|
|
|
|
Title: William Lane Craig, True Colors
Added: Jan 28, 2012
Author: Thunderf00t
Duration: 6:21
Description:
William Lane Craig has indeed shown his true colors.He was given ample opportunity to act in a clear form.I sent him 5 emailsI left him a voicemailI even contacted the moderator on his forum, filling him in on the issue concerning allowing drcraigvideos to open claim on William Lane Craigs forum that he was legally acting as his agent in this copyright issue.The moderators reaction was to ban me within about an hour, and to delete every mention of the DMCA from the Reasonable Faith 'Open Forum'For a man who parades himself as being both an academic and a scholar, such activity is pathetic.
Related Videos:
Videos related to 'William Lane Craig, True Colors'
Channel: Nonprofit
Tags: william lane craig true colors false dmca perjury academic scholar my ass cheap censor for christ jesus religion kalam youtube strike drcraigvideos dr two citations
william lane craig true colors false dmca perjury academic scholar my ass cheap censor for christ jesus religion kalam youtube strike drcraigvideos dr two citations
Youtube Comments: 3502
HKYSPP Says:
May 10, 2012 - Craig endorses genocide, he had his channel deleted, and he can't get the debates he wants. No wonder he won't debate a real academic.
CssAfc Says:
May 10, 2012 - I wasn't referring to you I was talking in general terms. I don't know how many times I need to explain it, and I'm not interested in what Craig says, if you don't believe the bible is true then how can you possibly call yourself a Christian, that doesn't make sense.
edwardsian Says:
May 10, 2012 - that's a lie ... all three got their asses handed to them by craig!
mynameszz Says:
May 11, 2012 - Well , you know how Christians are . Selective . But as long as Craig states that he is not a YEC and even goes so far as to affirm by the scientifically calculated age of our planet , then that's good enough for me .
CssAfc Says:
May 12, 2012 - But you accept my point that a "non-Creationist Christian" is a contradiction in terms? The Creation is the most important part of the Bible. Anyway, lets leave this little back and forth exchange, I think we understand each other mate.
mynameszz Says:
May 13, 2012 - Alright.
almightykenshin Says:
May 17, 2012 - MAN!!! Someone had their feelings hurt by being blocked on youtube!
bprice144 Says:
May 17, 2012 - THUNDERF00T ARE YOU ILLUMINATI???/watch?v=INCh4tqKD_Q
FreeSpeechVidz Says:
May 17, 2012 - No, no, and no. But it's cute that you atheists think those morons somehow "destroyed" Craig.
FreeSpeechVidz Says:
May 17, 2012 - He's debated plenty of real academics. Anthony Flew, Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, Ray Bradley, Shelly Kagan, Bart D. Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, Lawrence Krauss, AC Grayling (who btw conveniently "forgot" his debate with Craig. lol), Victor Stenger, Peter Atkins, and plenty more. So if Craig's good enough for these guys, Dawkins should grow a pair and debate him.
CssAfc Says:
May 18, 2012 - Oh dear. If you think Craig was not destroyed, then your brain is a burden on humanity... because it doesn't fucking work. You fucking idiotic Christian ignoramuses, read a science book... any book, just read one. (BTW, I know I cursed at you, and I don't care, you cunts deserve it until you get back to reality).
CssAfc Says:
May 18, 2012 - That's nice, but no. Fuck off.
matereo Says:
May 21, 2012 - yeah but you are just one of all those internet trolls Thunderfoot! Wasn't it you who pulled the silly "two men in one bed" on the Phelps women? Is it strange then that your not taken seriously at all.
matereo Says:
May 21, 2012 - Craig wasn't really destroyed by any of these people some mention... i think Harris gave him more trouble than the others tho.
NeoVictorianX Says:
May 21, 2012 - 1) "It's pretty simple, if he's not as Creationist then he is not a real Christian."This statement is absurd. You know absolutely nothing about church history or Biblical interpretation. You are assuming that in order to be a Christian, a person must accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is very recent development; it was developed by fundamentalists in response to modernity. For the great majority of church history, this idea did not even exist.
NeoVictorianX Says:
May 21, 2012 - 2) The church in Rome was the center of Christianity more than a millennium. Do I really need to inform you or this fact? Or of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not and does not accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?
NeoVictorianX Says:
May 21, 2012 - 3) In America, fundamentalists fought against modernists in the major protestant seminaries; they lost and they were either kicked out, chose to moved out on their own to join/found fundamentalist seminaries, or they were allowed to sit on their tenure until they got old and retired, and they were then replaced by non-fundamentalists scholars. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not held by any of the mainline protestant denominations associated with these seminaries.
NeoVictorianX Says:
May 21, 2012 - 4) In the UK does the Anglican Church support a position of Biblical inerrancy? I believe you should know the answer to that question... of course they do not. But why is it that you somehow overlook what Catholics believe, what Anglicans believe, and what mainline Protestants believe and find a normative definition of based on what fundamentalists believe?
NeoVictorianX Says:
May 21, 2012 - 5) Seriously, are you just that ignorant or are you just that the committed to building a straw person that even someone like you can knock down with ease? There is absolutely no reason to hold up fundamentalists doctrines as somehow being the norm for Christians other than ignorance or a lack of intellectual integrity. There is absolutely no reason that Christians should appease crackpots like yourself and creation "scientists" and interpret the first couple of chapters of Genesis literally.
CssAfc Says:
May 22, 2012 - Then I suppose Christians have been intellectually dishonest for a millennium, but to be honest I have more important things to worry about than to what extent people believe that fallacy of a book, they're all wrong anyway. Nice essay too, calm down.
MultiAssassin911 Says:
May 23, 2012 - stfu please :)
HKYSPP Says:
May 24, 2012 - Yes too chicken to debate thunderfoot. Maybe he should grow a pair firts before doing dumb publicity stunts to leech off Dawkins' popularity.
rikardotsamsiyu Says:
May 25, 2012 - I never knew Dennett debated Craig!!! That's awesome, I love Dan D! Thanks for inadvertently informing me!!! :)
SeedsOfHatred Says:
May 10, 2012 - I read both of your responses. I felt that my two-headed response addressed them sufficiently. The problem is that you seem to be missing my ultimate point. I don't care what it means to speak publicly or what constitutes a strong argument. If that argument is baseless, fallacious and decietfully constructed, it's user has not won the ultimate debate. He made a foolish argument for foolish things. He remains completely invalid.He just *looks* superior while he does it.Get it?