Christian weblinks;

[Achilles]

That's not the same as proof of actual deception--it just means that he doesn't agree with the atheists' assertions that he's presenting a strawman.

Taken from the link that I provided earlier (which I did so that you would not be forced to take my word for it):

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

There is nothing there about disagreeing with a position. There is a great deal about misrepresentation and misleading.

 

The burden of proof is still on you to provide examples where he's being intentionally deceptive, and you haven't even provided a single specific bit of evidence.

Well I can post every single one of Craig's articles and debates or I can just refer you to his website.

 

If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation just as you tell everyone else to.

From Craig's most recent debate:

 

I’m not sure, based on Dr. Ehrman’s writings, whether he still believes in Jesus’ resurrection or not. He never denies it. But he does deny that there can be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He maintains that there cannot be historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Now this is a very bold claim, and so naturally I was interested to see what argument he would offer for its justification. I was stunned to discover that the philosophical argument he gives for this claim is an old argument against the identification of miracles which I had studied during my doctoral research and which is regarded by most philosophers today as demonstrably fallacious.

He goes on to accuse Ehrman of taking the argument from Hume and the proceeds to introduce another author that allegedly refutes Hume's argument. So he set up a straw man (recategorizing Ehrman's argument as Hume's), he produces a cardboard sword (he complete mischaracterizes the arguments made by another author which allegedly refutes Hume's argument...again still not touching Ehrman's) and then brandishes the cardboard sword in a threatening manner in the general vicinity of the strawman (he begins producing unverifiable religious "history" which is not attributed to the author he is allegedly quoting...which is a combination of begging the question fallacy and yet another strawman). He produces several minutes (/pages) of impressive mathematical equations which are all only valid insofar as you are willing to accept the conclusions which he considers foregone, but produces no evidence for any of his argument. All the while, assuming that we'll forget that he's only (erroneously) producing the (unattributed) opinion of one author which he (misleadingly) portrays as representative of "most philosophers", whom doesn't even address Ehrman's argument, but David Hume's!

 

And he does crap like this in every debate Jae. You don't "accidentally" poop all over everything this way. If you would like to counter argue that Craig is simply a phenomenal moron, I'll begrudgingly concede that it might be a supportable alternative hypothesis that bears further investigation, but in the mean time, I'm sticking with "immoral hypocrite".

 

So there is the first "instance of dishonesty" that I came across in the first debate listed in just the debate section alone (and I didn't have to leave the first page/opening remarks to find it).

 

I don't see anything in his speeches where he's trying to lie, and I don't agree that non-acknowledgment of someone's accusation of a strawman is the same as a lie.

Well based on previous conversations and my perception of your reaction to criticism of Dr. Craig, I would venture a guess that you might be a little biased. We all have people that we look up to and we don't necessarily like it when others are critical of our sacred cows, so I understand where you're coming from.

[Arcesious]

Um...are we off-topic again? please guys, this thread is only for Christian weblinks, not debating something. at least that's how it looks liek it was set up.

[Ray Jones]

Arcesious, this is not a Christian forum and even less a board for Christian internet propaganda.

 

If discussion of the provided material, or providing additional material to keep an objective focus on things on this topic is not for disposition, this thread is better to be closed and removed from this forum.

 

 

 

However, I don't think that's what jonathan7 had in mind when creating this thread.

This will basically be a thread to debate any and all areas of Christianity and questions/points people may have.

 

A few suggestions for the thread;

 

Do not presume your position is 100% correct and allow others to disagree with you; If you are going to do the above I request you don't post in this thread...

[Rogue Nine]

please guys, this thread is only for Christian weblinks, not debating something.

This will basically be a thread to debate any and all areas of Christianity and questions/points people may have.

Reading is fundamental, Arcesious.

 

Oh, and please leave the moderating to the moderators. Thanks.

[jonathan7]

The following is extracts between me and Achilles via PM several months ago...

 

 

Heya bro,

 

Sorry to still not of replyed yet in the old thread Ethics and Religion thread, an given that I've taken so long I have ultimatly decided that I will read Dawkins books on 'the God delusuion' and 'A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life: An Ancestor's Tale' before offering replying.

 

God Delusion was good, however some of the later chapters were a little dry (the chapter on memes ate up a lot of my time). You might also want to consider Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It's a follow up to End of Faith, but I think it stands on it's own quite well.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I still consider the bloke ignorant because he so rarely meets with his peers to debate any points and generally doesn't answer any questions that pose him difficulty. My opinions are formed from interviews and book reviews by the Sunday Times, speaking of which for your entertainment;

 

err...ok. I would encourage you to search YouTube for "dawkins" and watch some of the interviews. The only time I've seen him do anything that might resemble "dodging" is when he interviewed Ted Haggard and Haggard spewed blatantly *******ry (here). Here is an example of a lengthy Q&A session that, I feel, is representative of Dawkins (Part 1 is much shorter and might provide some context for this).

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/au...icle1570989.ece

 

You can listen to Dawkins vs Professor Alister McGrath, which you may well find interesting.

 

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out and reply with my thought a little later.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

The other thing of interest for you is at; http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=100 not that I expect to convert you from Atheism, but I think the arguments are relevant for how science and religion are compatible.

 

I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints

Thanks!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I may well check Christian Nation after I've had a look at the other 2.

 

*shrugs* I suggested it as a substitute for the other 2. It makes many of the same arguments and won't take you 6 weeks to get through.

 

Either way, I impressed that you'll be taking the time to read Dawkins. At least you can say you're familiar with the opposing viewpoints which is something most of your contemporaries cannot do.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Dawkins does infuriate me though because he has an arrogance about him that I'm thick because I'm a Christian.

 

I think that you'll find that this is largely a misconception. Based on my experience he is mostly sympathetic with religious people, but no so much with religion itself. Where your point is valid is where it comes to "dyed in the wool faith-heads" (as he calls them). These are people that plug their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to any viewpoint that isn't their own.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Just because I disagree with an Athiest doesn't mean I treat them as if they are stupid. Besides to quote Aristotle; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” So personally I think Dawkins demeans himself for lack of entertaining other pesectives.

 

I've never seen him actually do this, so I'll have to take your word for it. If you have examples, I'd very much like to see them.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Anyways to source something for you; to quote Atheist Philosopher of Science, Michael Ruse; ‘I would like to see Dawkins take Christianity as seriously as he undoubtedly expects Christianity to take Darwinism. I would also like to see him spell out fully the arguments as to the incompatibility of science and religion’.

 

I would like to know what causes Ruse to think that he hasn't. What makes him think that Dawkins "doesn't take Christianity seriously"? Also, Dawkins has repeatedly pointed out how science and religion are incompatible (he even does so in the debate that you provided for me earlier). If he doesn't think that Dawkins has done so, than he hasn't been paying attention.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

He has also said; ‘The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.’ Reguarding the interview I gave you a link to.

 

I'm almost finished with Part 1 and haven't heard Dawkins say anything that should be cause for shame or embarrassment. In contrast, McGrath's arguments have some very big holes in them.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Ultimatly my annoyance with Dawkins is the fact he won't have a debate with this man; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/ who is the lecturer I have given you a link to in the previous message, and a very bright bloke.

 

Hmmm...Any work of his that you would point me to as being representative of his intellect? To be honest, I've only read this article and I found it be intellectually destitute. If this is representative of his ability, then it's probably in his best interest that he not debate Dawkins. My 2 cents.

 

[Achilles]

Jonathan7, if you don't mind, I believe I agreed to having you post the critique (not the length of our exchange). Please do not post any more of my PM until we've had a chance to discuss them. Thanks!

[jonathan7]

Jonathan7, if you don't mind, I believe I agreed to having you post the critique (not the length of our exchange). Please do not post any more of my PM until we've had a chance to discuss them. Thanks!

 

lol, ok

[Jae Onasi]

From Craig's most recent debate:

 

He goes on to accuse Ehrman of taking the argument from Hume and the proceeds to introduce another author that allegedly refutes Hume's argument. So he set up a straw man (recategorizing Ehrman's argument as Hume's), he produces a cardboard sword (he complete mischaracterizes the arguments made by another author which allegedly refutes Hume's argument...again still not touching Ehrman's) and then brandishes the cardboard sword in a threatening manner in the general vicinity of the strawman (he begins producing unverifiable religious "history" which is not attributed to the author he is allegedly quoting...which is a combination of begging the question fallacy and yet another strawman). He produces several minutes (/pages) of impressive mathematical equations which are all only valid insofar as you are willing to accept the conclusions which he considers foregone, but produces no evidence for any of his argument. All the while, assuming that we'll forget that he's only (erroneously) producing the (unattributed) opinion of one author which he (misleadingly) portrays as representative of "most philosophers", whom doesn't even address Ehrman's argument, but David Hume's!

 

I finally had the opportunity to sit down and evaluate the Ehrman-Craig debate transcript.

 

Your evaluation above is of a transcript of Craig's rebuttal, not the opening statement. I expect that in a rebuttal, where one is addressing a number of points brought up by the opponent in a very short time, that there is going to be rapid movement from point to point to point to address the opponent's argument. I also expect decent reasoning but not perfection in a rebuttal--that's such a fluid environment and it's public speaking, not written arguments. There's no way to anticipate 100% what your opponent is going to bring up in the opening statement, so the rebuttal is going to change as the opening statement evolves. Ehrman does the same exact thing in his rebuttal--moving rapidly from point to point to point, except with less proof. All he says is 'Craig's wrong' while providing some vague references to 'some historians'. We are left wondering who these historians are, their qualifications, and what their arguments actually consist of, though that's going off on a bit of a tangent since this is supposed to be about Craig. At least Craig quotes the author and book from which he gets his information on Hume's arguments (not 'unattributed', as you claim)--I'll address the Hume issue in a moment. I expect that Craig would not go into a long drawn out discussion of the entire Hume/Ehrman problem in a rebuttal. The probability equations appear to be accurate, and addressed one specific point that Ehrman brought up in the opening statement about the probability of miracles.

 

Equating Ehrman's argument with Hume and then quoting someone else's refutation of Hume is only a strawman if Ehrman's argument is substantially different from Hume's, and if it is, then I can concede that point. I have read very little of Hume's arguments so I don't know. If they are substantially similar, then I don't take issue with Craig bringing in outside sources to support his points. If Ehrman's and Hume's arguments are very similar, then a refutation of Hume is going to be applicable to Ehrman as well. I don't see any reason why any debater should re-invent the wheel. However, Craig does finally connect all the dots near the end of his rebuttal, so he doesn't leave Ehrman's argument hanging out in the breeze as you contend.

 

I think your characterization of Craig as 'immoral hypocrite' (or worse) based on this rebuttal argument, which by definition is not going to be a complete argument because it is only addressing points of the opponent's opening statement, is unfair. I hope you aren't basing your entire opinion of Craig or other speakers based on this type of evaluation of speeches--you are cheating yourself in that way.

[Achilles]

I finally had the opportunity to sit down and evaluate the Ehrman-Craig debate transcript.

 

Your evaluation above is of a transcript of Craig's rebuttal, not the opening statement.

No, the original comment that he makes (which I quoted above) is in the opening statement. He doesn't clarify what he means until his first rebuttal. That he devoted several pages/minutes to the "untruth" doesn't mean that it made it's first appearance anywhere other than where I said it did.

 

I expect that in a rebuttal, where one is addressing a number of points brought up by the opponent in a very short time, that there is going to be rapid movement from point to point to point to address the opponent's argument.

And this addresses what Craig did how? Craig made opening remarks. Ehrman made opening remarks. Craig had a rebuttal. Ehrman had a rebuttal.

 

Trying to characterize this as Craig reeling from all the arguments presented by Ehrman is a little dishonest.

 

Here is the second paragraph is Ehrman's opening statement (which came after Craig's):

In my opening speech here I will not be dealing directly with the many, many points Bill has already raised. I will instead lay out my own case, which, by the way, is not exactly that case that he said I was going to make, although there are some points of similarity. I’ll lay out my own case, and in my next speech I’ll show why, in my opinion, the position that he has just staked out is so problematic.

 

How much of Craig's first rebuttal does he spend addressing what Ehrman said in his opening statement? Absolutely none that I could see. He spends the entire time arguing the strawman that his introduced in his opening statement (this is the part where he equates Ehrman's argument with one of Hume's works and produces the alternative authors which represents "most moral philosophers" which allegedly refutes Hume's points via Craig's math).

 

I also expect decent reasoning but not perfection in a rebuttal--that's such a fluid environment and it's public speaking, not written arguments. There's no way to anticipate 100% what your opponent is going to bring up in the opening statement, so the rebuttal is going to change as the opening statement evolves.

Good thing that Craig was able to ignore what Ehrman actually said and move into a lengthy powerpoint presentation then, huh? Also, pen and paper for notes are usually permitted in a formal debate, but that's beside the point.

 

Ehrman does the same exact thing in his rebuttal--moving rapidly from point to point to point, except with less proof.

You mean "with less powerpoint presentation filled with mathematical equations that really don't represent much of...well, anything".

 

Quite to the contrary, I feel that Ehrman actually does something that Craig does not: debate!

 

<snip>I’m going to break my response down into four dubious aspects of Bill’s presentation, giving examples instead of trying to be exhaustive to cover the waterfront.

 

First, Bill makes dubious use of modern authorities.

<snip>

Second, Bill makes dubious use of ancient sources.

<snip>

Third, Bill makes dubious claims and assertions.

<snip>

Four, Bill draws dubious inferences from his claims.

Each of these points are followed by a couple of paragraphs of support.

 

All he says is 'Craig's wrong' while providing some vague references to 'some historians'.

Well, Craig is wrong, but I'll investigate the "some historians" part. On which page did you find Ehrman doing this (not to be confused with all the places where Craig does it)?

 

At least Craig quotes the author and book from which he gets his information on Hume's arguments (not 'unattributed', as you claim)

The mathematical "argument" that Craig makes is his, not the author's. Therefore, presenting the argument is though it is the author's would be to falsely attribute it to him.

 

I expect that Craig would not go into a long drawn out discussion of the entire Hume/Ehrman problem in a rebuttal.

Neither would I, knowing his habit of not addressing strawmen arguments that he introduces.

 

The probability equations appear to be accurate

Yes, insofar as you accept all of the conditions that Craig introduces as true. In other words, if you accept his conclusions then you can follow the evidence which supports his conclusions. This is called "circular reasoning".

 

Equating Ehrman's argument with Hume and then quoting someone else's refutation of Hume is only a strawman if Ehrman's argument is substantially different from Hume's, and if it is, then I can concede that point.

It is only not a strawman if Ehrman introduces it, which he does not (Craig does in his opening statement). In fact, Ehrman points out that he has his own argument to make (*gasp*), a statement I quoted above for your convenience.

 

I think your characterization of Craig as 'immoral hypocrite' (or worse) based on this rebuttal argument, which by definition is not going to be a complete argument because it is only addressing points of the opponent's opening statement, is unfair.

I'm sure Craig appreciates the support.

 

I hope you aren't basing your entire opinion of Craig or other speakers based on this type of evaluation of speeches--you are cheating yourself in that way.

Yes, in fact I do base my opinion of people on their actions and their words. Is there another method that I'm not familiar with?

 

PS: Whenever I post something that "requires research", I now know how to get a decent turn-around time on a response: Include a reference to Dr. Craig