vitriol directed at WLC.

This makes me wonder how many have actually READ any of his books?

Have you robvalue? Crossless1? Esquilax? Anybody?

If not, are you simply relying on what others (critics) are saying about him and his work. Does that make you qualified to criticize? 

You might start here:

[Edwardo Piet]

Everything he says is a load of fallacious disingenuous bullshit. So why would I want to read one of his books?

WLC is a cunt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACrnKD6exY

[Edwardo Piet]

More of WLC being a cunt, this time he misrepresents Dawkins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Izg3VcqW4&hd=1

[athrock]

Everything he says is a load of fallacious disingenuous bullshit. So why would I want to read one of his books?

WLC is a cunt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACrnKD6exY

I watched the video clip you presented.

And now, I offer this in reply:

A few days ago, in a post on faith healing, American Atheists president Dave Silverman wrote: “We must recognize religion as brainwashing. We must recognize the (hyper) religious as mentally damaged.”


He’s not the first to equate religion with mental illness or “mental damage.” Bill Maher has called religion “a neurological disorder.” Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, “it is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.” Facebook groups claiming religion is a “mental disorder” or “mental disease” boast hundreds of members, and a list of “7 reasons why religion is a form of mental illness” has been shared on a number of atheist blogs.

- See more at: http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/201...mCdsZ.dpuf

As you can see from the quote from Harris' book, he does believe that mental illness causes people to be attracted to religion.

And Harris was clearly referring to God as a psychopath in the debate.

Consequently, I don't think that WLC misrepresented Harris' position AT ALL.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I see so much of athrock in WLC that a sock-puppet relation isn't unlikely. Just like WLC, athrock clearly has no intent for any manner of fair, respectful, or open discussion which does not favor his pre-determined position. He ignores everything which people go to pains in explaining here when it doesn't support that position. His repetitive entreties for "interesting intellectual discussion" is therefore ultra-disingenuous. On top of all that, he is unusually smug in his own shit! This makes for the most dishonest and obnoxious breed of troll possible. Therefore, any further discussion with this troll is pointless - even the idea of one hand clapping makes better sense, when it lands on a troll's face!

[Angrboda]

Meh. I don't have any strong opinions about WLC. I think many people don't like him because he is successful at what he does, and what he does is tied to faith. The larger questions about his honesty and sincerity I don't feel equipped to answer.