A Craig/Loftus Debate?

I’ve challenged my friend and former professor, Dr. William Lane Craig, to debate the merits of Christianity vs Atheism. Below you can see the results of a poll we did here at DC on such a debate:

A Craig/Loftus Debate?
---------------------------------

It’s inevitable 31 (6%)

It won’t happen 85 (18%)

It would be exciting 121 (26%)

It doesn’t interest me 20 (4%)

It would be a tie 13 (2%)

Loftus by a lip 31 (6%)

Craig by a nod 21 (4%)

Loftus by a wide margin 39 (8%)

Craig by a wide margin 82 (17%)

Loftus would get trounced ;-) 106 (22%)

Craig would get trounced ;-) 44 (9%)

--------------------------------------------

I personally like debates. While I don’t think debates settle any issues they can be both entertaining and educational. They can and do advance our understanding.

Dr. Craig has said he won’t debate me but I don’t think this is set in stone. If there is a demand for it I think he will debate me. This is not the only challenge I’ve issued, anyway. Since I personally like to be challenged I have issued several of them. Care to take up one of them?

Over at Evaluating Christianity there is a primer on debating Dr. Craig. There’s not much new in it. Besides, what he wrote is easier said than done during a debate.

On the subject of debates have you seen the wonderful movie The Great Debaters? The setting is the 1930’s when a debate team from a small African American college in Texas debated their way up to Harvard's team, and won! It’s both a moving and an informative story which I recommend very highly.

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

No doubt someone will comment that I should drop it, since Craig said he wouldn't debate me. But if people were so easily dissuaded from pursuing their goals this world would be a different place.

Raytheist said...

Sure, some things are worth pursuing after first blush, but I don't think debating the merits of Christianity vs. Atheism would be a useful exercise. Certainly the proponents on either side would declare a 'victory' for themselves while declaring the opponent "handily trounced".

Can you (or Craig) come up with an angle or point of minutea not already exhausted completely? In the era of the Internet, are debates as useful as they once were?

Keep writing
Ray

Unknown said...

I would like to see you or someone debate Craig and actually point out where he is wrong and stick with that point until he realizes it. Avalos did that somewhat and it was nice to listen too.

Anonymous said...

It's funny that you want to debate all those prominent apologists who don't care who you are or what your case is.

John, how about this:
Debate J.P. Holding on the resurrection. It's the central claim of christianity and he's your arch-critic.
So why not? If he's mocking you, ignore it, tell him to stay on topic, whatever. If you believe he's using rhetoric as his defense, try to line out his arguments and give concise rebuttals. You said you "solved the christianity-puzzle". He called it comedy. So why not settle your beef with him by debating him? He's laughing every time you challenge people to debate (and he notes almost every time that the list of people you would debate doesn't include him).

So come on, do yourself a favor and just do it. Are you afraid to lose something?

Andrew T. said...

John: Thanks for the link, although I'm a bit dismayed that you think there's "not much new in it." I expand on my discussion in a new post.

Incidentally, I'm a big fan of your book, and I think with the kind of preparation I describe on my site much of your argumentation could be adapted for a debate.

Teleprompter said...

I don't know if you should drop it, but this debate will still probably never happen. Knowing the odds against this happening, it's up to you to decide if pursuing what appears to be such a dead end is really worth doing.

Why do you want to do this? How do you think it will help you?

Anonymous said...

Teleprompter, why don't you ask Craig why he debates? Ask him why he wants to do this? Ask him how he thinks it will help him? Then get back to me, okay? Didn't I already say they were entertaining and educational?

If you are my friend then rather than discouraging me (or telling me I should debate others) why don't you call for such a debate? I am in the habit of succeeding when others say I will fail.

I think I can beat him on the topic I suggested. I really do. I think he worries about it too.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

John,

What's up my man? I just want you to know that I did get your book (finally) and you placed a lot of effort into it and much of the information is enlightening as the the overall premises and concepts of some of the authors you refrence etc. so I commend your efforts and work.

BUT, John I don't don't see ONE THING that causes me to question my faith...What I do see is after having reviewed OTHER atheist and skeptic's books as well as yours, is that sometimes you guys only offer your version of the so called facts without raising the opposing arguments and cogently giving the reasons why those arguemnts should be rejected...

NOW ON YOUR BEHALF, I will say that your book did raise opposing arguments in many areas. You tried to give balance of certain subjects and tell why you thought your position was superior, but still, I can see many arguments that even I (CERTAINLY NOT a W.L. CRAIGE) can take you to task on and hold my own if not defeat your premise on...

So I just want you to know, I've taken this OTF that you think is so "earthshaking" and find NOTHING of any consequence oher than additional bible study material to use in our church bible study...I think it's a good thing if for no other reason than that. I've read Ehrman's book and I feel the same way...some of his so called contradictions are only his interpretations and he seems to never have had a grasp of good biblical exegesis anyway...You may not know greek and hebrew and all that but I will say that your biblical interpretations are better than his...

Just thought you might want to know. Also I did a little feature on a question I commonly hear on this site. My feature is called CAT DIED, you can go there and tell me what you think about it...its at http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

I'll talk to you later.

Anonymous said...

Harvey, okay, thanks for reading it. But you should know that merely reading my book is not all that's involved when taking the Debunking Christianity Challenge, and reading it is most emphatically not all one has to do when taking the OTF. I also never said you would definitely lose your faith from taking either challenge anyway, although I think you probably would.

I appreciate our friendly discussions but I frankly wonder at your reading comprehension if you think reading my book is all one needs to do to take these two challenges, or that you will definitely lose your faith if you did. I said nothing of the kind. So when it comes to your thinking and reading skills I have reason to think your so-called objections to my book are no objections at all and could be easily dismissed by me. The same thinking and reading skills are involved, Harvey.

Nontheless, thanks for reading it. I'll bet'cha you learned some things.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Matthew I have never personally heard from Holding himself that he would like to debate me, which is required if he does. Nonetheless, I'm calling for a public debate here but Holding doesn't do them. Plus, I said I'll only debate respectful people. Holding is a completley disrespectful scumbag, so such a debate won't work out no matter what the topic is about.

No more of this please.

eheffa said...

Hi John,

I wish you well in this but I think the debate topic is the wrong issue. Even if Christianity has more benefits to offer the believer than an Atheistic world view has for its adherents, this has nothing to say to the veracity or truth of the particular position.

I think you should debate Craig on the primary question that underlies virtually all of his arguments for the "truth" of the Christian faith:

Are the Gospels reliable history?He clearly thinks so, but it would not take a lot of debate to establish that they are nothing of the sort. The credibility or veracity of the canonical gospels is absolutely fundamental to Christianity & everything else he claims - take that away & he has nothing to stand on. All this hot air around probability equations & such drivel means diddly squat if the Gospel of Mark is nothing more than allegorical Midrash.


Good luck to you in whatever you choose but I think you should go for the weakest most significant chink in his argument.

-evan

openlyatheist said...

This subject of debate has become confusing. John Loftus has an open debate invitation on this blog. Why so few takers?

Meanwhile, Christians pop in and out with declarations that they have Loftus' number. But again, no actual debate, just comments. Will Harvey be so kind as to engage you in online debate, John?

(Hey, where's Eric? I thought he said the OTF couldn't be taken!)

Although, I do think that debating Christians online can be a waste. With whom was it you had the debate on the problem of evil? Woods? That degraded into endless commentaries on commentaries, post-debate. I think debates with Christians are like turds. They're best left where they lie after being made.

I get updates from the Secular Student Alliance on Dan Barker's lecture/debate schedule. Perhaps he can give you some pointers on how to rustle up some contenders.

As for debating Craig, I appreciate your not wanting to beat around the bush. I also second Evan's comment above, and would like to see you elaborate on that particular subject. Still, there are other fish in the sea.

omakase said...

i found this to be a little amusing..

i never saw an atheist blog where the atheist readers and commentators aren't really in support for your cause, your own goal, or life-long achievement.. or whatever it is.

anyways, not intended to pour salt on the wounds, but are you sure William Lane Craig knows who you are? its one thing to say that you studied as a grad student in WL Craig, but to say you majored under him? do you mean you took the equivalent of an undergraduate class with him as the lecturer in a room full of 300+ students?

i've never seen a blog profile that had to mention the comparative equivalent of their knowledge to be at the level of a PhD. I think you would be more at the level of debating someone like James White who has non-accredited PhDs.

i think you're just sort of stroking your ego in the guise of a question.. sorry.

Raytheist said...

omakase wrote:

"i never saw an atheist blog where the atheist readers and commentators aren't really in support for your cause, your own goal, or life-long achievement.. or whatever it is."I can't speak for anyone else, but my earlier comment here shouldn't be construed to suggest I don't support John in what he's doing. I only wish I were as well-studied and able to write.

I only stated that I didn't think this particular debate topic would be a useful exercise. Having almost finished John's book, I have no reason to question his ability to debate Dr. Craig, nor do I doubt that Dr. Craig knows exactly who John Loftus is. :-)

Anonymous said...

Let's see. I challenged Dr. Craig to a specific debate. The poll says many people think I will win that debate. And then a few people show up telling me to debate him on some other topic; or that I should debate someone else. Sheesh. One person asked me about my motives when no one else must do likewise and as if matters at all.

Thanks people.

Like omakase I too found this to be a little amusing...

If you either don't want to see this debate or you think it's a bad idea or something, then step aside. As I said, "I am in the habit of succeeding when others say I will fail." Watch and see.

dvd said...

Who cares about the 'merits', people are more concerned about the truth claims.

John,

Move up the ladder, start getting your debates in. The more you do that, the more Craig might have to debate you.

I read somehwere where someone has devised a strategy in debating Bill. I think, I really think people are taking this stuff far to seriously.

I mean, it is a serious issue, but people should stop focusing on the Man William Lane Craig.

I am surprised with the amount of time his arguments have been talked about to no end on the net, the arguments have been sitting there forever, as he uses them time and time again, I am surprised that he does well at all.

Oddly enough, it isn't the athiests who give Craig the most difficulty, I think it would be some of the theists out there that have offered some of the strongest arguments against him, Wes Morriston would be a good example of that.

Darrin said...

IMO I think you should debate Licona or White; Craig, if he does agree to debate, may end up getting an extra footing from his emotional reluctance. I don't think the man's malicious at all, but there IS a tendency for him to use emotion in his debating style, which is one of my critiques of him.

Anonymous said...

Nope, I going for the top. Don't try to stop me. Be supportive.

T said...

Go for it! I don't care about the debate because I actually find Craig to be obnoxious. To me, WCL is intelligent enough to know better than to spout of the BS he does. I just don't understand how he can believe what he believes.

However, you are an excellent representative of atheism and I can think of no one more suited to offering real challenges to WLC on his level. I would totally be interested in listening to your half of the debate. It's just that I've heard WLC's too many times.

And John... let's be real now... your book AND thousands of visitors to DC a month more than demonstrate you are up to the task! How many people can say they have contributed as much to atheism or engaged more people than you on these issues? Less than 10, probably less than 5.

I agree with you that perhaps WLC might be persuaded... I think you should find a venue to host the debate that is attractive to WLC.

Steven Bently said...

I seriously doubt that District Supt. Harvey Bennet was being totally honest about your book, I imagine he found plenty of evidence in your book to give up his faith, but he didn't find enough evidence to give up his glorious self-indulgent titles.

With all those titles he's like the Pied Piper, for some unknown reason, society tends to put people with titles on pedestals and their demeanor changes when they get around them.

We've all noticed how people respond when they get around politicians and religious leaders.

Most people without some type of glorified title cannot imagine living without a title, just like many of christians, they will say, before I became a christian I was just nothing, but now, I'm an apostle, a disciple, a pastor, a minister, a priest, a preacher, now they can wear a moniker even if it's totally false, they cannot imagine giving up the adulation that christians and politicians so much need.

We also notice that no politician ever wants to give up his political seat, they will fight to the finish and most will die of old age there in their political position, same with christians, most cannot imagine giving up their false titles.

Although jesus supposedly taught against doing alms before men and storing up your treasures in heaven, and not on earth, but most christians that I have ever met are two faced and greedy, you couldn't trust them with a $20 bill and most would tell a thousand lies as to how that $20 got missing.

I'm sure Harvey is a good person over all, but I do not think he's being totally honest with you nor with himself, he's just like all typical christians, they are really not being 100% honest with themselves nor with other people.

That's the reason they have to call out the gimmick word called
(faith) the word faith is the universal get out of a lie word that they use to get them out of a lie. The word (faith) is not a totally an honest word, it's a pseudo word of dishonesty used to deceive and persuade and change a persons perception of an idea or absolute truth.

I'm not going to apologize for saying this, because I know I am right and I do not believe that I am right, I know I am right, there is a huge difference.

Steven Bently said...

Actually, being an atheist is about being honest with yourself and to others.

strangebrew said...

Got to agree with Steven about titles and xians adding mock appendages to their name...

Most Christians love the idea...they either wet themselves ingratiating themselves with someone with a mock title or they make their own up..

Some fundamentalists even go as far as to buy bogus degrees from other bogus Christians pretending their bible club is accredited...
A thousand words on jeebus lovin' and there is a dissertation worthy of bog paper but good enough for intellectual fraud in a theistic degree mill..

Just so the perceived gravitas is added to their hogwash on jeebus they so like to spout...

Dr Dino is a prime example...and look how christian he was...asswipe totalis in fact!

I have no idea about Harvey...not enough data...suffice to mention an apparent lust for jeebussy thangs...and a fear of questioning a belief that is based on make believe...so what is new!

Prob is Christians want to be taken seriously...and the prob with that is believing in mythology is not a good start in the seriously taken league tables...

feeno said...

Bently

One of the knocks Christians get is that they can be a little judgmental.
The main reason the bible teaches against judging others is that no-one but God knows all the facts and what motivates someones actions.
How do you know so much about Harvey?

Also, are you saying that even though Christians are two-faced and greedy, you still liked Jesus' teachings?

You said "I'm not going to apologize for saying this, because I know I am right and I do not believe I am right, I know I am right, and there's a big difference."

That sounds a lot like faith, but of course you also said "...that faith is not a totally honest word..."

Anyways Bently I loved your work on the Jeffersons. Peace Out, feeno

Anonymous said...

Thanks Toby. Your positive encouragement means a lot to me. I'm trying to put some pressure on Craig to debate me. If I can't even get people, skeptics, who read my Blog every day to hope for such an event and call for it, then it won't happen. That's what I'm trying to do. 26% of the voters in the poll above said such a debate would be exciting. Where are they now?

Samphire said...

Craig says that even if he were to be transported back in time and could watch the tomb and see for himself that the resurrection never happened it would still not shake his faith. In which case, what is his faith based upon?

If he were taken back a few months earlier than that non-event and could watch the peripatetic Jesus early one morning squatting in a field to defecate would he see that man as the very God who created the universe? I doubt it.

It is distance which lends the enchantment and not the actuality. So perhaps John is correct to try to debate the utility of Christianity rather than it's historicity since, by his comment, Craig seems to have already admitted that his faith is not based upon the literal truth of the Gospels.

Eternal Critic said...

While I hope you get the chance to debate him at some point, you do show some sign of obsessing about it (fromt he limited window of your life I have). As others have, i would recommend finding some other opponents to debate and hone your skills even more before going up against Craig.

Walter said...

I would love to see a Craig/Loftus debate, mainly for it's entertainment value. It is like watching a Pay-Per view prizefight.

That said, I don't believe oral debates really resolve anything. Each side will still claim victory for it's champion.

Anonymous said...

If I'm obsessing about such a debate it's because I'm tired of Craig beating up on skeptics. He needs a sound trashing and I believe I'm the guy to do it.

Anonymous said...

I've been in debates before. I do very well. I don't think I've ever lost a debate. I know what I'm doing. I've silenced teachers and whole classes before. It began in 8th grade when I argued against something my math teacher was teaching us. I defended what I was saying against every student in that class including the teacher himself. And I won!

As I said, "I am in the habit of succeeding when others say I will fail." And I have a great deal of confidence in what I do.

Wintery Knight Blog said...

I just posted a summary of the debate on morality on atheism between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan. The debate occured in February of 2009 at Combia University. Audio and video are available. My blog does not allow vulgar comments, so try to be nice if you want to comment.

If you want to do a separate post linking to the summary and such, that would be much appreciated. This was a superior debate.

Theological Discourse said...

Let's see. I challenged Dr. Craig to a specific debate. The poll says many people think I will win that debate. And then a few people show up telling me to debate him on some other topic; or that I should debate someone else. Sheesh. One person asked me about my motives when no one else must do likewise and as if matters at all.
yes, of course, the poll on your blog(which is of course free of biased and objective) really reflects reality *rolls eyes* john if you couldn't beat david wood regarding the problem of evil I really doubt you would do much better than hitchens debating WLC.

dvd said...

Samphire

You said:
"Craig says that even if he were to be transported back in time and could watch the tomb and see for himself that the resurrection never happened it would still not shake his faith. In which case, what is his faith based upon?"

--Can you show me that quote?

Anonymous said...

Theological Discourse so you predict I'll lose against Craig just as Hitchens did? Okay. But wasn't it me who predicted Hitchens would lose to Craig? I predict no such thing if he debated me. I've so noted your prediction.

So, I lost my debate against Wood? That's news to me!

Theological Discourse said...

Theological Discourse so you predict I'll lose against Craig just as Hitchens did? Okay. But wasn't it me who predicted Hitchens would lose to Craig? I predict no such thing if he debated me. I've so noted your prediction.
your prediction of Hitchens losing to Craig in no way whatsoever makes your chances of winning any greater, you will win or lose the debate based upon your skill(or lack of) as a debater, not upon predictions of other debates(whether those predictions are accurate or not makes little difference) and judging your skill as a debater which I have seen in the woods debate, you will most definitely lose, now you could've improved since then, that is a possibility, but I haven't seen anything to indicate you have.

Anonymous said...

TD, you said that I wouldn't do much better than Hitchens did in his debate against Craig, so I'm assessing your objectivity compared to mine. Since I predicted Hitchens would lose and was proved right it means I can be objective about debates, since most skeptics thought Hitchens would win.

Where's the evidence you can be objective about debates? Do you want to state why you think Wood won our debate rather than merely assert that he did? Give specifics. Let's hear them. This outta be good.

No, no, no. On second thought don't bother. Just drop it. I don't care. I really don't.

Anonymous said...

Hi John

I would very much like to see this debate happen, and I agree with you when you say:

(1) these debates are educational
(2) these debates are entertaining
(3) these debates don't prove much (if anything) about the truth or falsity of the positions presented

However, given these three areas of agreement, I'm curious about your motivation (I think Craig's motivation is obvious -- he's expressed it many times: he aims to show people that belief in god in general, and Christianity in particular, is a rational position). If you win the debate, it won't, given (3), lend any strength to your position, and if you lose the debate, it won't, again given (3), entail that your position is somehow weaker than it previously was. This leaves us with (1) and (2). Listening to you talk about the debate, however, it doesn't seem to me as if (1) or (2) are motivating you much, either. For example, you wrote:

"If I'm obsessing about such a debate it's because I'm tired of Craig beating up on skeptics. He needs a sound trashing and I believe I'm the guy to do it."

This at least implies that you don't think (3) is true. So, I'm confused a bit about your position with respect to (3). (Of course, you may think that Craig's wins don't say anything about the truth of his position, but that others perceive them as doing so, so you want to redress this, and hence can both accept (3) and consistently make statements like the one I quoted above; however, I won't put words in your mouth...I'm just thinking aloud here, as it were!)
But there's more to this, obviously. Do you see it as a way to promote your book (and I'm not in any sense suggesting that there's something wrong with this -- in fact, the more your book is promoted, purchased *and read* the happier I am, since I think it's a fine book), or is it more of a personal challenge, both to make the debate happen and to test yourself, as it were, against the best debater out there?

Theological Discourse said...

TD, you said that I wouldn't do much better than Hitchens did in his debate against Craig, so I'm assessing your objectivity compared to mine. Since I predicted Hitchens would lose and was proved right it means I can be objective about debates, since most skeptics thought Hitchens would win.
Loftus, I said very clearly "you will win or lose the debate based upon your skill(or lack of) as a debater, not upon predictions of other debates(whether those predictions are accurate or not makes little difference your ability to predict the outcome of a debate differently than 'most' skeptics does not increase your chances of winning anymore than my ability to predict the roy jones jr fight differently than most roy jones fans does not increase my chances of beating him in a fight.

you win or lose based upon the skill of being a debater, it is about that simple, as far as the woods debate goes, "giving us free will is like giving a child a razor blade" is outstandingly incorrect and a terrible analogy, since lots of good has come out of the use of free will, where little to nothing good can come out of a toddler using a razor blade, this shows your use of analogies is quite poor, that is just one example, as your animal suffering argument and saying "free will is already limited" is also odd since I have never heard anyone claim freewill is limitless.

In any case I do not have the space or time to point out all of your errors, I give you a nod of respect that you want to go after the head honcho as far as Christian apologists go, but you do not possess the skill to beat him at all, this of course is one Christians opinion but judging from the responses to your blog, it is more constructive and honest than the ones from your cheerleaders, quick note Loftus, running an echo chamber blog will not help you at all, it will hinder you.

dvd said...

John

I don't understand something. If debates don't "prove" anything, but they can help us to learn and so forth, then why consider William Lane Craig the number #1 apologist?

Perhaps he is the best Christian debater, might maybe not the best apologist?

I am not saying that, but just that it seems people are saying debates prove nothing, yet it looks like it proved William Lane Craig to be the #1 apologist.

Anonymous said...

Eric, why the hell does everyone still want to know my motivations when I've already expressed them here? Ask Craig to explain all of his motivations. Do debates promote his books? Why not ask Hitchens? Or anyone else who debates him or who debates anyone for that matter? They are entertaining and educational for the debaters as well. What else do you people want from me?

Would you please tell me your motivations for anything you write here, such as the last comment of yours? I think I'll ask that of you from now on. Who really cares? Who really knows?

Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

So let's see if I understand this correctly, and I'm a bit pissed. Would someone please explain why I must explain in some detail in a public forum why I want to do something? I HAVE ALREADY SAID WHY! AND would someone say why it even matters if debates are entertaining and educational. What more do you people want? The ONLY question is whether you'd like to see the debate or not. If you think I'd lose like TD does, then why wouldn't you want to see me eat my words?

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Theological Discourse said...

So let's see if I understand this correctly, and I'm a bit pissed. Would someone please explain why I must explain in some detail in a public forum why I want to do something? I HAVE ALREADY SAID WHY! AND would someone say why it even matters if debates are entertaining and educational. What more do you people want? The ONLY question is whether you'd like to see the debate or not. If you think I'd lose like TD does, then why wouldn't you want to see me eat my words?
as much as my pride would like to see you eat your words, I know ultimately it is just my pride talking, I do not want to see you eat your words Loftus, you remind me of the boxer that wanted to prove he wasn't scared, he fought his way all the way to the top and even beat the heavyweight champ, only to realize that he was still scared, still terrified, lets say hypothetically you beat craig, but what did you accomplish? the validity of Christianity is independent of WLC's opinions of it, Christianity is not debunked if you beat WLC, it isn't even a LITTLE bit debunked, not a shred, I sense you're at a fork in the road Loftus, you'll either turn your back on God for the rest of your life or take the road to be reunited with Him, I pray you pick the latter.

Anonymous said...

"Eric, why the hell does everyone still want to know my motivations when I've already expressed them here?"

Whoah, John! I didn't mean to offend you -- heck, I went out of my way to make it clear I wasn't offending you! I asked about your motivation because you've made some prima facie inconsistent remarks, such as (1) debates don't prove anything, (2) I'd like to debate Craig primarily because I'm tired of seeing him kick the butts of skeptics ("If I'm obsessing about such a debate it's because I'm tired of Craig beating up on skeptics"). Surely, you'd admit that there's at least an apparent inconsistency there. Imagine if I said that while boxing is fun to watch, and while it has much to teach us about virtues like courage, discipline, etc., the outcome of a match shows nothing at all, and then went on to say I want to box so-and-so because he's beating everybody. Surely, you would ask me, 'But if the outcome doesn't matter, why care if he's beating everyone?' right? I know debates are educational and interesting, and I've said I would love to see you and Craig debate. You've only piqued my curiosity because of the apparent inconsistency of remarks like the ones I just paraphrased. (As I said, these remarks can be consistently made, but it would require more than 'debates are fun and educational' to make it work; hence my curiosity.)

"Ask Craig to explain all of his motivations. Do debates promote his books?"

Of course he does. Craig has said that his intention is to show that theism is rational, and he seems to think that debates are one way of going about it. His intentions are clear and consistent.

"Why not ask Hitchens? Or anyone else who debates him or who debates anyone for that matter?"

If they made remarks that made me wonder about why they debated, I would want to ask them too; however, it's you who are pushing for a 'Craig/Loftus' matchup, and who are saying (apparently!) different things about why you want one, and what you think it would accomplish.

"They are entertaining and educational for the debaters as well."

Now that's a good point I hadn't heard you make before (I'm not saying you haven't made it; I'm just saying I didn't read it). But do you honestly think that you'll learn anything aside from debate technique from Craig? That is, do you think you'll learn something new about Christianity or theism in general if you debate him?

"What else do you people want from me?"

You don't have to take it so personally! An "I've already answered that 'here'" would've done nicely! :)

Anonymous said...

Two boxing analogies in a row...what motivated that? ;)

Theological Discourse said...

I am an mma fighter.

Anonymous said...

I'll have to respond tomorrow.

Cheers.

___________________________ said...

Well, I'd guess that the best thing to do is to both keep on bringing it up, and to keep on expanding your name. If you keep on becoming known as one of the top counter-apologists in the world, then a greater push for you to debate William Llane Craig will emerge, as people will identify you as their intellectual defender or opponent, and will want you to face the defender of Christianity to see you win/lose. (as it stands, I think you are still less known than other figures)

I actually admire your comment "But if people were so easily dissuaded from pursuing their goals this world would be a different place." And if you believe this is important, pursue it earnestly, and try to make sure this kind of fight is unavoidable through challenging Christianity in a manner where Craig will feel obligated to address you.

Anonymous said...

Theological Discourse, I studied Brazilian Jiu Jitsu with Renzo Graice and Matt Serra in NYC (a few years ago), and boxing and kickboxing with Peter Manfredo (the father of the first 'Contender' runner up) in RI. What have you trained in, and with whom?

Steven Bently said...

Feeno, to answer some of your questions.

How do you know so much about Harvey? (well I clicked on his name which led me to his personal blog)

Also, are you saying that even though Christians are two-faced and greedy, you still liked Jesus' teachings?

(no, what I am saying, although most christians that I have ever met are two faced and greedy, yet they never take in any of the teachings that jesus was written to have supposedly have said, especially about being rich and storing your treasures in heaven, most christians that I know, live in big lavish houses, drive big fine SUV's and wear fancy clothes and have hair-do's at the beauty parlor once a week, now think about this feeno...How many SUV's and fancy clothes did jesus supposedly own?, according to jesus's supposed teachings one must live a meek and meager lifestyle, but look at most of the pastors of today, most have a seperate enclosed parking space just for them so they do not get their custom fitted suits wet as they go into church and I live out in the country. What luxury's did jesus supposedly have? A worn out nasty robe? Do you get the picture, feeno?)

You said "I'm not going to apologize for saying this, because I know I am right and I do not believe I am right, I know I am right, and there's a big difference."

(what I was saying is that, it doesn't take any 'faith' to be honest, but it takes 'faith' to deceive.

Did you ever notice in the bible jesus was always telling his disciple that they never had enough faith? Jesus even supposedly said if you had enough faith you could move a mountain, but no one was written in the bible to have ever moved a mountain and jesus never did either, nor did jesus nor any of his disciples move so much as a mustard seed.

So the word 'faith' has absolutely no meaning except to deceive and to give people a false perception that faith is an instrument to be used as a tool, which is totally false.

People that use the word 'faith' in their religious speaking are trying to deceive and to manipulate you into believing something that just is not true, it never worked during jesus' time, he spoke of it, but there is no proof that the word faith has any power, nor any purpose to be used except by the masters of deceit, to deceive, fool and manipulate the unsuspecting believer.

Paul was a master of deceit, he supposedly killed many christians, but he changed his name and had a vision of jesus on the way to Damascus. and now he is viewed as a Saint, but how convenient it was to have a vision of jesus, so he could now get instant forgiveness of murder.

Should we not all follow the road to Damascus and kill as many christians as we want and then have a vision of Jesus and then change our names and get instant forgiveness and now be viewed as a Saint?

Let’s say I decide to kill 3 chr4istians, well I already know it’s wrong to kill, not because of what the bible declares, but because I know it’ wrong To kill because no one wants to die especially by the hand of other people. But now that it’s done I decide to follow jesus’ teaching and ask jesus to forgive me, so now all my sins are swept away and no one else can accuse me of any crime, I’ve been saved, by who?

A person who is willing to forgive murderers.

You see feeno, if I want to deceive you into believing in something unbelievable, and you say you do not believe, then I will say there is something wrong with you, you are lacking something in your life, you don’t have enough faith, and so now, the onus is put upon you to
believe in the lie I am telling you, Otherwise you will go to hell for not believing the lie, see how easy it is to create a religion based upon a lie,
and to make people feel that there is something (wrong with them, not enough faith) for not believing?

Theological Discourse said...

Theological Discourse, I studied Brazilian Jiu Jitsu with Renzo Graice and Matt Serra in NYC (a few years ago), and boxing and kickboxing with Peter Manfredo (the father of the first 'Contender' runner up) in RI. What have you trained in, and with whom?
I did Boxing for like 10 years and muay thai for like 6, I just now started learning BJJ over here in charleston SC. Relson has come down here to teach a few sessions as has mat serra, I never got to go to them though :(

Steven Bently said...

What luxury it was to go around the country to kill christians and then have a vision of a all-purpose redeemer and then create a religion based upon his vision of this all-purpose savior and walk around scott-free and be viewed as a Saint in the end.

Yeah it takes a lot of faith alright to believe in that nonsense tale, much more than I can muster.

Anonymous said...

It's not yet tomorrow, but I must insist on saying that anyone who asks me why I want to debate Dr. Craig has the burden of proof to say why I should not want to do so.

Q.E.D.

C.T. Gilliland said...

Hey John,

This is Conor Gilliland (formerly Lord Thorkington - I finally figured out how to display my name)

I live in Denver and I would like to debate you. I will be working steady this summer, but I think a debate between you and I this fall would be ideal.

Unfortunately, I don't have the means to travel, so if you could swing a trip to Denver, I think we could have a good crowd and a good debate.

As for credentials, I don't have much but a presently incomplete master's in philosophy. Still, I am confident. Interested?

Anonymous said...

Conner, I wish I had the funds to do so, but unfortunately I don't.

I have issued a challenge to debate every Christian apologist. But that cannot mean I can fund every debate. In fact I cannot fund even one debate.

Here's the deal. If the college where you teach does not want to fund such a debate for one reason or another, then I can't do so. If they don't believe in you, then neither do I. That's the rule for me. I'm here and willing. So if we debate you ust find people who believe in your skills enough to bring me to you.

I hope you understand.

BTW David Marshall, Dinesh D'Souza, and David Wood have all said they were open to debate me. We're just waiting for people who want to see these debates enough to sponsor them. Anyone interested in seeing me debate them?

Anonymous said...

Eric, while debates don't prove which side is correct I want to increase the perception that more skeptics can meet Craig head on, and I believe I can do this.

I've heard or read the debates with Ludemann, Price, Avalos, and Ehrman. I could provide a critique of each of these debates and show where I think they didn't do as well as they could. Ehrman did very well but lost in the rhetoric aspects of the debate. Ludemann was pathetic. Price focused not on the resurrection but on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, although his final statement was astounding. Avalos had some kind of personal agenda, but I know he could've kicked Craig's ass had he focued on the arguments themselves. Carrier was so wrapped up into his mythicist theory in writing his book that he lost focus of his real arguments found in the chapter in The Empty Tomb. Hitchens got spanked. I haven't heard the ones with Crossan or Hoover though. I know Craig's arguments very well. I will major on the majors and minor on the minors. Skeptics have a superior case to make. I will make it.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

___________________________ said, if you believe this is important, pursue it earnestly, and try to make sure this kind of fight is unavoidable through challenging Christianity in a manner where Craig will feel obligated to address you.

Thanks that's what I aim to do!

C.T. Gilliland said...

John,

If Craig agreed to debate you, would require him to get an institution to fund the debate, or would your institution pay his travel expenses? If yours would, then is there some level of notoriety on the part of the apologist you would require before taking on that responsibility?

If you are acting independently, and have no ties to an institution willing to fund this debate, and you cannot personally fund it, then are you really in a fair position to be issuing your challenge?

Dave said...

Of course he is. Institutional sponsorship of these kinds of debates is a widely accepted practice -- and indeed, is rather necessary for a debate to be taken seriously. Nobody cares about a couple guys on soapboxes on the street corner, or the kid that Ray Comfort paid $100 to show up at his church and debate him on the existence of God (although I note that the kid won handily).

Of course, in fairness, the same works both ways -- the institution would have to be convinced that John is worth sponsoring as well. But speaking only for myself, I'd have to say that I'd pay for a ticket to see John debate, but who the heck is Connor Gilliland?

There is one thing that John said that I will take exception to: it need not necessarily be your own college that sponsors the debate. I imagine another higher learning institution of equal or greater statue will suffice, so long as they're willing to pop for an extra plane ticket.

http://www.atheistcentral.net

C.T. Gilliland said...

Fair enough,

I guess my issue isn't practical as much as it is philosophical.

The way I'm thinking about it is in military terms: If you're an Athenian and I'm a Spartan, and you challenge me and my land, I am prepared to defend it, but you're going to have to come take it.

Similarly, John's objective is to "Debunk Christianity," and I am prepared to respond to the challenge and hold the line, but I will not move the line to accommodate the threat. Much less will I go pick up the invader and drive him to the battle line.

If you want to take Greece, you have to do just that, you have to go take it, one settlement (or Christian apologist) at a time.

As a Christian apologist, John has implicitly challenged me to a debate, and I am perfectly willing to take up the challenge. Heck, I will even provide the battlefield (complete with spectators), but I would be considered foolish to facilitate an invader breaking my own line.

Dave said...

John is calling upon you to defend your ideas, not the city of Denver.