JCnot4me.com
“Am I therefore become your enemy for telling you the truth?”
The Apostle Paul Galatians 4:16
Email: Mark@JCnot4me.com
Contra Craig
Mark Smith JCnot4me.com
Dedicated To Our Favorite Living Christian Apologist
Dr. William Lane Craig
.
Christian Advocate of Self-
For a good-
THE GROUP IN SUPPORT OF THE RESURRECTION OF WILLIAM LANE CRAIG’S BEARD
—–––––––––––––––—––––––
Introduction
Welcome to Contra Craig-
Dr. William Lane Craig
I welcome all to submit their best arguments and articles or links to such, in this endeavor. All articles must be in English-
-
Editorial by Mark Smith
Craig and I have something in common: we both have a background in debates-
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-
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-
I have had two formal Christian-
I have also attended several Christian-
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-
Debating is a skill that has to be learned and requires experience to perfect. Dr.Craig is a PROFESSIONAL debater-
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-
Early in January one of my former students -
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-
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-
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-
-
Comments on Craig's Book: Reasonable Faith
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
William Lane Craig, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Ill, first pub. 1984 Moody Press, revised edition 1994,
ISBN 0-
Here 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-
"I still agree with what I wrote on page 36 & 37"
X William L. Craig Date: 26Aug98"
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}
-
Subject: Craig
Date: 3/15/2006 8:16:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: carycook@comcast.net
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
I, Cary Cook, testify that I was at a William Lane Craig lecture on or about August 1998 at Calvary Chapel, and that Mark Smith was there. Mark had a book written by Craig, and asked Craig to sign a statement written on one of the pages to the effect that Craig still believed what he had said in the book on that page. Craig signed it in my presence.
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-
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
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-
Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity-
NOTE REGARDING THE ABOVE: Others have since asked Craig about my Time Machine scenario, and gotten pretty much the same answer. See the experiences of Dr. Zachary Moore with Craig in August 2007 in “Why I Became an Atheist (Revised and Expanded Edition)”, John Loftus, 2012, page 191.
**************
.
…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-
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-
"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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
The religious nonsense had the man living in a self-
*******************
"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-
If a Latter-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
***************
Dear Doctor Craig ...
The suspense is killing us! Please don't let us try and guess how your friend Casper teaches people directly-
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-
"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-
"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-
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
Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet... in Mormon Magic Underwear???
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-
*****************
*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:
"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" (Moroni 10:4).
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-
*(Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part of Campus Crusade for Christ, International, and is ALSO the ones who sponsor Craig's very own web page!!!) (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/feeling.html)
*****************
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 -
*****************
Christian Research Institute: Robert Bowman} The Mormon Craig concept of, and approach to, the subject of truth is radically different from that of the Bible in at least nine ways. A Mormon Craig sees truth as... determined by subjective feelings. (http://pages.ripco.net/~mattl/Supporting%20Documents/Mormonism,%20Book%20of%20Mormon%20Explanations.htm)
*****************
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-
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 OBJECTIVE REALITY 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-
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.
Whether it brings the voices of heaven [Mark's Note: recall Craig's comment about "the witness of the Holy Spirit". That is Christian Code for: inner voices.] or of hell, it causes what must surely be the worst affliction a sentient, conscious being can suffer: the inability to tell what is real from what is imaginary. To the person with schizophrenia the voices and visions sound and look as authentic as the announcer on the radio and the furniture in the room.
In paranoid schizophrenia, the patient becomes convinced of beliefs at odds with reality [Mark's Note: Recall Craig's admission regarding the time machine that he'd believe the resurrection rather than the reality his own eyes witnessed], hears voices that aren't there or see images that exist nowhere but in his mind. ...The voices the patients heard were therefore as real to them as the conversations in the hallways they passed through en route to the lab. ...Yates, who has a deeply religious background {Gee! What a shock! Imagine a religious person hearing voices no one else can!] had satanic hallucinations. ...The seeming authenticity of the voices [Mark's Note: recall Craig's comment that when disagreements arise "between the witness of the Holy Spirit... and beliefs based on argument and evidence" that you should toss out evidence in favor of inner voices.] means that people with schizophrenia can be barraged by commands that, they are convinced, come from God or Satan. That inference is not illogical; who else can speak to you, unseen, from inside your mind?
(See also my web site: Voices In Our Head )
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-
Links To Other Anti-
By This Time He Stinketh
The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus (1997)
Dr. Robert M. Price
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html
Cosmological Kalamity
Dan Barker
"Daddy, if God made everything, who made God?" my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. "Good question," I replied. Even a child sees the problem with the traditional cosmological argument…
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
A Discussion of the Kalam Argument (1999)
This paper by Greg Scorzo is a critique of the kalam cosmological argument as defended by William Lane Craig in his books, internet publications, and transcribed debates. This thesis of this paper is that the existence of God cannot be deduced on the basis of the universe having a first cause.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html
Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story
A Reply to William Lane Craig
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Anyone familiar with apologetic arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus knows that a historical empty tomb is crucial to the entire enterprise. Although countless Christians have defended the historicity of the empty tomb, William Lane Craig is widely regarded as its foremost contemporary defender.[1] Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever directly responded to all of Craig's specific arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb story.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
A Treasure Trove of Anti-Craig Stuff
From the beloved Internet Infidels. Includes links to misc. debates.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html
Craig Debates Available via WWW
Craig-Curley Debate
February 1998, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/emcurley/craig-
NOTE: This debate transcript web site has been very well organized by Dr. Curley, making it very easy to follow the arguments and rebuttals.
Is Craig's "I Only Debate PhD's" Just a Ploy???
Therefore...Here are some people past & present whom Dr. Craig would decline to debate:
Dan Barker (on The Resurrection)
Farrell Till (on Does the Old Testament Predict Jesus?)
Douglas Krueger (on Does God Exist?)
Jeff Lowder (on The Empty Tomb)
Mark Smith (on Jesus: False Prophet)
Ayn Rand (on The Existence of God)
Robert G. Ingersol (on The Existence of God)
Joseph Smith (on Mormonism)
Mohammad (on Islam)
And 99.999% of Earth's Population (as "they don't have *PhD's")
*Other Notable People Without PhD's} Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Aristotle, Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, Saul, Nero, Arius, The Emperor Julian, Galileo, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, Madelyn Murray O'Hare, Rev. Billy Graham, Rev. Jim Jones, Satan, Jesus, and even Biblegod.
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.
Mark,
Long time no see. I like your antiCraig site, but you have a minor error. You wrote:
"And as Craig has made a policy to only debate those with PhD's, this web page will be as close as I'll ever get to debating him (though I'd blow him out of the water, given the chance)."
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-
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-
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-
I'd like to hear it.
_________________________________________
Doug Krueger
ThinkNoGod@aol.com
Author, _What is Atheism? A Short Introduction_
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998)
??? Debate ???
William Lane Craig
-
Douglas Krueger
Douglas Krueger ( ThinkNoGod@aol.com ) holds both a B.A. degree, as well as a M.A. degree, in philosophy. Professor Krueger teaches philosophy courses at the Northwest Arkansas Community College and the University of Arkansas, Fort Smith. He's also a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.
Professor Krueger's articles have appeared in American Atheist magazine and on the Secular Web online. His book What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction, is available from Prometheus Books and Amazon.com (see link below). Krueger has defended atheism and secular ethics in numerous debates nationwide. He is also the cofounder of a skeptical organization, the Fayetteville Freethinkers, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he is a regular contributor on public radio and in the local newspaper All About Town.
There won't ever be a debate unless Craig stops running away long enough to actually accept Professor Krueger's longstanding offer. As long as Craig continues to make up bogus excuses, it seems like *Craig's chariots of theological wood are no match for Krueger's chariots of Atheistic iron.
ATTENTION: Could everyone who reads this and is about to attend a Craig event, please help Craig do the right thing, and stop embarrassing his religion? Tell him in the public Q&A to stand up like a man for his gods and face Krueger in public debate.
*Judges 1:19} And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.
Craig Makes Evidence Absolutely Irrelevant
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 )
"Jason Steiner" <jason@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message news:ls02na.9vm.ln@shell.gaydeceiver.com... > Michael Martin <baltezaar2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason Steiner" <jason@gaydeceiver.com> wrote: > > > > > Craig claims that his beliefs are self-
Mark Smith's Two Cents: The author here has hit a crucial nail on its head. The way Craig treats evidence exposes his "scholarship" to be NOT scholarship, but instead just mere propaganda. Craig stacks the deck in his favor before he plays his first card-
OK, after reading your post and posting my initial reply, I did some online searching and found this site (I am sure you are familiar with it): http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm What I found extremely interesting is the Website author's comparison of Craig's statements with Mormonism. While I think Craig would disagree with Smith's take on Craig's statements, there is a lot of what Smith observes and says that I agree with. When talking with friends over the years, and doing the "odd questions" game, whenever the question of using a time machine came up, I have always answered the same: Jerusalem, circa 30 AD. I want to know. I want to see. And, if (and it is a might big IF) I were to observe nothing "for weeks," as Smith says, then I would not be swayed by some inner voice. Resurrection means the body is gone and not stolen, not decomposing. Without getting into a line by line take on Smith's writings, I think I am somewhere between Smith and Craig. I sure don't have the reliance on subjective warm fuzzies that Craig SEEMS to support; but I also don't insist on lab-
*************
The End of Christian Apologetics
by Nikita Ballas
How Christian Apologists "embrace insincerity as a structural principal"
Taken from the (no longer functioning) web site:
http://www.freechristians.com/Nikita_Ballas/Why_Apologetics_is_the_enemy_of_truth_and_of_faith.htm
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
"...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-
Cognitive Dissonance and True-Believer Syndrome
http://www.christianforums.com/t60605&page=1 (link dead)
The amazing continuation of beliefs after they've been overwhelmingly disproved or should have, by all reasonable logic, died off owes its existence to a well-
Human behaviour can become erratic and irrational when beliefs which are bedrock foundations of much of our thinking and worldview come unglued in light of the evidence, at least until equilibrium is restored...
The most famous example of cognitive dissonance regarding end-
Finally, cognitive dissonance is not some obscure, little-
Among the brutally honest ones who make this admission is, fascinatingly enough, noted Christian philosopher
"Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-
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-
Historical Evidence Does Not Matter to Craig
Ex-
http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?s=1dd95ad864bac619716ef3d92a8fca9e&showtopic=860 (Link dead)
I doubt many Christians can think of anything that would show to them Christianity is false and the ones that I have encountered usually conceive of evidence that is so ridiculously unlikely to exist or be discovered (i.e. "If I saw the body of Jesus, dead, that would convince me"). Many times I get the impression that it's almost impossible for them not to believe. An atheist named Mark Smith once talked with William Lane Craig and asked Craig that if he was to be put in a time machine and taken back to the first Easter morning at the tomb and they witnessed the whole morning with nothing happening, if that would be enough to show him that the resurrection didn't happen. According to Smith, Craig replied that he would still believe that the resurrection happened and that some trick had been played on him. When asked why..Craig replied that he had the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' in his life.
In other words..historical evidence doesn't matter to Craig. No amount of historical evidence contrary to Christianity-
Misc. Postings About Contra Craig
from Here and There
Message 18 in thread
From: Jason Steiner (jason@gaydeceiver.com)
Subject: Re: What are You Reading?
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Date: 2002-
Michael Martin <baltezaar2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> OK, after reading your post and posting my initial reply, I did some online
> searching and found this site (I am sure you are familiar with it):
>
> http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm
>
> What I found extremely interesting is the Website author's comparison of
> Craig's statements with Mormonism. While I think Craig would disagree with
> Smith's take on Craig's statements, there is a lot of what Smith observes
> and says that I agree with.
Hahahahaha! That's great! I hadn't seen that site before.
I like the comparison of Craig's theology to paranoid schizophrenia.
> Without getting into a line by line take on Smith's writings, I think I am
> somewhere between Smith and Craig. I sure don't have the reliance on
> subjective warm fuzzies that Craig SEEMS to support; but I also don't insist
> on lab-
> necessary and useful, but not the end-
> believe.
Then what is?
jason
ContraSmith- A Response to my ContraCraig Website
http://www.oocities.org/atheismsucks/contrablondie.htm (dead link)
The above link will take you to an entire website devoted to combating the present website you are visiting! Some Christian fans of Bill Craig have decided to come to his rescue, maybe having seen how Craig himself can't seem to dignify CONTRA CRAIG with a reply. The authors are, as best I can tell, Frank Walton and Corey Washington. Corey lives in the Los Angeles area, and claims to be veteran of Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia AND the Persian Gulf War! They both appear to be big fans of Rush Limburger, as well as those inarticulate prophets Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. They are good fundy right-
They've done some amusing things with my image (how dare they! ha ha ha) and it really was a hoot reading thru the entire LONG website. I enjoyed it, and I think you'd enjoy it too. They have made a few factual errors regarding me and my website Contra Craig, but rather than point them out to you at this time, I'll wait for you to find them yourselves-
You may be asking yourself, why is Mark linking to a site that hopes to prove Mark is full of crap. Good question. I do so so that all may see the weakness of the Christian arguments. I do so so that all may realize that "Hey, if THIS is the best they can come up with to refute what Mark has written, maybe what Mark has written is true after all." You see, REAL truth doesn't need to run and hide from those who disagree with it, nor does it need to censor the opposition. What I have written in Contra Craig is the truth, to the best of my ability, and if anyone can show via evidence and argument where I've gone wrong, have at it! I've changed things in this site before due to what some have pointed out to me, and I can change them again. I'm not married to any of the views here, but you'd better have a damn strong argument to back up your complaints.
Unfortunately, the college students that put up ContraSmith do NOT have any strong arguments, just more philosophical hot air that basically says that if Craig CLAIMS to have had a religious experience, that's all the evidence these college boys need, yessireebob. Mere subjective feelings without facts or evidence are more than enough for these boys to be willing to join a religion and, if need be, die for the same.
These hot-
So whenever religious con artists try to talk you into "seeing" their invisible god, let us ALL instead utter that famous line,
Where's the beef???
As I wrote in another essay of mine, the best evidence FOR a miracle IS a miracle. Stop the hot air, stop the unfounded claims, stop the damn "five good reasons..." and just give us the damn meat! According to the Old Testament, when Biblegod needed to prove he existed, he didn't call forth all the philosophers of the land and have them try to bamboozle people into believing in him. Rather, he sent down fire-