Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 49180 times

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2011, 07:39:55 pm »
I commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum.  There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time.

1

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2011, 09:08:05 pm »
Digitalos wrote: I commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum.  There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time.

Krauss' credibility does not and has never hinged on the result on this debate.

EDIT: Also... what on earth are you talking about?

2

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2011, 09:59:05 pm »
noseeum wrote:
Quote from: Digitalos
I commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum.  There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time.

Krauss' credibility does not and has never hinged on the result on this debate.

EDIT: Also... what on earth are you talking about?
You should probably take the time to actually read the thread you are commenting in...

3

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 10:04:29 pm »
Don't bait me.

4

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2011, 10:08:09 pm »
noseeum wrote: Don't bait me.
Don't a) Ask obvious questions and b) Feign ignorance.

5

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2011, 10:24:25 pm »
Digitalos wrote:
Quote from: noseeum
Don't bait me.
Don't a) Ask obvious questions and b) Feign ignorance.

Don't use hyperbole and then expect your critics to respond in careful, empathetic language.

I've read this thread and all I can see is biased opinion, egotism, self-congratulation and blissful ignorance. You're "shocked and appalled?" Really? Because you think a physicist overstated his personal disgust at the result of the debate? There are far worse things happening which would warrant your self righteous indignation.

6

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2011, 10:40:28 pm »
You seem to feel what he wrote is a respectful, thoughtful reply, and it is perfectly acceptable and warranted?  You don't think it's a childish, immature, disrespectful temper-tantrum purely a result of him losing the debate?

ie If he had come out looking better, none of these concerns would have surfaced, and certainly not in such a pathetic, underhanded manner.  Perhaps this would not have happened if Krauss prepared for the debate, or put even one iota of effort into studying WLC's arguments and work.  It's not like WLC changes his arguments every debate or anything.  So for him to show up to the debate, in good faith, on equal ground, have a real genuine shot at providing carefully thought out critiques and concerns with WLC's (which is not impossible, it's been done before), but to do zero homework, and then throw a hissy-fit and attack WLC's character, I think, is atrocious.

He doesn't lose credibility based on the debate, he loses it based on his actions and his character and how he conducted himself both before and after - almost diametrically opposed behaviours.  He had all the opportunities in the world to present all that information during the debate - that's specifically what the debate was for.  But instead he dropped the ball, and then decided to do it in a forum whereby only his side is heard.

He is a coward.

There is a saying, 'the first person to speak in court sounds right,  only until the cross-examination starts.'  That's why he posted surrounded by adherents and fans, in a private blog where there is no opportunity for a serious rebuttal or address.

You also think because there are far worse things happening in the world, that I need not concern myself with this.  It's logic like this which left Krauss with egg on his face...

7

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2011, 11:12:53 pm »
I'm trying to say that I think your perspective is all wrong without being patronising.

No I don't think his post was respectful, but I do think it is somewhat warranted and acceptable. I certainly don't think it was immature. In no way was it purely the fact that he lost the debate. I think it was because he lost the debate to someone who he clearly doesn't respect.

And why doesn't he respect WLC? Hmmm.

I guess my issue with what you're saying is that is it comes across as so heavily biased toward your in-group, and so heavily laden with hypocrisy, that I can't believe you're saying any of it for any other reason than because you were offended. It's ok, I hear you! I am often offended by what Christians say, and I don't expect everyone to be perfectly tolerant of each other. WLC offends me just about every time he opens his mouth. Poor me. I can forgive you for going to far, but because you insist on defending every word you said as though it was obviously, trivially, true and from an objective and unbiased observer, then I can only say it makes my blood boil at least as much as yours visibly is.

I would refrain from calling him a coward, for example. I doubt he would not relish the chance to explain to WLC himself, in person, gloves off, exactly why he disagrees. WLC has been making just as despicable claims about his opponents on just about every debate he's ever been in. I get a letter from his website regularly in which he regularly claims himself as the winner of every debate he's ever been in!

I haven't watched the debate, but that doesn't actually matter. I think you're basing your entire opinion on Krauss on a very minor matter. You're just committing an ad hominem because you were offended.

8

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2011, 11:30:56 pm »
noseeum wrote: I'm trying to say that I think your perspective is all wrong without being patronising.

No I don't think his post was respectful, but I do think it is somewhat warranted and acceptable. I certainly don't think it was immature. In no way was it purely the fact that he lost the debate. I think it was because he lost the debate to someone who he clearly doesn't respect.

And why doesn't he respect WLC? Hmmm.

I guess my issue with what you're saying is that is it comes across as so heavily biased toward your in-group, and so heavily laden with hypocrisy, that I can't believe you're saying any of it for any other reason than because you were offended. It's ok, I hear you! I am often offended by what Christians say, and I don't expect everyone to be perfectly tolerant of each other. WLC offends me just about every time he opens his mouth. Poor me. I can forgive you for going to far, but because you insist on defending every word you said as though it was obviously, trivially, true and from an objective and unbiased observer, then I can only say it makes my blood boil at least as much as yours visibly is.

I would refrain from calling him a coward, for example. I doubt he would not relish the chance to explain to WLC himself, in person, gloves off, exactly why he disagrees. WLC has been making just as despicable claims about his opponents on just about every debate he's ever been in. I get a letter from his website regularly in which he regularly claims himself as the winner of every debate he's ever been in!

I haven't watched the debate, but that doesn't actually matter. I think you're basing your entire opinion on Krauss on a very minor matter. You're just committing an ad hominem because you were offended.
I'm not offended, I don't believe I said anywhere that I was.  I also think you grossly misuse the word, you can't just choose a contrasting view and say, wow, that offends me.  It needs to speak to some moral or ethical guideline, which has been violated.  If you say what Christians say offends you, and you are referring to fundamentalist baptists say, such as those from Westboro Baptist Church, then sure, that is precisely because of their actions violating the ethical and moral standards we adhere to.  But you cannot simply say, any ad-hoc thing offends you.

As an aside WLC doesn't ever mention he has won the debate.  He gives a synopsis of the debate and his thoughts, but he doesn't self-proclaim he is the winner.  WLC doesn't change his arguments, so far they haven't been addressed in any of the debates sufficiently to warrant a change of tact.  In some debates he even said he was left in a weird position, with nothing to refute or address, so he just expanded on his points.  What should he do, not mention the debate at all?

Dr Krauss respected WLC to attend the debate, respected him enough to conduct the debate civilly, shake his head, a sign of good faith and mutual respect, but then ran off and cried buckets to his support-base.  I think he respected him enough until WLC demolished him in a public forum, then he needed his little payback where no one else could reply and subsequently demolish him...  so yes, I go so far to say he is cowardly.

I said I was deeply disappointed, shocked and appalled at how he acted.  It's not to do with the debate, it's to do with conduct and treatment of another human.  It's not to do with God or atheism, I would feel the same way if it were a debate about global warming, and one speaker was obviously not prepared, and got subsequently demolished, and then ran off and had his own private cry about it.

I'm also not committing an ad hominem  - that is where you attack someones character in order to undermine their arguments, for this to be the case Dr Krauss would need some arguments first, and secondly Dr Krauss behaviour has no impact on the debate result or my views of atheism, as there are much finer more respectful atheists than he, so simply because I find his behaviour atrocious, does not automatically make me guilty of attacking his character.  I find it appalling due to how unethical and disrespectful I find it, as stated.

9

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2011, 11:55:59 pm »
I was going to message you personally, but I want to make a public point.

I do not get offended by people with differing views to mine simply because they disagree. I don't know why you suggested I do.

I am not going to attempt to prove to you that WLC, or any other person who you personally deem to behave within acceptable guidelines, sometimes goes without the bounds and comes across as disrespectful, intolerant or insulting.

You insist that the writing of Krauss on the blog are enough evidence to justifiably call him an immature coward, and you defend your right to publicly state this, without any concession. You won't even admit you have a bias. You won't admit that language like "ran off and cried buckets" is hyperbole when referring to a blog post on the internet. You insist that your own feelings of being "deeply disappointed, shocked and appalled" do not in any way constitue personal offence.

If anyone cares what my opinion on the subject is, then I would say I disagree that Krauss is any more immature or cowardly than WLC. I think the suggestion that we should judge him as a person, based solely on this one blog post, is clearly ridiculous.

10

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2011, 12:23:53 am »
noseeum wrote: I do not get offended by people with differing views to mine simply because they disagree. I don't know why you suggested I do.
From the comments about most things Christians say offending you, it seemed like you did, if I am incorrect about that then that's awesome.

noseeum wrote: I am not going to attempt to prove to you that WLC, or any other person who you personally deem to behave within acceptable guidelines, sometimes goes without the bounds and comes across as disrespectful, intolerant or insulting.
I'll save you some time, as I don't disagree with that statement.  Of course people sometimes act or behave badly, and this is one of those times.  That in no way means we just ignore it and carry on happy as can be.

noseeum wrote: You insist that the writing of Krauss on the blog are enough evidence to justifiably call him an immature coward, and you defend your right to publicly state this, without any concession. You won't even admit you have a bias.
Well I don't have a bias.  I'm not calling him cowardly because he's an atheist, if there was something WLC did wrong I would be just as stern in that regard.  In fact in his debate with Hector Avalos in his opening speech, he made some accusations at HA which I thought were out of line and unprofessional.

noseeum wrote: You won't admit that language like "ran off and cried buckets" is hyperbole when referring to a blog post on the internet. You insist that your own feelings of being "deeply disappointed, shocked and appalled" do not in any way constitue personal offence.
His rants on the blog have all the makings of a child throwing a tantrum, which is why I use such analogous language.

noseeum wrote: If anyone cares what my opinion on the subject is, then I would say I disagree that Krauss is any more immature or cowardly than WLC. I think the suggestion that we should judge him as a person, based solely on this one blog post, is clearly ridiculous.
I didn't say lay down some ultimate judgement on him I said he has lost a lot of respect and credibility with that action.  This is how the world works, if he later apologizes then he will gain respect and credibility.  Just like anyone.  Just like anyone, when you act like a child, you are treated like a child.  Some situations worsen things, such as this, as the very nature of the event which caused this outcry of his, was a debate, a public exchange of opinions and ideas in which the very idea was to give both sides a chance to weigh in, and also to do so in a respectful manner.  So by contrast that worsens this little 'event' lets say, since you don't like my colorful analogies.  That's just how I see it.  Perhaps others disagree.  I'm not going to stop following Dr Krauss, or listening to his debates or reading his work, but I don't hold him very high on the scales when compared to other opponents WLC has debated.

11

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2011, 12:48:24 am »
I didn't say "most Christians" I said "often." It's often because the offensive ones make more noise than the nice ones, not because a majority of Christians are offensive. Oh, and also because even the nice ones are often insensitive to just how offensive their world view can be to a non-Christian.

You once again exaggerate needlessly when you say "That in no way means we just ignore it and carry on happy as can be". I actually deliberately attempt to use accurate, subtle language in order to communicate my feelings. It is quite frustrating to have you parrot back the most exaggerated interpretation you can muster, over and over again.

WLC made statements against HA which were unprofessional? I am deeply disappointed and shocked. WLC just lost all credibility with me.

No, it's not a like a child throwing a tantrum. That is hyperbole. You still won't admit it. I don't understand why you defend such an obvious exaggeration.

I didn't say lay down some ultimate judgement on him I said he has lost a lot of respect and credibility with that action.
Actually, you said "he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum." You refused to admit this is in any way exaggerated. I think my original reply is therefore warranted.

I'm not going to stop following Dr Krauss, or listening to his debates or reading his work, but I don't hold him very high on the scales when compared to other opponents WLC has debated.
Now you are speaking some sense. Although I tend to disagree, I think I can see where you're coming from.

12

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2011, 12:53:03 am »
noseeum wrote: I didn't say "most Christians" I said "often." It's often because the offensive ones make more noise than the nice ones, not because a majority of Christians are offensive. Oh, and also because even the nice ones are often insensitive to just how offensive their world view can be to a non-Christian.

You once again exaggerate needlessly when you say "That in no way means we just ignore it and carry on happy as can be". I actually deliberately attempt to use accurate, subtle language in order to communicate my feelings. It is quite frustrating to have you parrot back the most exaggerated interpretation you can muster, over and over again.

WLC made statements against HA which were unprofessional? I am deeply disappointed and shocked. WLC just lost all credibility with me.

No, it's not a like a child throwing a tantrum. That is hyperbole. You still won't admit it. I don't understand why you defend such an obvious exaggeration.

I didn't say lay down some ultimate judgement on him I said he has lost a lot of respect and credibility with that action.
Actually, you said "he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum." You refused to admit this is in any way exaggerated. I think my original reply is therefore warranted.

I'm not going to stop following Dr Krauss, or listening to his debates or reading his work, but I don't hold him very high on the scales when compared to other opponents WLC has debated.
Now you are speaking some sense. Although I tend to disagree, I think I can see where you're coming from.
Well we aren't really going anywhere with this, I mean you know what I think about it, whether I use strong language or subtle language is only of consequence to convey the degree at which I am appalled and disappointed.  I'm going to beat around the bush with that, I think he genuinely had a little hissy fit and is acting like a child, I'm not alone, so clearly others see it too.  Anyhow that's that.

13

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2011, 01:09:14 am »

noseeum wrote: I've read this thread and all I can see is biased opinion, egotism, self-congratulation and blissful ignorance.

These are practically the same words Krauss and Myers have used. It's obvious who's side your on. The fact that you think you're unbiased makes as much sense as 2+2=5.
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

14

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2011, 01:11:14 am »

Digitalos wrote: I commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum.  There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time.

I've never heard Dr. William Lane Craig act disrespectfully towards his opponents ever. I had respect for Krauss. But after reading his response my respect for him goes straight out the door.
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com