The manipulative tactics of William Lane Craig.

[Whateverist]

Made it past the 6 minute mark but could go no further. How do people endure any more? It is boring in the extreme. But I accept your thesis that WLC is a windbag sophist who would sell his mother if it would hood wink the faithful or add to their number.

[GrandizerII]

Humiliated according to whom? Those who already see the tricks for what they are?

No, sorry, the only person who ever knew how to humiliate William Lane Craig in a debate/discussion was Shelley Kagan, and that's because Kagan showed expertise in good rhetorics and not just good logic.

And Lawrence Krauss was an embarrassment against WLC.

I doubt that seriously. There is no apologist of any religion that is defending anything factual, they are merely slick snake oil used care salesmen.

Doubt what?

[SteveII]

Humiliated according to whom? Those who already see the tricks for what they are?

No, sorry, the only person who ever knew how to humiliate William Lane Craig in a debate/discussion was Shelley Kagan, and that's because Kagan showed expertise in good rhetorics and not just good logic.

And Lawrence Krauss was an embarrassment against WLC.

Regarding Kagan/WLC --It seems to me that Luke Muehlhauser from Common Sense Atheism had a fair review of the debate and then he concludes:

So who won?
This is definitely one of the best debates between an atheist and William Lane Craig. Listen to it when you can. The speakers are, for once, both competent debaters, and both win points for their side. They also cover many topics I couldn’t cover in this short post. Most importantly, their points are actually relevant to one another. This is a debate between two trained philosophers who know when a point is relevant or not, and they know how to pursue only the relevant points.
I don’t know who won. It was a close debate, and a very good debate. I do have some wishes, though:
I wish Kagan had done even more to attack the coherence of theistic morality.
I wish Kagan had given a better defense of atheistic moral ontology, instead of talking so much about ethical theory and applied ethics.
But I can’t really complain. Like I said, a good debate.
- See more at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1810#st...26NE3.dpuf

[GrandizerII]

Humiliated according to whom? Those who already see the tricks for what they are?

No, sorry, the only person who ever knew how to humiliate William Lane Craig in a debate/discussion was Shelley Kagan, and that's because Kagan showed expertise in good rhetorics and not just good logic.

And Lawrence Krauss was an embarrassment against WLC.

Regarding Kagan/WLC --It seems to me that Luke Muehlhauser from Common Sense Atheism had a fair review of the debate and then he concludes:

So who won?
This is definitely one of the best debates between an atheist and William Lane Craig. Listen to it when you can. The speakers are, for once, both competent debaters, and both win points for their side. They also cover many topics I couldn’t cover in this short post. Most importantly, their points are actually relevant to one another. This is a debate between two trained philosophers who know when a point is relevant or not, and they know how to pursue only the relevant points.
I don’t know who won. It was a close debate, and a very good debate. I do have some wishes, though:
I wish Kagan had done even more to attack the coherence of theistic morality.
I wish Kagan had given a better defense of atheistic moral ontology, instead of talking so much about ethical theory and applied ethics.
But I can’t really complain. Like I said, a good debate.
- See more at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1810#st...26NE3.dpuf

No, it was pretty obvious that Kagan owned WLC in that discussion. Even fans of WLC were disappointed in his performance with Kagan. He was rather unusually timid, very shaky with his response, and didn't appear at all confident.

Perhaps Luke is looking at it from some unique angle. But in terms of rhetoric, confidence, and logic, Kagan clearly dominated.

[abaris]

But I accept your thesis that WLC is a windbag sophist who would sell his mother if it would hood wink the faithful or add to their number.

For that I don't have to watch a single second. But these debates, religious, political or social, are in their majority boring as fuck, with every camp declaring their candidate to be the winner. In this case, as I mentioned, I don't even have a champion, since I consider them both to be dishonest.