The God Debate II - Harris V Craig

MagicMarker

Sam Harris debated William Lane Craig last week and it's now up on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

Some after thoughts from Harris here.

Enjoy:)

Turtwig

Not even going to bother watching it, Craig always uses the same shotgun like technique. The only way to get Craig to sweat is to focus on one topic and one topic only then he starts tripping over himself like a master tripwire email attack. In short, if you get the chance never debate someone like Craig it's a waste of time and just lends a false air of validity to his position.

Dave!

Not really worth watching IMO. There's very little interaction between the debaters, so Craig can just fire out whatever bullsh*t he wants, and he can't get cross-examined by Sam Pretty disappointing. Sam pretty much gives his lecture on the Moral Landscape at the start, and responds to a few questions on it.

strobe

Malty_T wrote: »

Not even going to bother watching it, Craig always uses the same shotgun like technique. The only way to get Craig to sweat is to focus on one topic and one topic only then he starts tripping over himself like a master tripwire email attack. In short, if you get the chance never debate someone like Craig it's a waste of time and just lends a false air of validity to his position.

I don't think I have watched much of Craig's stuff but that makes him sound like a master debater. Credit where credit is due, ye know?

Turtwig

strobe wrote: »

I don't think I have watched much of Craig's stuff but that makes him sound like a master debater. Credit where credit is due, ye know?

No it makes him a slimy dishonest slug that preys on ignorance.

Dave!

There's a difference between rhetoric and substance. Craig has made a career out of being good at the rhetorical side of things.

MagicMarker

Yeah I grew extremely tiresome of Craig, only lasted through his opening statement to listen to Harris and then I fell asleep when Craig started again!

axer

Had to skip through most of Craig's parts as they were just plainly stupid arguments.

The only good part in the 2 hours was where an interaction between the two started at the end but that was only a few minutes long.

robindch

strobe wrote: »

Craig's stuff [...] makes him sound like a master debater.

Master-debater.

That's rhyming slang, innit?

Zombrex

Craig seems to have no genuine interest in the points he is asked to discuss, far more interested in point scoring.

Which is fine if this is a debate in the sense of points and awards and you don't actually have to believe what you are saying.

But it makes Craig as a serious Christian apologist seem totally devoid of substance.

Maybe he feels the ends justify the means.

CerebralCortex

Well from my experience of reading this site. It would seem that Craig is interested in truth. To quote a comment on the linked article "Craig has also stated that even if all evidence points against God, he would not accept it".

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15192#comments