Converting to Atheism?

[Faith No More]

WLC is a justifier, not a philosopher. But his real skill is convincing people he knows what he's talking about.

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

I agree. I've watched a couple videos of WLC talking, and all he really does is sprinkle a few big words into the same arguments other Christians have been using for a long time.

[LastPoet]

I am sure WLC has some crexibility and a iu tryung to type that to my phone wgyle laughking

[Longhorn]

[LastPoet]

Still, i find no compelling argument to join this atheism shit. I have proof of the twin godesses.

[Simon Moon]

But I do like WLC. I don't think that he can be excoriated here and also let the everyone else get away with their own logical fallacies. I go back to that dialogue he had with Kraus in Brisbane. Kraus used blatant dishonesty and showed his ignorance multiple times. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher or professional debator so I would expect him fault at times. But WLC deserves more credit

Sorry, but WLC is provably intellectually dishonest.

There is no arguing that his brand of debate rhetoric is well done, in that, without looking past the surface, it almost sounds credible. 

He did a debate against physicist, Sean Carroll, where Craig just got his ass handed to him. What's really embarrassing is that he'd even attempt his rubbish understanding of physics in a debate against a Cal Tech physicist. 

There is one point in the debate where Craig uses a quote by Alan Guth in an attempt to support his flawed cosmological argument , and in response by Carroll, he shows a vid of Guth saying pretty much the opposite of what Craig claims he says. 

If I, someone with a basic understanding of logic, can find all the fallacies in Craig's arguments, why should he deserve more credit?

[Esquilax]

He did a debate against physicist, Sean Carroll, where Craig just got his ass handed to him. What's really embarrassing is that he'd even attempt his rubbish understanding of physics in a debate against a Cal Tech physicist. 

There is one point in the debate where Craig uses a quote by Alan Guth in an attempt to support his flawed cosmological argument , and in response by Carroll, he shows a vid of Guth saying pretty much the opposite of what Craig claims he says.

Do you remember what Craig's response was, to that?

"Oh, well, maybe that's just his opinion, or what he wants to be true..." And then he goes right back to the same old argument.

[robvalue]

Will Lie (for) Christianity/Cash.

[Exian]

Whimsical Limestone Crusher

[Longhorn]

Wet Lizard Crap


Or banananana