What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[Cephus]

Option 1.

He probably does really believe in his religion, but I think he's well aware of the bogus methods he employs and is in it for the money.

If you want to see WLC utterly destroyed in a different format, at length, here is Steve Shives dissecting one of his books. There are 8 more videos about the same book. I've watched it all, it's awesome. When it comes to analysing religion, I tend to agree with what Steve says almost 100% and he's also given me new ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nll-g8ll...3tJxme23ic

Too bad Steve is such a douchebag when it  comes to everything else he pushes.

[GrandizerII]

Where's the "manipulative disingenuous cunt" option?

Sam Harris kicked his ass in debate. Sam Harris kicks ass just by waking up being Sam Harris though.

It's best with stupid fucking cunt of a bastard William Lane omitted and removed altogether:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8FRqMK8OOY

Bliss. Just Sam.

I think I haz a mancrush on Sam Harris, he is just so damn epic!

I watched the debate in its entirety, all 2 hours, 6 minutes, 54 seconds of it.  Craig's argument basically is that if the Christian god "says that it is good, well, then it's good."  A stunning moment happened near the end of the "show" (to quote the moderator), when one of the ND students claimed to have had a "vision from Jesus" the night before, and Craig dismissed him out-of-hand as a conscious fake.  Today's "conscious fake" is tomorrow's "near visionary," I suppose. The most telling difference between Harris and Craig is that the latter thinks that ISIS is wrong because they are worshiping the "wrong god."  Harris thinks that "they are wrong, period."

An interesting debate; I give the win to Craig on style but the win for substance goes to Harris, clearly.

The only debate I've seen Craig lose on style is this one:

[Edwardo Piet]

"WLC" actually stands for "Weird-Looking Charlatan".

I thought it was "Wanking Like Crazy"?

Nah. But "Bestest Turtle" stands for "Because Extremely Sexy Turtles Easily Shag Turtles. Totally Understandably, Really: Turtles Love Eachother."

[robvalue]

Craig knows that most people are not well versed in logical fallacies. So if he buries them deep and surrounds them with irrelevant, clever sounding words, he knows people who already want his conclusions to be true aren't going to look closely; or even be able to spot the problem if they do.

This reliance on people's inability to see the flaws in his arguments, which he is well aware of, is what makes him such a con man.

If there's anyone out there with any respect for his arguments, please bring a reference to your favourite theistic argument he has made so we can destroy it. I will guarantee it will either be trivial, irrelevant, or will contain one or more fallacies/dishonest techniques.

[Longhorn]

"WLC" actually stands for "Weird-Looking Charlatan".

I thought it was "Wanking Like Crazy"?

Personally I always thought it was Wet Lizard Crap...

[robvalue]

For example: someone linked me once to a massive article he had written.

Once you removed all the completely irrelevant drivel, it reduces to this:

If there is a god, then God can do things gods can do.

Except of course, he didn't even admit to the bolded assumption and just trotted out the conclusion as if the assumption was a given.

[Crossless2.0]

If the likes of WLC and Plantinga represent the cutting edge of Christian intellectuals, they should just go back to holding tent revivals and playing with snakes. That's about all they can handle.

[abaris]

I'm rather amazed that some of you actually watch these debates. In my opinion, they're the equivalent of jerking off in front of a mirror and to collect brownie points with their own followership. But to tell the truth, I hold political debates in the same high regards. They tell you nothing, you didn't already know about the participants.

[robvalue]

I watched quite a few a while ago to see if any good points were being made. I have since given up hope of apologists ever making a good point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Craig knows that most people are not well versed in logical fallacies. So if he buries them deep and surrounds them with irrelevant, clever sounding words, he knows people who already want his conclusions to be true aren't going to look closely; or even be able to spot the problem if they do.

Yup. He's a disingenuous obfuscater.