I mean, Ive watched him in many debates, how he ducks and weaves so cunningly out of everything thrown at him and is completely blinkered by his opponents and I just wondered to myself earlier.....am I the only one who finds him completely and utterly retarded or do other non believers see it to?
He takes forever to say NOTHING? GRRRRRRRRR....hes so f***ing irritating!!!
I find him infuriating. His speeches are tediously boring. I have listened to his debates and read his works and often said to myself “what point has he just made? It sounds like it is meaningful or eloquent but there is always something not quite right that I can never point to immediately. So I rewind or read it again to discover that it is all hyperbole. There is little there that cannot be undermined once the point is untangled. He may be credited as a great debater or a “Master Debater” as Nelson pointed out in an earlier post. He may have perfected the KCA over the last 30 years but it only a philosophical argument. None of the arguments he presents can be used as evidence to support his contention that his god exists. Arguments are not Evidence. His “5 Ways” are easy to undermine. If I hear the terms “objective moral values” or “causes to come into existence” from him again in that monotonous voice……anyway…….he is just a well polished apologetic and is loved by the flock of Theists who probably cannot follow a word of what he is saying. He cannot be considered a great philosopher no matter how well read on the subject he may be. The reason I say this is because a good philosopher would not start an argument by presupposing his god already exists.
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most stupid? Hmm... I think he gets a 73.
I think WLC is actually very intelligent, for the following reasons:
He learns enough about science to make arguments by misrepresentation. He makes his arguments with great confidence and presence, and is intentionally long-winded and overly complex to impress believers and complicate rebuttal. That combination serves him very well against less skilled debaters. Unfortunately for him, there are people like Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris out there than can shred his web of bullshit with ease.
His ‘academic’ career is with religious based institutions where skillful preaching to the choir is more of a priority than any kind of attachment to reality, and he plays to his employers in a way that has ensured him a very comfortable living. His book writing only furthers his credentials within religious circles, and adds to his wealth.
I’m not even convinced that WLC is a believer. I think it is very possible that he is simply a very clever person who found a market that he can exploit. It would not surprise me a bit to learn later that he is actually an atheist that spent his life walking the fine line of fighting the theistic fight to earn a living, while doing so in a way that actually fuels the fires of atheism.
Actually, you run into that tactic of writing long replies being used by our atheist members. Replies with dozens of assertions and references which perhaps they think bolster their case but actually (and perhaps intentionally) functions to drive serious interlocutors away and stop the discussion.
I recently had to give up on an exchange because every exchange with the other party seemed to result in longer and longer replies. I finally had to tell myself that this is just a topical chat board. I can't be writing masters thesis-length replies to every attack on my position. I try to boil what I'm saying to what can be understood quickly and easily. Anyone who knows what they are talking about should be able to summarize their point and support it with their best argument. If the best argument doesn't work, then throwing in a half dozen or more lesser ones is a waste of the other person's time, even if it makes one feel good doing it.