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!!!
Gotcha! I think you've hit the nail on the head.
William Lane Craig is not only a devout Christian he is also a very smart scientist. (Genome Project). He like so many Christians and all other religionists has been "INDOCTRINATED" . There are over 38,000 different sects of Christianity. He has just been raised in a culture that swallows the bullshit of that sect. Mind you, I'm surprised he hasn't been able to adopt his scientific critical thinking skills to his retarded religion. Either that, or like so many Christians, he just does not want to admit to being an atheist. Hopefully he will eventually come to his senses and come out of the "Dark Ages." But, I doubt it!
"William Lane Craig is not only a devout Christian he is also a very smart scientist. (Genome Project)."
You're thinking of Francis Collins, who's a geneticist. William Lane Craig is a theologian, and certainly no scientist. That said, Collins also clearly has great cognitive dissonance going on. I doubt that he's "really" atheist though. Unfortunately as Michael Shermer said: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." That about sums it up.
WC is not a scientist. He is a philosophical theologian, which means he has no degree in any actual field. I also request everybody to please shorten his name as WC instead of WLC, thank you.
Craig is one of those intelligent idiot types. He is profoundly irrational but also quite cunning / sly / well versed in the ways of confusing people with big words and talking about things using "scientific support" that 99% of the audience has no clue what he's saying but it sounds so impressive they just go 'ooooohhhhh, aaaahhhhhh' and have their biases confirmed.
So It really depends on what you mean by 'retarded'.
He is a genius at being retarded. I give him a sure fire 10.
I applaud Professor Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig, who doesn’t deserve to be given the respect it would implicitly give him. Of course, Dawkins’ reason is that Craig explicitly endorses all the most horrific, genocidal depravities of God and his followers throughout the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament. Craig is not just retarded; he is demented.
Shouldn't we be saying "mentally challenged"?
Perhaps use of the word "retard" has a different meaning among the younger generations. According to Webster's Dictionary it refers to someone, from a medical standpoint, who is slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development.
I would argue that Doctor Craig does not meet that criteria. He is a very crafty individual who astutely disembowels most of those who choose to debate him. That does not imply that the content of his material has any validity, rather than he is an expert at audience perception and the ability to offer what appears to be plausible arguments on the surface but which fail when placed under scientific scrutiny.
We atheists have a problem with his kind. He is no pushover and we should respect his debating skills even though his arguments are flawed .
Actually, I was being tongue-in-cheek. I don't have a problem with using the word "retard" in a deprecating manner. I understand that people concerned with actual mentally-challenged people don't like the term applied to those people and I understand why. But if someone who should know better is acting dumb, I have no problem with using "retard."
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.