I might dare even say: you name any kind of disgraceful remark, it is said about Dr. Craig, if not weekly close to daily, on these very threads.
Upholding his name can be done by defending him in debate or just censoring. I get the feeling I know which you prefer.
Quote from: LADZDAZL on May 28, 2016, 02:55:56 amUpholding his name can be done by defending him in debate or just censoring. I get the feeling I know which you prefer.There's no censor in showing the needed homage to someone, whose property you're using for free and he provides it for you. I imagine you have no problem being in someone's home(being on Craig's site), eating their food for free(using Craig's site's forum for free) and then say the worst of things about this person, who just did that for you.This now is no longer censor, but proper homage to someone, who has done something positive for you. And all you have to give in return, is abasent of any gratitude, but remarks about this person's personal qualities and character as well as his professional ability and career.In most civilizied countries you'd be shunned for such behavior. At least, if you so don't like him and have such a big list of flaws about him, then cease using the service he provides to you for free, cause when you do and all you do in return is insult him, you come across as rather immoral person, who hasn't learned basic ethics.For example, if I were given something positive for free, the least I can do is remain silent about a flaw I've found in the person giving me this said thing. Or if I know him too well and don't like him at all, then I wouldn't accept what he is giving me for free, and reject it and then proceed to criticize him if I so desire. But what most critics here are doing, is immoral and unethical.
Well it depends.If the person inviting me in to his house to eat his food says "this house is all about eating food and giving your honest opinion about that food. That's why I invite people", then yes, I would criticise the food. It would be rude and condescending not too. And if somebody else said "Isn't our host a great chef" I would say "No, I disagree. And here's the proof...: I would limit myself to the flaws relevant to discussing the menu. Which is what forum members here do.
Should I be first to call for actual examples of the terrible behaviour people are referring to?
I am one the people that has been very critical of WLC here in this forum. So maybe this aimed at me, i don't know. The criticisms i have are not ad homs they are specific criticisms of the reliability of his comments. He misrepresents many things in science . Here are a few examples: 1) animals other than higher primates don't have aper frontal cortex - not true, its widespread throughout all mammals. 2) self awareness is known to need a pre frontal cortex- also not true , where SA is generated in the brain is still holy debated. 3) Anthony Aguirre works on early unvierse cosmology implies a past eternal universe is unlikely or impossible, not true. Aguirre is well known as someone that think the universe is past eternal. Aguirre thinks that a particular past eternal model known as the emergent model doesn't work, not that all past eternal models down work. 4) The beginning of the enviers has been confirmed by modern cosmology - not true, there is still much debate as to whether the universe has a beginning amongst cosmologists . The BGv theorem at most shows inflation had a beginning, not that the universe had a beginning. 5) No one has been able to refute the study by Mark Regnerus that children brought up by gay parents are disadvantaged. Not true, there's plenty of faults found with this study. i could go on a and on. But I think the important point to make is that surely on a forum to discuss the work of the reasonable Faith ministry is the right place to raise these sorts of points.
Quote from: ontologicalme on May 27, 2016, 10:52:00 pmI might dare even say: you name any kind of disgraceful remark, it is said about Dr. Craig, if not weekly close to daily, on these very threads. This doesn't seem even close to true. If you name a disgraceful (which in your words I'm taking to be: misrepresentation, slander or disrespect) remark, then I'd say the likelihood order is:1) Atheists in general/forum atheists.2) Muslims.3) Specific posters (both sides)4) "Liberals". (Recently)5) Dawkins. (This has fallen out of fashion lately)6) Anyone who disagrees with Craig on the history of the resurrection (Craig might just edge this one out).7) Craig.If you narrow that to entire threads dedicated to such remarks, Craig gets an even smaller proportion of the criticism.