ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
All too often, posters make absurdly negative claims about Dr. Craig´s skills, credentials, quality of argumentation, character , and the more.

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.

He is misrepresented , slandered, disrespected, as a person, Christian, philosopher, theologian, and historian. His arguments are put in the worst light possible, and, with out showing the slightest intention of charity towards his work, right here in these very threads.

And, I am wondering why is all this even possible? Why is this even allowed with out the slightest comment from the mods.

I usually try to ignore such attitudes and comments, by engaging the subject, but, I think the mods, at least, should not ignore this type of behaviour, if only from time to time.


I am posting here and not directly to the mods, because, I am not interested in a dialog with the mods, I want to state this in the open, for those who are not doing what they should, and those perpetrating those actions to at least dedicate 1 or 2 seconds of their time on the subject, just because, I think it is shameful, and worst.

Also, I am not looking for support, I couldnt care less about it.


There are people here who do not have even a basic (much less complete) grasp of some of the arguments and will openly state about Dr. Craig, a decades long thinker and professional in the areas of philosophy, Theology and Christian history ,that his arguments are silly, while missrepresenting them in the most childish ways.

It is shameful, and, shouldn´t be allowed, you know who you are. 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 08:28:01 am by ontologicalme »

1

Language-Gamer

  • ****
  • 7818 Posts
  • I sneezed on the beet and Dwight got mad.
    • View Profile
You kind of hint at this in your post, but let's just say I wouldn't expect too much from the mods.
I told her all about how we been livin' a lie
And that they love to see us all go to prison or die
Like, "Baby, look at how they show us on the TV screen"
But all she ever want me to do is unzip her jeans

2

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Upholding his name can be done by defending him in debate or just censoring.  I get the feeling I know which you prefer.
Life is a box of chocolates!

3

Steve B

  • ****
  • 9591 Posts
  • all nations people of every language worshiped him
    • View Profile
yes, I think it is important to defend Dr. Craigs positions since his positions make up a very basic canon of Christian apologetics.  But it is equally important to allow, and refute, arguments against the evidence and arguments that Dr. Craig raises.

4

Crash Test

  • *****
  • 20719 Posts
    • View Profile

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.


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.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 03:27:21 am by Crash Test »
-- This user will return on the twenty-fourth of July --

5

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 6163 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
Upholding 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.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 03:26:53 am by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

6

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Upholding 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.

Life is a box of chocolates!

7

Nunovalente

  • ***
  • 3859 Posts
    • View Profile
OM, I take heart.

Because such unfair misrepresentation just exposes/highlights the character of the poster and credibility of their view.

I don't think the mods need to defend Dr Craig. I would expect anyone with a valid argument against Craig, to have at least put it to him direct on Q&A with a view to him being able to respond.
Faith is being confident in things hoped for, the conviction of facts not yet seen. Hebrews 11.
Everyone exercises faith in something. What is your faith in?

8

kravarnik

  • ****
  • 6163 Posts
  • Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!
    • View Profile
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.

I must have missed the part where WLC invites people to tell him how his 25+ years in philosophy, history and theology has been to waste and how all his arguments achieve and show nothing + they are all fallacious. And how he's really dishonest, lying and basically a charlatan, who fools people and plays to their credulity and gullibility.

Just because you're able to frame these remarks in philosophical language, doesn't mean you're not doing precisely the above. And this is immoral and unethical, given that you don't have to necessarily use these forums.


let me put it in a different way:

author of books makes a book club in the neighborhood, one which you can attend for free. Now, you don't only go to discuss books and the likes, but you go and criticize the host as well as his works and then exclaim that you're completely entitled to come to his house, where the book club is being held and say all these awful things about him.


Now, I am absolutely sure that WLC had never had in mind that people using these forums should be entitled to assassinating his character and his professional achievements. Perhaps, he's used to it, but I am not entirely sure that this is the purpose he had in mind for the forums - that people come and insult him in most unethical and immoral ways.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 04:04:42 am by kravarnik »
"And even if you crush my body and drain it 'til the last drop - you can never touch my spirit, you can never touch my soul. No matter how bleak or how hopeless, no matter how hard or how far - you can never break my conation. Tear the will apart from desire." Insomnium - Weather the storm

9

Emuse

  • *****
  • 11928 Posts
    • View Profile
There's a simple, common sense rule of thumb here.  If you (as a Christian) wouldn't have a problem with going on to a discussion forum owned by an atheist scholar and making certain remarks about their work then you shouldn't have a problem with atheists engaging in that way here.  This is obviously not aimed purely at OM.

Personally, I am an advocate of free speech because it allows ignorant remarks to be seen for what they are whoever is making them and in whatever context.  In light of this, I think that the current approach to moderation is a wise one.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 05:55:04 am by Emuse »

10

redtilt1

  • ***
  • 1722 Posts
    • View Profile
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.

11

LADZDAZL

  • ****
  • 6483 Posts
    • View Profile
Should I be first to call for actual examples of the terrible behaviour people are referring to?
Life is a box of chocolates!

12

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
Should I be first to call for actual examples of the terrible behaviour people are referring to?

I found two examples fairly quickly by doing a search. More exist.

"At one point Dr.craig [sic] realizes his untenable position and simply starts to make a mockery of the debate. He rarely comes back to the real point of the problem and sumply [sic] leisurally [sic] swims around a yellowing pool of his and dicarlos [sic] waste."

"How anyone can consider Craig a decent human being is beyond me."

13

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
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.
For clarification:

The OP would not apply to a post like the one written here, based on the language used and general way of writting it.

In fact, this would be, almost, a text book example of a highly critical post with out resorting to mockery, lack of respect (of Dr. Craig as a proffesional, a person, a Christian), nor uninformed bashing, even if I disagree with many of the points raised.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 08:58:12 am by ontologicalme »

14

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile

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.


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.

The quote is a meant as a hyperbole, and even accepting the list you give as is does not make it false.

Assuming the list is correct, the OP is raising the issue number 7) of your list.

Which does not imply all other 6 points do not deserve to be raised on their own threads, nor that those eliminate the justification of raising number 7).