Contra Craig

Welcome to Contra Craig- a site devoted to dissecting & disemboweling the arguments of Christianity's #1 living apologist:

In Craig's Universe, FACTS are outranked by FAITH, and FAITH by FEELINGS

I welcome all to submit their best arguments and articles or links to such, in this endeavor. All articles must be in English- I can't translate PhD philosophical geek-speak, and neither can 99.99% of Earth's population. There are other sites for those tongue speakers. For articles submitted, please keep cheap shots and ad hominem attacks to a minimum- after all, we don't want to sink to the level of mere Christians, do we? (was that itself an ad hominem attack? If so, sorry.) We want to deal with the arguments; not the man behind the arguments. I have no personal animosity towards Craig; he has always seemed to me "a gentleman and a scholar". This site is not about bashing Craig- it's about his ideas and arguments. And as Craig has made an inconsistent policy to only debate those with PhD's, this web page will probably be as close as I'll ever get to debating him (though I'd blow him out of the water, given the chance). So, please stick with bashing Craig's arguments, not Craig himself. Christian apologists may come and go depending on the latest bedroom or bankroom scandal; arguments last forever (or at least it seems to those of us who've been married before!).

Editorial by Mark Smith

Craig and I have something in common: we both have a background in debates- formal and otherwise. He was on debate teams all the way thru High School and College. Myself, I debated "cultists" (which is what we Church of Christ'ers called just about everyone else) starting from my early 'teens. I remember one living room debate when I was maybe 15 or so wherein I got the Mormon missionaries so flustered via good arguments that they burst into tears and (intellectually) ran for cover to their old standby knee-jerk bleating "I know Joseph is a prophet of God..." routine. They never came back.

I got into formal debate in college, joining Phi Rho Pi and the college debate team (at the time one of the best in the nation, run by Dr. James Marsh at Manatee Community College, Bradenton, Florida), taking second place in Lincoln-Douglas debate in Florida JUCO state finals. After college, I continued debating (as opportunity presented) any Jehovah Witness or Mormon or "cultist" that was foolish enough to take me on. As far as I know, I never lost a debate. I remember one debate in my early 20's I was having with some Jehovah Witnesses at my home. This was back when the Witnesses were ALLOWED to debate others! Now they're all on a short leash, not even allowed to read non-Witness literature, a loss to both Christian and Atheist alike. I got the man to the point of being at a loss for words, having blown out of the water each and every pro-JW argument he had. But rather than offer to quit the JW's as I had expected, he instead pleaded with me along the lines of "But where else would I go? Where would I take my family? Who else besides the Witnesses even comes close to being the True Church? If the Witnesses are not it, I don't know what is."

Since studying myself out of Christianity via my intensive research into The Second Coming, I have continued to debate. I have had dozens of debates via email with Christians, usually ending with the Christians declaring victory while executing a hasty retreat! In general, Christians are not good at sequential structured logical thinking (they have little use for it in church), and are also not used to Atheists who can out-Bible them. And for some reason, they have a hell of a time sticking to a topic- they are what in debating circles we used to refer to as "greasy".

I have had two formal Christian-vs-Atheist debates, before audiences of mostly Christians. One was on January 14, 1995 in San Luis Obispo, California. I debated Rev. Bob Illman on the topic: "Resolved: Jesus Christ was a false prophet, as the time limits on his second coming expired long ago." There were maybe 50 people present. The other debate was against Tom Dervartanian on October 15, 1998 in the Logos Building (next to and owned by Rev. Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel) in Costa Mesa, California. The topic was: "Resolved: Jesus was a false prophet, as he failed to return within the time limits laid down within the New Testament." There were about 300 people present, which includes the maybe 6 non-Christians who showed up! I gave a 45 minute slide presentation, completely documenting my case mostly from the Christian's own books. In the opinion of myself and many others, I won the debate hands down. Having met with Tom just a few days prior, and having laid out before him what I was going to be saying, I was very surprised at his poor performance in the debate. He should have done better. One thing he did was waste about 20 minutes of his opening speech in ad hominem attacks on me. Many in the audience were visibly perplexed, wondering "what the heck does all this have to do with the topic being debated?" My winning is also evidenced by the fact that, before the debate, Tom (who worked for a Christian video company) was excited about selling videos of the debate. After the debate, Tom quickly changed his mind! Tom is a very nice man and I wish him well in life; but at that debate he came unprepared, disorganized, and was possibly victimized by bad advice.

I have also attended several Christian-vs-Atheist debates. One of these was on March 10, 1995 at UCLA between Duane Gish and Michael Shermer on Creationism. I apparently managed to piss off Shermer to quite an extent, as he even wasted his time on the clock in a (failed) attempt to publicly humiliate me for having passed out leaflets, on a public sidewalk, before the debate began. And years later he was STILL having a hissy fit, for in one of his books he trashed me again but not by name! Talk about carrying a grudge! Anyway, it just wasn't my night, for I also got in hot water with my fellow Atheists for daring to point out after the debate that Gish had blown Shermer out of the water. They were telling me that I should be "supporting our side" even if I think "our side" had lost. I'm sorry, but I'm not on anybody's side- I call 'em as I see 'em. I had taken meticulous notes during the debate (a habit from my collegiate debating), and showed people how Shermer had messed up by ignoring Gish's arguments over and over, and going off on stupid tangents. Even Shermer must have noticed he was losing, as he tried to excuse his poor performance by labeling the entire debate a "meta-debate", implying that he was somehow superior to mere mortal debate. Well, meta or no meta, Shermer got his ass kicked in public, though I'm sure none of his boot-licking side kicks would ever be honest enough to tell him to his face. What's even funnier is that Shermer has the audacity to try to pass himself off as some sort of "debate expert". He's written a paper he sells for $5 called "How To Debate A Creationist". (http://www.skeptic.com/b7pb.html) Maybe before trying to teach others how to debate, he should teach himself, lest he gets meta-skewered by Gish again.

I have seen Craig in action several times, both on tape as well as in person. He usually wins his debates. However, he wins his debates usually due not so much to being a great debater (which he is), but rather from debating people who haven't the slightest clue how to debate. He usually goes up against some bumbling university professor, a "Dr. Blowhard", who has been locked in a broom closet for the last 30 years working on the latest scientific concoction. The poor professor has no skill in debating, and even less in public presentation. Craig delivers his "Five Points" boom boom boom cramming in as much material as possible (a standard debating tactic called "dumping" designed to smoother an opponent) and then the professor gets up with a deer-in-the-headlights look and slowly and incoherently starts a rambling speech about who-knows-what (usually ignoring most of Craig's points), and ends in a bumbling rush as he realizes he's only got 60 seconds left to cram in his 30 minutes worth of remaining material. In fact, it's downright funny to see these bozo's sweating, loosing their arrogant composure, as the clock runs down.

Debating is a skill that has to be learned and requires experience to perfect. Dr.Craig is a PROFESSIONAL debater- he has both 8 years of debate experience and training from High School and college, and has probably gotten in dozens upon dozens of debates each and every year since then. He could probably show up for a debate suffering a major hangover, unshaven, unslept in 24 hours, and still kick the other guy's ass. Compare this to who he usually goes up against: some academic recluse schlub who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, having had no training or experience in debating, and to make matters worse, arrogantly underestimating the opposition (Craig) as evidenced by the usual lack of preparation. Time after time after time, Craig blows these people out of the water, and any non-Christians who think otherwise are just being loyal to the party flag. Freethinkers have GOT to get over their naiveté in thinking that all it takes to win a public debate, is being right. Putting up some professor who's had little or no debate experience to debate against Craig is like taking someone who's never even ridden a bicycle before and entering him to race next week one-on-one against the winner of last years Tour De France. It's not really a long shot to predict who's going to win, is it?

In support of my contention above, I ran across the following in one of my web searches. It was written by a professor at the University of Michigan, Dr. Edwin Curley ( http://www-personal.umich.edu/~emcurley/backgrnd.htm ) who had gone up against Craig in a debate on February 5, 1998. Dr. Curley writes

Early in January one of my former students - a Christian, who had taken my introductory course in the philosophy of religion - came by my office to ask if it was true that I was going to engage Dr. Craig in a public debate on the existence of God. When I replied that it was, he asked whether I had any previous debate experience. I said "no." My student had had considerable experience as a debater in high school, and had seen transcripts of some of Dr. Craig's previous debates on the internet. He knew that experience in debating can give the debater who has it a powerful advantage over the inexperienced, and that careful preparation is essential. Out of a desire to see each side make its case as effectively as possible, he provided me with valuable advice about the tactics I was likely to encounter and with information about how to find transcripts of Dr. Craig's previous debates.

Even though Dr. Curley admits to having zero experience in debate, he nevertheless went up against Craig. Would Dr. Curley have done likewise in a boxing competition against Mike Tyson- having maybe never boxed a day in his life? Of course not- he (I hope, at least) would have the common sense to know that boxing is a skill that takes years to learn, plus a whole lot of natural talent to boot. To even pretend that an average man, inexperienced in boxing, has even a snowball's chance in hell of going a few rounds against Mike Tyson (and live to tell about it) is pure utter idiocy. Lunacy. Stupidity. And yet "us Atheists" continue to send sucker after sucker into the ring to face the "Mike Tyson of Theological Debate" and "us Atheists" continue to pretend that 98 lb weaklings stand a chance against Craig. Please! Wake up, fellow Atheists! Get your head out of your ass long enough to be able to see clearly what the hell is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective ass and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it! Hell, we're so dumb we'll continue to send in our Herkels against their Mike Tyson, and expect a miracle. Hey! We're Atheists, remember? We don't believe in miracles!!! (For a full transcript of the debate between Dr. Curley and Dr. Craig, go to http://sitemaker.umich.edu/emcurley/craig-curley_debate )

Only one time out of maybe the dozen or so Craig debates I have seen or read, have I seen Craig clearly lose a debate, and that was when he went against attorney Eddie Tabash on February 8, 1999 in Malibu, California. To toot my own horn here, I was one of the people (Jeff Lowder as well) who helped Eddie prepare arguments for the debate- but it was Eddie's show all the way. At the end, Craig looked like he'd gone ten rounds with Mohammad Ali. The Christian Fundies that attended were sore losers, blaming Craig's loss not on Eddie's skill, but on Craig for not taking it seriously enough (Craig did the debate casually, without his trademark suit). Strangely enough, this debate is ONE debate that seems to be lacking from Craig's website! Eddie had a hard time getting Craig to debate in the first place, due to Craig's stupid self-made rule of not debating anyone who doesn't possess a PhD- I guess given that same rule, not one Christian within the New Testament would be "good enough" to debate Dr. Craig, including Biblegod's son, Jesus. As it turned out, Eddie's experience in the courtroom, and his countless debates in the years prior to this, gave him an advantage that most of the people going against Craig don't have. (To purchase this debate: http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/video/debates.shtml )

Atheists, Agnostics and the Freethinking community will continue to get their butts kicked by Craig unless and until they have the resources and intelligence to sponsor a full-time debater, such as Craig himself is. This debater should be someone with years of solid High School and College debate training and experience behind him. He should also be a former Christian, as it takes one to know one. He also needs to be brought up through the ranks, debating smaller fish for several years, to gain experience, before being set loose on Craig. AND- when the match finally arrives, he needs to be someone who has taken it seriously, prepared for it like a maniac, and has all his arguments and data organized and ready to go. Any academic qualifications take a distant back seat to his skills as a debater. Remember: debating is a SKILL, like plumbing or water skiing. It needs to be learned, practiced, and lived. Having a PhD in some obscure specialty, writing a book, or being good at arguing with one's wife, does not qualify one as a debater. Would you send a PhD, or a plumber in, to fix a leaking toilet? You would send in the person who had the skill to fix it. These geeky inept intellectuals have no business embarrassing the rest of us Freethinkers by trying to pass themselves off as debaters on a stage shared with Craig.

William Lane Craig, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Ill, first pub. 1984 Moody Press, revised edition 1994,

Above is a photograph of page 37 from my copy of Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" (pardon my scribblings in the margins). I have put this page from his book in here to document to everybody some of what Craig believes. To me and many other Atheists and Freethinkers, some of what Craig writes in this book of his, especially pages 36 & 37- it's hard for us to believe that he really believes it. Maybe it was a giant typo, maybe the publisher messed it up, maybe "Satan" snuck a virus into Craig's computer, or maybe Craig got into a fight with his wife the day he wrote it. In short, I wanted to give Dr. Craig the benefit of the doubt, and give him a chance to backtrack on some of this crazy crap. So I went to him in person, to dialog with him face to face about this book of his. Rather than admit he had made a mistake, he cheerfully endorsed his writings, in the presence of several witnesses, with a signed and dated signature (visible above) that states:

I would also like everyone to know that I paid my dues in getting this signature on Wednesday, August 26, 1998. I had to suffer thru an excruciatingly long & boring lecture of his (sorry, Craig!) on "Time" at Calvary Chapel, in Costa Mesa, California, just for the chance of asking him about these pages. And as some have doubted that the above signature is authentic, I'd like to present an email from someone who was there: Cary Cook}

In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity- he'd rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings- yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective reality

of the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy feelings. In short, in order to close his rational mind off entirely from the objective outside world, he would rather practice self-inflicted insanity- i.e. deliberately putting himself out of touch with reality. Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking- Craig is taking a vow of not thinking. I would expect such subjective drivel, and have experienced such, from Mormon missionaries with their "burning in the bosom" crap (see section "Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet?"). Hearing it come from Dr. William Lane Craig saddened me more than anything, proving that "Christianity Causes Brain Death" is more than just a slogan. Having been a Christian for twenty years, I can't help but feel for Craig that somewhere deep down in his heart he knows it's all horseshit and he's just looking for a way to transition out of it (like so many other Christians have already done) without destroying his income and social life.

Is "Reasonable Faith" Reasonable???
	…as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it.¹
	Mark Smith's Comment: The word "minister" means "to serve". So what Craig is saying here is that *as long as* reason serves Christianity, Christians should use it; the implication being that when reason turns *against* Christianity, Christians likewise should turn against reason. And after Christians have rejected using reason, then what? With what will it be replaced with? UN-reason? Insanity? Illogic? Subjective emotional outbursts? The DARK AGES??? Craig's commitment to reason turns out to be very fickle.

	We've already said that it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity's truth. Therefore, the *ONLY* role left for argument and evidence to play is a SUBSIDIARY role.²
	Mark Smith's Comment: His loyalty to hard EVIDENCE comes in second or worse when compared to the loyalty he shows his imaginary friend, the "holy ghost". And even though it seems almost a form of insanity for an adult to admit having imaginary friends, Craig not only admits it, he even puts it in writing for the whole world to see. And Craig doesn't stop there- Craig even admits giving more credence to "Casper The Ghost" than good arguments built upon solid evidence. Let us hope that Craig never sits on a jury, lest he be consulting Casper for a verdict. Craig mentions that reason and evidence are secondary in obtaining the "assurance of Christianity's truth". This "assurance" Craig speaks of is Christian faith, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for." (Heb. 11:1). In other words, *Christian faith does NOT come from reason or evidence. Craig needs to be thanked for being one of the few Christians to admit to what us Atheists have been saying for centuries. Christian faith has little or nothing to do with rational arguments or good evidence, and it's good to see Dr. Craig admitting to this. Craig in effect is openly confessing that he is out of reach of reason, argument, or even evidence when it comes to ANYTHING that shows his Jesus to be a fraud. He may as well gouge out his eyes and puncture his eardrums with ice picks. If "SCIENTISTS" back in the stone age had taken Craig's attitude, "I don't care what* the evidence indicates, I will NEVER change my preconceived notions" we would all still be worshipping thunder and living in caves. Such people have taken themselves out of the realm of reason, have openly surrendered to insanity, and should be exposed for the DIS-respect they have for reason, argument, and evidence. A philosophy such as Craig's, if it caught on, could be a threat to the collective sanity of a nation. Imagine a nation adapting Craig's disdain for "argument and evidence". Their refusal to see reality would soon have reality smacking them upside the head. For Craig, reason, argument, and evidence seem to be just "bait" to fool people into swallowing the Christian hook. Once everyone is hooked, such tools will no longer be needed, and could easily be discarded and outlawed. Once that is accomplished, western man will once again be thrust back into the heydays of Christianity- the Dark Ages, when RELIGION held sway over REASON.

	I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not! ...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.³
	Mark Smith's Comment: Craig is admitting here to something most of us already knew, that is, people become Christians FIRST, then try to find rational reasons for having done so LATER (if at all) to justify that decision. This clearly goes against any and all principles of clear thinking. Imagine inheriting a million dollars, and then handing over every penny of it to some guy who showed up at your door seeking investors for his "anti-gravity machine" company, only because you liked the way he presented himself? You would be called a total idiot by all your friends, yet THIS is the EXACT same behavior that is encouraged by Craig when it comes to religion!!! Craig's whole approach to religion is: Don't think, just DO IT- worry about facts, reason and common sense later- just give your heart to Jesus because IT FEELS GOOD. Do first, think later. Contrast THIS philosophy of "do first, think later" with how most ex-Christians become Atheists: we thought it thru, weighed the evidence, and made a reasonable and logical decision. Atheists think FIRST- we don't just "accept Ath" because it feels good. Listen again to the words penned by Craig, "We can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not". Scary, isn't it? Words such as these usually come from an Islamic Mullah preaching to the Taliban, not from an American scholar. Maybe there's more to Craig having that beard than just style. And what exactly does he mean by saying truth can be known "whether we have rational arguments or not"? By the word "not" he seems to be implying that truth can be discovered just as well thru NON-rational arguments as rational. "The Truth" for Craig, in this context, would mean religious truth, while "Non-rational" is a polite way of saying crazy, irrational, insane and nuts. In other words, insanity can lead to Christianity... You know what? Craig may actually have a point here! Insanity, as shown by countless religionists over the past few decades, oft times is voluntary. The people bring it on themselves. Rev. Jim Jones, Rev. David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite (the comet cult) are just a few. Religionists can have biologically normal brains, but when they consciously make the effort to ignore reality to opt for fantasy instead, they are behaving as an insane person would. A man who has brainwashed himself into accepting fantasy as reality, and reality as fantasy, is a practicing lunatic. However the man gets to the stage of acting insane- be it biological or voluntary, he should be considered insane. If and when he stops acting insane, be it thru taking his medication or, in Craig's case, maybe becoming a good Atheist, then he should be welcomed back into society and no longer be considered insane. But when one advocates that himself and others should live up to and meet the definition of insanity, when one sets up insanity as the goal in life to be obtained, that person should be opposed as a threat to the sanity of the culture. I view Craig as just such a threat. This overshadowing of reality by religious nonsense in a person's brain can result in a severe loss of common sense. One such example comes to mind. On April 30, 1992, a white over-zealous 54 year old street evangelist named Wally Tope was at a Christian college watching the L.A. Riots live on TV. The TV showed blacks and Mexicans burning and looting various businesses (about 10,000 businesses ended up being burned to the ground). As he was watching it unfold on TV, something moved him deep down inside. He asked for volunteers from those also watching the TV to drive down with him to the riots, and "preach the gospel" to these looters. Everyone else had more common sense, so he ended up going by himself. Well, this "white boy" got down there, started his preaching, and two scumbags ended up beating him, chasing him, and then beating him some more. As they closed in for the kill, a magical force field appeared and kept the two thugs at bay so he could continue his preaching- NOT! Rather, the guy got his brains bashed in- literally. I can imagine the "holy spirit" (as much use to him as a lucky rabbit foot) flittering away, laughing it's ass off. He went into a coma and died about two months later- the 55th fatality of the riots. If it weren't for the religious nonsense filling his head, Wally Tope would have had the common sense to stay the hell away. The religious nonsense had the man living in a self-induced Christian fantasy world, and the real world ended up killing him. As my psychology professor in college once said, it's ok to have dream castles in the sky- it's when you move into them that causes the problems. Yet this abandonment of reason is exactly what Craig is preaching: ignore the real world, and instead "use the force, Luke!" Wally Tope had specialized in producing anti-Mormon literature, and I've pasted in a selection from Wally that I thought maybe Craig should read. It appears that maybe Wally, as far out in left field as he was, maybe had at least more common sense than you-know-who. ***************** "But I have a TESTIMONY of the Holy Ghost That ..."** by Wally Tope (Christian Marytr) Many Mormons confidently assert that they know Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, etc. When asked "How do you know it is true ?" the answers may be "Because I've prayed about it and the Holy Ghost has borne witness to me that these things are true," or "Because I have a testimony of the Holy Ghost, a burning in my bosom." If a Latter-day Saint is asked, "Well, how do you know it was the Holy Ghost that testified to you?" the answers usually come down to the fact that he feels it, and that this feeling is really the final "proof of the truth " This idea is promoted in statements such as: But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (Doctrine & Covenants 9:8) Of course, there is also the promise of Moroni 10:4-5. As a rule then, the Mormon who is sincere and zealous is really risking everything, including his hope for eternity on a feeling. But what if the feeling is wrong ? What if that good feeling really didn't come from the Holy Ghost after all ? Then those who have put their trust in it could be wrong enough to miss salvation, [and] to end up in a place of eternal punishment. With so much at stake, isn't there anything more reliable than just feelings to count on? ************** Not according to Craig- after all, the "witness of the holy spirit" is his trump card, which he'll play to beat anything that would disprove his preconceived religious ideas- even objective evidence obtained by a time machine, should one ever be built. Someone who has placed himself so out of touch with reality, to me, seems a bit insane. What is the definition of insanity? According to Merriam-Webster, insanity is a "deranged state of mind... extreme folly or unreasonableness*... something utterly foolish or unreasonable." And deranged is defined as "to disturb the operation or function of". Craig is advocating for Christians to do just that: to disturb the operation of the way nature intended their brain to work- using objective evidence with which to base conclusions on, and instead "follow your feelings, Luke" via the "inner spook". Craig says to ignore the objective evidence if you don't like what the evidence is showing, and instead go with "the holy spirit". This is scary, for when Craig teaches that "we may know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not*" he implies that IR-rational arguments would do just as good- that we don't need to be rational, we can be raving religious lunatics barking at the moon and we'll obtain the truth. In effect, he has transcended reason into the realm of UN-reasonableness and meets the working definition of Insanity.

	Some people... say that reason can at least be used... at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else could we determine which is true, the Bible, the Koran, or the Baghavad-Gita, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them? Now I've already answered that question: the Holy Spirit teaches us directly which teaching is really from God...⁴
	Mark Smith's Comment: And how exactly does "The Holy Spirit" teach us directly which scriptures are from Biblegod? If it's an "inner voice" speaking to us, how do we know the difference between schizophrenia and Craig's friend Casper the "holy spook"? And would we know the difference enough to bet our life on it- for that is what Craig's religion demands- that if someone puts a gun to our head we're to take the bullet for Jesus, rather than deny him. Are we willing to bet our life that this "inner voice" was not just a passing thought, but maybe the thundering voice of the desert storm god Jehovah himself? And how is the seeker, seeing how a seeker is born every minute, to know for sure that if this "inner voice" wasn't just an idle passing thought, wasn't just good old schizophrenia, how's the modern seeker to know for sure these voices in his head aren't the very voice and thoughts of SATAN himself? Please, Dr. Craig, what's a seeker to do? Maybe this is what the seeker should do: The seeker should be sitting in a lotus position on the grass outdoors in a public park, having all the holy books of the world spread out in a magic circle around him, unopened and unread. There's the Book of Mormon with the dude tooting the breakfast horn on the cover, there's a voodoo doll, there's The Bible (King James, of course!), there's his lucky rabbit foot, there's The Koran, there's a shrunken head, there's the Baghavad-Gita, there's a crucifix, there's Science & Health With Key To The Scriptures, there's a rosary. And there, in the middle, sits our seeker, in his magic circle, awaiting for the holy spirit that, as Craig claims, "teaches us directly which teaching is really from God". According to Craig, this seeker doesn't have to even crack the cover on any of these holy books (why bother with reason, remember???), to find out which one (if any) is legit. He doesn't have to spend years learning the original languages to study each in their original tongue. Hell, he doesn't even have to know how to read! For, as Craig claims, "the Holy Spirit teaches us *directly* which teaching is really from God". Specifically HOW Craig's "Holy Spirit" does this is not detailed. Funny, but this lack of details always seems to be a trademark of Christians. They are great at sweeping generalities, but when you try to pin them down to something specific- the "nuts and bolts" if you would, their best social & theological theories tend to evaporate like a snowflake examined in one's palm. Maybe the seeker is to wave a Cherokee holy feather over each book, and wait for a sign. Maybe the seeker is to eat each book, and find out which tastes better (original or extra crispy?). Or maybe the seeker is to wait for that schizophrenic "still small voice" Christians always brag about, to echo within his head a secret message only he can hear, telling him "pick me! pick me!" Or... dare we admit it, that maybe this "seeker" is really just a SUCKER who's been sucked in by yet another religious fantasy? *************** Dear Doctor Craig ... The suspense is killing us! Please don't let us try and guess how your friend Casper teaches people directly- our imagination can get away from us really fast! Instead, Dr. Craig, please define the details, the "nuts and bolts" as to exactly HOW the "Holy Spirit teaches us directly" which book is from him. Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!! Do you advocate that while one is reading scriptures, be they "The Book of Mormon" or "The Bible" that one wait for a "burning in the bosom" to tell him which book, if any, is true or false? You may as well advocate LDS heartburn as the test, for one subjective "test" is as good as another. Or are we to read all the holy books of the world outdoors at the same time, and see which books gets crapped on by passing birds? Is a bird the way Biblegod "teaches us directly" which book is true? And what does the bird shit signify- that Biblegod is pleased, or displeased, with the book it lands on? And how do we know that bird was from Biblegod? It could have been sent by (gasp!) "Satan"!! Oh my! How do we tell a *Satanic* bird from a holy chicken- how are we to know??? Such a paranoid and superstitious universe you poor Christians have built for yourselves. Fact is, you'll never tell us the subjective ("Holy Spirit" = subjective) objective ("teaches us directly" = objective) method you have in mind, CAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA YOURSELF, do you? Your big advice to millions of seekers? "Use the force, Luke". That's it. Thanks alot. But one thing we won't thank you for: You are advocating people give up rational thinking in what for most- picking a religion- could be the most important decision of their lives. Sitting in the park, awaiting a sign Seeker Sam ************* The LDS Connection: Millions of Mormons have already followed the doctrine Craig is advocating here, but picked Mormonism over Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity- what gives? He sure can't argue them out of their religion via arguments, for Craig himself already cut that branch off he was sitting on with "The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not**."³. Craig could therefore throw tons of "rational arguments" at a poor little Mormon girl, even resurrect the ghost of "Dr" Walter Martin to scare her with, and all she's got to do to shut them both down is to quote Craig's own words back at them- "Sorry Dr. Craig and Mr. Martin, but I already know THE TRUTH whether you have rational arguments against MY TRUTH or not." Someone should ask Craig if the words "BLIND LEAP OF FAITH" ring a bell.

	"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of the faith."⁵
	Mark Smith's Comment: In other words, evidence itself (remember the time machine?) is not even a proper basis for faith. In other words, *EVEN IF* the evidence were overwhelmingly against Jesus, even if they dug up his body tomorrow and via DNA testing proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it indeed was Jesus, or even if Jesus himself were to show up dancing naked on top of St. Peter's in Rome to denounce the whole thing as a fraud, *NO MATTER WHAT* evidence ever arose, evidence doesn't matter to Craig: Craig is still going to believe in Jesus. If any other religionist in the world, say a Mormon with two PhD's like Craig, had told Craig that *regardless* of the evidence to the contrary, he'd *always* believe in Joseph, Craig would denounce him, and rightly so, as being closed minded and irrational. That being the case, what does that make Craig?

	"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former [i.e. "Holy Spirit"] which must take precedence over the latter [i.e. "argument & evidence"], not vice versa."²
	Mark Smith's Comment: In other words, his belief in Christianity is not based upon something as shallow as, nor affected by, little things like arguments or *evidence*. His entire life is rather based upon a totally subjective inner experience that, even if EVIDENCE arose that clearly showed the total falsity of his religion, HE WOULD STILL PICK RELIGION OVER REASON. Even if a time machine were invented, and he himself traveled back and witnessed first hand that Jesus was a fake, he would discount what his own eyes see, and opt rather for some mushy, ill-defined inner feeling that he ASSUMES and hopes was some "spirit" from Biblegod. All the best arguments in the world from logic and reason, and all the best objective evidence that archeology may did up, none of this will BY DEFINITION ever be enough to penetrate the force field he's built up around his mind. His mind is totally, completely, and forever locked SHUT worse than any autistic child. He might as well sit in a corner till the day he dies banging his head against the wall while uttering as a mantra that brainless bleat of "God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It". Craig could be the poster child for the educated fool, for what good are his two PhD's when he's undergoing a voluntary lobotomy for Jesus?????

	"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason SUBMITS TO and SERVES the gospel. ONLY the ministerial use of reason can be allowed… Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith."²
	Mark Smith's Comment: In other words, reason is just a handy tool to be used to defend the gospel, but if ever it should go against the gospel, feel free to toss reason in the trash. Given this, why should anyone bother to debate Craig with reasons and evidence, seeing how Craig has already made up his mind in advance to reject ANY reason or evidence that goes against his religion? One may as well do a "Is Not / Is To" kindergarten debate with Craig, for all the good it will do. To Craig, reason takes a backseat to the gospel. If there were ever a valid conflict between "reason" and "gospel" Craig would have faith in the gospel, no matter how unreasonable the faith- and THIS from the author of a book titled "Reasonable Faith"??? Craig wrote "only the ministerial use of reason can be allowed". Allowed by whom? Is reason now something we'll need to get permission from the Christians to even use? Just remember that the same seed that sprouted The Dark Ages and The Inquisition is still being planted today: Christianity. Fundy Christians would be very happy to return to the "good old days" when they were the ones whose permission had to be obtained for reason to be used or heard. Free Speech and Religion have never gotten along. Even in our vaunted "information age" all one has to do is to look at the way America Online has either neutered or driven off most of the Atheistic areas in AOL, even going so far as to put a Baptist minister in charge of one Atheistic area.

Ref's}	1) first paragraph in photo of p. 37 2) p. 36 3) third paragraph in photo of p. 37 4) second paragraph in photo of p. 37 5) p. 34

What Craig has written on page 37 of his book "Reasonable Faith" reeks to high Kolab of Mormon horseshit. It is hard for me to believe that Craig's fellow Fundies have let him stray this far out on his theological leash. I think maybe I'll reel him back in using his fellow Fundies. You see, his Fundy Christians have had a grand old time trashing the Mormons for their subjective way of "proving" the Book of Mormon. But read over some of these Anti-Mormon quotes I pulled off the internet, and substitute "Craig" for Mormon. Hell, I'll just go ahead and do it myself here and there with Green Type like this. You'll soon see that when the Fundies shoot down the Mormons for their subjectivity that William Lane Craig gets caught in the cross fire. And what better place to start than with a quotation... right from Craig's own cyberspace backyard- "Leadership U", where he's in their list of faculty. Craig's own people condemn him when they condemn the Mormons, for Craig is 100% guilty of the very faults of subjectivity the Mormons are condemned for.

*Leadership U: The ~~Mormon~~ William Lane Craig Test for Truthfulness} ~~Mormons~~ Craig often challenge(s) people to pray with sincerity concerning the truthfulness of the ~~Book of Mormon~~ Bible , citing a verse in its closing book:

Many sincere seekers fall for this ploy, being ignorant of the warnings set forth by the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible ever direct the believing Christian to take any religious book and pray about the truthfulness of its contents. ...Why should subjective feelings be suspected? Because we are sinful creatures and can be swayed by our emotions and sinful desires. ...To believe that something is true merely because you feel it to be so or because you are sincere in your belief does not make it true ¹¹. Instead, the Bible warns that feelings can be deceptive and that the sincere truth-seeker must base decisions on more objective means. ...God, he Craig claims, has proved it to ~~him~~ Craig in his heart, so it can't be untrue. ... A "burning in the bosom," no matter how sincere, is no proof of historicity or authority. If evidence goes against the ~~Book of Mormon~~ Bible to prove it false, then to ignore or avoid that evidence is not sincere faith but rather dishonesty and deceitfulness.

Christian Research Institute: Hank Hanegraaff} First, it is important to recognize that ~~Mormons~~ Craig appeal(s) to subjective rather than objective arguments to support their views. To see just a glimpse of the truth in this statement, consider for a moment a typical ~~Mormon~~ Craig testimony that includes the assertion that the Bible ~~Book of Mormon~~ is true. ~~Mormons~~ Craig say they know it is true because they have experienced a "burning in the bosom." Conversely, the Christian faith is _historic_ and _evidential._ As Christians, we know the Bible is divine and not human in origin -- not because of a subjective experience, but through demonstrable fact. (http://iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-nwsl/crn0028a.txt)

Mormonism Research Ministry} A more standard ~~Mormon~~ Craig response is to resort to the subjective. He insists that he knows the ~~Book of Mormon~~ Bible is true because he has the "burning in the bosom." God, so he says, has proved it to him in his heart, so it can't be untrue. He may also claim that to challenge him in this way only makes him stronger in this faith. (http://www.mrm.org/articles/historicity.html)

Christian Research Institute: Latayne C. Scott} If one asks ~~any Latter-day Saint~~ Craig for the primary proof that the ~~Book of Mormon~~ Bible is true, he or she will assuredly point to the promise it gives in Moroni 10:4-5: "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." A physical sensation called a "burning in the bosom" is the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost [Mark Smith's Note To Christian Fundies: This "Holy Ghost inspired knowledge" crap is an EXACT, same, xeroxed copy duplicate of the essence of what CRAIG teaches, and if you, Fundy and/or Geek Intellectual Christian, can't see this, then you're trippin or just friggin BLIND to the faults of your own group. Paraphrasing what Jesus said, why do you Fundies point out the speck of subjective sawdust in a Mormon's eye while ignoring the two-by-four board of subjectivity in Dr. Craig's eye? Why? Because you are BLIND to the faults of your own group, that's why. If Craig had been born a Mormon and had said the EXACT SAME THING you guys would have crucified him in print.] often said to accompany the conviction that a given thing is "true." (Mormonism & The Question of Truth, Statement #DM414, by Latayne C. Scott)

Freethinker Debate Strategy

In light of what Craig admits to here in his own damn book, as well as the thought experiment I put him thru regarding the time machine, why in the hell haven't the debaters going up against Craig in public been beating him relentlessly over the head with his own comments??? Craig is only feigning rationality for the express purpose of deceitfully luring suckers into the Kingdom. There is no need to quibble with Craig over minor petty details such as

when he has already confessed in writing, AND SIGNED HIS JOHN HANCOCK TO, the fact that he just doesn't believe in objective reality. Craig has all but publicly admitted that he's in favor of insanity as a lifechoice, and he's all for detaching oneself from outside reality in order to concentrate on the inner feelings and mysterious voices he apparently hears within his own head. In light of the recent movie "A Beautiful Mind" along with the Andrea Yates* trial in Texas, Craig's unabashed enthusiasm for self-inflicted schizophrenia is rather disgusting. *(Yates drowned her five children because "god told her" to do it.)

These are some comments from Newsweek's cover story on schizophrenia (Newsweek, March 11, 2002, p. 46+). Read them over and see if there's a nickel's worth of difference between Craig's theology and rampant untreated schizophrenia.

Craig's preference for subjective inner voices over objective reality should be the ONLY topic a Freethinker lets Craig debate in public. They should grab onto this with both hands, and speak of nothing else. This man has provided his own rope for us to hang him with- and any debater going up against Craig would have to be a major dumbass not to oblige him. So, given the history of most of the people who HAVE gone up against Craig, don't get your hopes up.

I received the following email from Doug Krueger on September 2, 2002. It appears that Craig's policy of never debating anyone unless they have a PhD may just be a ploy used to filter out people he'd rather not face in public. Read what Doug has to say regarding his experiences with Craig.

Long time no see. I like your antiCraig site, but you have a minor error. You wrote:

Yes, Craig claims to have a policy of only debating those with Ph.D.'s but this is a lie. Here's the scoop:

There have been at least three xian organizations that have tried to arrange a debate between me and Craig. Once it was a xian campus group in Knoxville, another time a xian campus group in Champagne-Urbana, and then a Jesuit priest named Tacelli from Boston College tried without success to get Craig to debate me. Each time Craig declined to debate me on the grounds that I don't yet have my Ph.D.

Now, you and I know that Craig has debated folks without Ph.D.'s in the past. He debated Frank Zindler, who has no Ph.D., and that is perhaps his most widely known debate. When he was turning me down, Craig stated to the xian organizations that in the past he has debated other opponents in addition to Zindler who did not have Ph.D.'s. However, Craig stated, his "must have a Ph.D." policy was a new policy and did not apply to people such as Zindler.

The most recent time of which I am aware that Craig declined to debate me was roughly November of 1999. In January of 2000, Craig debated Ron Barrier of American Atheists. Barrier has no college degrees at all. After Craig had turned me down for the third time, and before the Barrier debate would take place, I contacted Tacelli in Boston and asked him to double-check with Craig about his policy because Craig had just turned me down for a debate engagement because I only have an M.A. and now he was going to debate Barrier who only had a high school diploma. Tacelli apologetically (!) informed me that Craig was going to proceed with the Barrier debate and was still refusing to debate me. I told several people at the Internet Infidels site about this too, and they demanded that Craig either agree to debate me or refuse to debate Barrier, since Craig was being inconsistent about his policy. Craig wouldn't budge, and he claimed that he wasn't aware that Barrier did not have any college degrees when he agreed to that debate. I find that hard to believe. Whenever I was asked whether I would debate Craig, the organizers requested some sort of curriculum vita (resume) listing my credentials and publications. I'm sure the same thing was done with Barrier, and it would be especially likely that such a request was made if Craig really did have a policy of only debating those with Ph.D.'s. Wouldn't he want to make sure that his opponent had one before agreeing to the engagement? Surely Craig was aware that Barrier had no Ph.D., or even a B.A. And in case he didn't, I and the Internet Infidels made him well aware of this. Craig said that his "hands were tied" and didn't seem interested in enforcing his policy.

I am also suspicious of Craig's alleged policy because NONE of the three organizations that were trying to book me to debate Craig were aware of this policy despite having been in contact with him. Furthermore, earlier this year Craig himself initiated negotiations with Jeff Lowder of the Internet Infidels to see about debating Lowder, and Lowder does not have a Ph.D. either. And Craig is well aware of this. So Craig cannot plead ignorance in this case when he contradicts his own policy.

Craig's policy is obviously a sham. Why would Craig decline to debate me? I've debated a Craig clone (more than once) who has been in contact with Craig, and I suspect this is how Craig came to know about me. I performed very well in those debates, and I think Craig suspects that I'd whip him in a debate.

Doubtful? We can ask ourselves, since Craig's "Ph.D. only" policy is not being enforced by Craig himself, it is obviously not the real reason that he will not debate me. But if Craig refuses to debate me, and it is not because of this alleged policy, why wouldn't he give the real reason for refusing to debate me? If the reason is legitimate, he would give it. But the reason he gives is only pretended. Thus, he must want to hide the real reason he won't debate me. The only such reason I can think of is that he's afraid that he'd lose-- big time. If he is not ashamed of the real reason he won't debate me, let him stop hiding behind a fake policy and just tell us why he's ducking me.

Author, _What is Atheism? A Short Introduction_
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998)

This is taken from a Google discussion group, which brought up this site you're on now. The author made some excellent points about Craig's selective use of evidence. (Source: Google Discussion Group )

Apologists use "rational" and "scientific" arguments only when it suits them. When all else fails, they fall back to the nebulous area of the supernatural. Again, there is deception involved because they assume as true what they seek to prove, ie that their spiritual experiences or "revelations" are authentic.

For example, one of the leading Christian apologists, Dr. William Lane Craig blatantly states that "as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it... I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not! ...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not..." ( Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Ill, first pub. 1984 Moody Press, revised edition 1994, p. 36-37)

Mark Smith, an atheist critic of Craig, makes the following comments: "The word "minister" means "to serve". So what Craig is saying here is that as long as reason serves Christianity, Christians should use it; the implication being that when reason turns against Christianity, Christians likewise should turn against reason. And after Christians have rejected using reason, then what? With what will it be replaced with? UN-reason? Insanity? Illogic? Subjective emotional outbursts? The DARK AGES???... For Craig, reason, argument, and evidence seem to be just "bait" to fool people into swallowing the Christian hook. Once everyone is hooked, such tools will no longer be needed, and could easily be discarded and outlawed." (see: Contra Craig by Mark Smith)

As to Craig's advice to the seminary student, Mark Smith remarks: "Craig is admitting here to something most of us already knew, that is, people become Christians FIRST, then try to find rational reasons for having done so LATER (if at all) to justify that decision. This clearly goes against any and all principles of clear thinking. Imagine inheriting a million dollars, and then handing over every penny of it to some guy who showed up at your door seeking investors for his "anti-gravity machine" company, only because you liked the way he presented himself? You would be called a total idiot by all your friends, yet THIS is the EXACT same behavior that is encouraged by Craig when it comes to religion!!! Craig's whole approach to religion is: Don't think, just DO IT- worry about facts, reason and common sense later- just give your heart to Jesus because IT FEELS GOOD. Do first, think later. Contrast THIS philosophy of "do first, think later" with how most ex-Christians become Atheists: we thought it thru, weighed the evidence, and made a reasonable and logical decision. Atheists think FIRST- we don't just "accept Atheism" because it feels good... Listen again to the words penned by Craig, "We can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not". Scary, isn't it? Words such as these usually come from an Islamic Mullah preaching to the Taliban, not from an American scholar..." (ibid)

Craig offers another typical example of why the whole Apologetics business is unethical. In the same book (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 48, 49-50), he argues how apologetics works: "My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself.", and "unbelief is at root a spiritual, not an intellectual, problem. Sometimes an unbeliever will throw up an intellectual smoke screen so that he can avoid personal, existential involvement with the gospel..." (emphasis mine)

To this sort of reasoning, Craig's "nemesis", atheist author Robert M. Price (who quoted the above excerpts from Craig's book) replies: "Craig, then, freely admits his conviction arises from purely subjective factors, in no whit different from the teenage Mormon door-knocker who tells you he knows the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm, swelling feeling in his stomach when he asks God if it's true... let no one who can read doubt from his words just quoted that, first, his enterprise is completely circular, since it is a subjectivity described arbitrarily in terms of Christian belief (Holy Spirit, etc.) that supposedly grounds Christian belief! And, second, Craig admits the circularity of it..."

it is obvious from the same quotes that he admits the arguments are ultimately beside the point. If an "unbeliever" doesn't see the cogency of Craig's brand of New Testament criticism (the same thing exactly as his apologetics), it can only be because he has some guilty secret to hide and doesn't want to repent and let Jesus run his life. If one sincerely seeks God, Craig's arguments will mysteriously start looking pretty good to him, like speaking in tongues as the infallible evidence of the infilling of the divine Spirit..."

"...Craig's frank expression to his fellow would-be apologists/evangelists is revealing, more so no doubt than he intends: he tells you to say to the unbeliever that you find these arguments "really convincing," but how can Craig simply take this for granted unless, as I'm sure he does, he knows he is writing to people for whom the cogency of the arguments is a foregone conclusion since they are arguments in behalf of a position his readers are already committed to as an a priori party line?... His is a position that exalts existential decision above rational deliberation..."

"...I do not mean to make sport of Craig by saying this. No, it is important to see that, so to speak, every one of Craig's scholarly articles on the resurrection implicitly ends with that little decision card for the reader to sign to invite Jesus into his heart as his personal savior. He is not trying to do disinterested historical or exegetical research. He is trying to get folks saved..."

"...His characterization of people who do not accept his apologetical version of the historical Jesus as "unbelievers" who merely cast up smoke screens of insincere cavils functions as a mirror image of his own enterprise. His apparently self-effacing pose, "If my arguments fail to convince, then I must have done a poor job of explaining them" is just a polite way of saying, "You must not have understood me, stupid, or else you'd agree with me." His incredible claim that the same apologetics would sound better coming from somebody else (so why don't you go ahead and believe anyway?) just reveals the whole exercise to be a sham. Craig's apologetic has embraced insincerity as a structural principal. The arguments are offered cynically: "whatever it takes." If they don't work, take your pick between brimstone ("God holds you accountable") and treacle ("God still loves you"). (see: By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus by Robert Price).

On Thursday, *January 22 of 2004, I did web searches for the phrase "William Lane Craig" in all the major search engines of the web. To my surprise, the web page you're currently reading- CONTRA CRAIG- was right up near the top in many of the searches. What that means is that when someone conducts a web search to check out William Lane Craig, up near the top of the list, a link to this here web page your looking at right now will be staring him in the face. For example, on www.alltheweb.com my web page is 7th out of a total of 24,648. So while Craig continues to remain an Atheist regarding the CONTRA CRAIG web page and the problems it raises, everyone else is becoming a believer in my web site, and a heck of a lot of people are getting their information about Craig from this, my "Contra Craig" web site.
*NOTE: Search engine rankings change day to day. This is the way it was for the day in question.

Editorial by Mark Smith

Freethinker Debate Strategy

By This Time He Stinketh

Cosmological Kalamity

A Discussion of the Kalam Argument (1999)

Greg Scorzo

Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story

A Reply to William Lane Craig

Jeffery Jay Lowder

A Treasure Trove of Anti-Craig Stuff

Craig-Curley Debate