A World-Renowned Biologist Preparing Another Pathetic Press Release

A World-Renowned Biologist Preparing Another Pathetic Press Release
click on image to enlarge

36 thoughts on “A World-Renowned Biologist Preparing Another Pathetic Press Release

  1. Dawkins: For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

    You are trying to defend someone who excuses biblical genocide and refuses to address the ample criticisms of his set piece debate presentation nor fix his mistakes.

    As ex-priest MacDonald accurately points out:

    William Lane Craig is a self-seeking, preening peacock of a man. He debates — or tries to get debates with — the most prominent of the new atheists, and then he goes back to his website, and tells the story of his victories to his fans in the spirit of “Saul has killed his thousands, David his tens of thousands” — he being “David”, of course, to the new atheist’s “Saul”. And if he doesn’t get to debate them, he browbeats them for their failure to stand up to his challenge. The level of misrepresentation and prevarication involved in the proclamation of his victories is perhaps the least disturbing feature of this man, but it is not insignificant. After his debate with Lawrence Krauss this year Krauss felt the need to respond to Craig’s post-debate misrepresentations, to which, of course, Craig added his last word. The man is neither trustworthy nor fair. Since he thinks it’s alright to murder Canaanites in the name of God, he no doubt thinks he serves God best by puffed up victory celebrations of imaginary triumphs.

    I have noticed that Craig’s understanding of physics, for example, in his oft-repeated presentation is factually wrong and this has been explained to him on several occasions but he won’t correct it; instead, he just continues to spread lies in the name of piety. Like all apologists, the man is not intellectually honest as he continues to draw in the gullible to think of him as some kind of religious champion. He is a buffoon and as such richly deserves whatever scorn rational people who respect what’s true offer him in return for his intentional and directed dishonesty.


    1. tildeb,

      I’m not sure how to respond to someone like you who constantly insists that apologist (now “all apologists”) are not “intellectually honest”. You already operate on the presupposition that it’s true, so I’m not sure how anything I’ll say or have said matters. So let me just say clearly: I think you are seriously mistaken and only serve yourself by falling into the same ditch each time we interact. Now you add insult to injury by defining “all apologists” under the the umbrella of “dishonest”. Do you know “all apologists” personally? Have you talked to all apologists? Your reasoning may be on the line that, “Apologists believe in God. I know God doesn’t exist. So they are liars.” I think you presume to know too much and you’re fooling yourself. I urge you to consider Sir Francis Bacon’s thoughts on your position, since he was the father of the method you claim to embrace as humanity’s sole means of knowing what is true:

      The Scripture saith, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God”; it is not said, “The fool hath thought in his heart”; so as he rather saith it by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it; for none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man by this, that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others; nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects; and, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism.

      – Sir Francis Bacon, excerpt from “On Atheism”

      I’m not sure, but Dawkins, MacDonald, and others must not have the slightest idea how managers and secretaries, PR campaigns, or book tours operate. What evidence do you personally have to substatiate the claims of Dawkins and MacDonald that you quoted? What evidence shows Craig is responsible for arranging debates that he has been invited to?

      The apologist community is already use to the atheist mantra “Craig deserves it” to excuse a shared lack of common courtesy. It’s a little bit amusing to see atheist justify it, but mostly it’s sad.

      The accusations of genocide are common, yet I bet none who makes it is pro-life. What about you? Are you pro-life? If not, how can you, a mere man, justify the killing of around 42 millions babies each year in the name of a woman’s right to choose, yet point the finger at the Creator? Furthermore, did you know that the accusation is at least tacit admission for the factual accuracy of the Bible? (After all, if it’s not true and the Canaanites never existed, why the big fuss? You don’t see anybody getting upset over the genocide of Jedi.)

      As a side note, I hope that you do know the origin of the word “genocide”. Do you? Take a second to read into it. If anyone should be more concerned with “genocide”, it is those who hold to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. To the materialist, death on a massive scale is just another piece of the “grand” story of evolution, no?


  2. His dishonest ad is here. In case you missed why, let me explain that If Dawkins refuses to debate him, he is not absent at all. He is simply not there. An absence suggests an expected presence, and Craig had no right to make that presumption.

    All religious apologists are dishonest because their goal is simply to defend their religion’s faith claims from legitimate criticisms rather than seek out and defend what is true. If one identifies as a religious apologist, then one has taken on the inherent dishonesty, which is why I can apply the term ‘dishonest’ to all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

    Now let’s look at Craig’s apologist position on the murder of Canaanites:

    “So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing.”

    This is apologetic reasoning at its best. Genocide is okay if god commands it, you see, because god defines what is moral, but is this claim actually true? It is exactly the same reasoning used by Himmler to the SS troops in Poland undertaking the directed genocide: Just imagine the trauma of being commanded to murder a terrified woman and her children! Consider the brutalising effect of such a strenuous demand made by God on his chosen people! But to have done so and remained decent. This has made us strong!

    You see the problem? When one is busy justifying a biblical genocide because the assumption is that it is right and proper if commanded by god, one has left the playing field of honest debate, honest morality, honest intellectual integrity, and entered the realm of worshiping a label that makes even the most horrific actions justifiable. Craig has fallen down the rabbit-hole of his own beliefs.

    It matters that an apologist like Craig continues to spew this nonsense because it offers succor to those more extremist Jews in Israel who make use of precisely these biblical myths of conquest to justify the theft of land on the West Bank, and even the murder of Palestinians. Note Craig’s completely inappropriate use of the term ‘Israeli’ in his apologetics. The man has an agenda and it has nothing whatsoever to do with finding out what’s true, right, proper, moral, or ethical; he is going to try to make up seem down if it supports his a prior assumption that his religious beliefs are true.

    Genocide means the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. What that has to do with your anti-choice beliefs in the matter of the availability of abortion is a mystery to me.


    1. Andy, I’m not sure which rant you’re referring to. I presume the link to show Craig’s refusal to debate his former theological student and now atheist Loftus.

      But just in case you’re referring to why the genocide support is an important consideration, let me clarify why.

      Craig is using the same line of reasoning to excuse genocide as Himmler did when addressing SS troops in Poland in ’43, and that this fact should concern all of us – especially his supporters – far more than it apparently does.

      Here’s Craig:

      ““So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”

      Here’ Himmler:

      “Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet – apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness – to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written.”

      Cruelty does not become something else, just because it is imagined to be the command of a god. Yet this kind of thinking is assumed to be reasonable when it comes from Craig. Clearly it is not reasonable at all. It is a rationalization to excuse the content of an atrocity – real suffering of real people in this temporal world – on the basis of the assumed sanctity of its source: scripture. This – the divine command theory – is what Craig is saying, what he is promoting, what he is proselytizing, and no ‘debate’ in the world will alter his position one iota because the line of reasoning he uses is demonstrably NOT reasonable. It is locked into position as a matter of immutable faith, which is the mental groundwork necessary for atrocity to be done and called holy. It’s the thinking Craig uses that is broken and it is broken across the board in his presentation. No matter how much effort people put into correcting Craig’s broken line of thinking with fact – in his erroneous physics, in erroneous mathematics, in erroneous conclusions built upon these errors – he rejects factual correction and continues to spout the same garbage at every debate. He has immunized his mind from the corrective input by reality, and here many are cheering him on and deriding others for not helping this supporter of genocide draw bigger crowds.

      If that’s too wacky for you, Andy, then that’s the way it has to be.


      1. tildeb, did you seriously just liken a Nazi war criminal with Dr Craig and do it with a straight face?

        If there is a likeness, then I certainly can agree with and understand your concerns. But rest easy, your concerns are unwarranted about Dr Craig.

        I don’t mean to make God sound bad, but he allows every person to die, don’t you know. I mean, if God exists, then he has effectively killed every human that has ever lived. right? And surely it’s his prerogative, if he exists, to do so, right (and not our prerogative as fellow humans)?

        That’s why this issue is really more about biblical inerrancy rather than some sort of moral dilemma. The question to ask is, did God really command those things? Or have we read the texts correctly? Questions like these are appropriate.

        With regards to the supposed erroneous physics, mathematics etc. I’ve heard them all, and they’re just crap. I don’t know where you’re getting this stuff from. Perhaps you’ve watched the Zeitgeist movie and conclude that Dr Craig’s argument for the resurrection of Jesus is “erroneous” or something like that. It makes sense, right? Wrong. You just can’t go by what you read on some atheist websites, because they’re just flat out fallacious, either deliberately, or naively, but either way, fallacious. Good scholarship is what is needed by the atheists, and some have it, but most don’t, and judging by your ranting and raving, you’ve not come upon any good atheist scholarship yet, just angry atheist websites which purport fallacious ‘defeaters’ of Dr Craig’s arguments.

        Look, Dr Craig may be totally wrong in his conclusions, but if he is, it’s not because of any rebuttal argument I’ve heard from atheists so far. He is a master and has defended his theories with intellectual rigour that is of extremely high quality.

        Contrast that with Dawkins, and even though Dawkins is extremely intelligent, you can’t read the God delusion without realizing that Dawkins is either completely ignorant of even the most basics of philosophy, or else is purposely deceptive in ignoring even the most basics of philosophy which would undermine his biggest arguments.


  3. Andy, if or when you ever decide to find out what’s true about reality, you’re going to have let reality – and not your beliefs about it – guide you. If or when that happens, then revisit what you’ve written here and marvel that you could have actually written this and meant it.


  4. Andy, it’s pretty obvious your understanding of physics, for example, does not allow you a superior position of knowledge to call Krauss’ rebuttal on why Craig is wrong about his misuse of physics ‘crap’. Your understanding of probabilities does not allow you to appreciate why Craig’s use of them is a mathematical travesty. You don’t care that Craig doesn’t correct these obvious mistakes he makes over and over again in his spiel because you don’t care more about what’s true than you do about your loyalty first to someone who you think is a great defender of a shared faith. My ivory tower has nothing to do with the mixed up order of your priorities when it comes to inquiring about what’s true in reality. And in reality, Craig’s arguments (always the same five) have been thoroughly rebutted time and again. Where Craig touches down in reality in his arguments, he’s factually wrong as many much more knowledgeable people have tried to point out to him… to no avail. Where he flies off into his imaginings of metaphysics, his conclusions are unknowable. But you don’t care about any of this because you believe Craig’s arguments are both strong and right. That’s all you care about and you, like Craig, do so not out of any sense of intellectual integrity but strictly because you have faith that this must be so. You assume much, and much of it is wrong. Why don’t you care? I presume it’s because it doesn’t matter to you. If it did, you wouldn’t take the positions you do.


  5. Andy, I happen to have a great deal of respect for what’s true in reality and an equally deep respect for how we can know anything about it. Far too many of us do not share this respect and it has a hazardous effect worth confronting. Specifically, I care that attempts are made to unjustifiably to elevate equal respect for faith-based beliefs where none is warranted and this common gullibility exercised in the public domain is causing me harm. It requires sustained public criticism over time to reduce its influence.

    At the very least, consider me a consumer advocate against a defective product.


    1. tildeb, if you get the opportunity and you haven’t done so, research the French Revolution in France and both the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward in China. The first two were attempts to rid society of religion. In the case of the French Revolution, it was Christianity specifically. In China during the Cultural Revolution, it was religion in general. The third, the Great Leap Forward, was a, pardon the expression, “creation ex nihilo” attempt by the Communist; to create something out of the nothing that was left.

      While France has somewhat recovered in the few hundred years since, would you consider China better off now?

      We could add the Khmer Rouge to that list. They banned religion. The citizens rejoiced —or did they? The country and its citizens haven’t recovered yet.

      But the good news is that you can view history in hindsight and you can also experience the “fruits” of a society without religion right this very moment. Just move to China. Better yet, move to North Korea.

      Just think about these things, please.


      1. NAA, notice how you are so willing, even eager, to paint revolutions in terms of religion when – even at its most sympathetic historical review – the upheavals were about far, far more than this one effect. You then make the mistake of isolating a single effect and assuming causation for it. This is a terrible way to understand history because you are ignoring almost all of it. The reason you select this terrible technique is because it suits your aim, and that aim is not to understand what’s historically true but to support only that which you believe is historically true. This technique will always mislead you. Always.

        The French revolution was born from the American, and these social movements were heavily influenced by many factors. The most important factor, as is clear in the results, was a new form of government whose power came not from the top down – not from god through some ordained individual or caste unto the people under its command but from the bottom up – from the individual upwards.

        This was the revolutionary impetus nurtured especially by the Scottish enlightenment, which is why all the great thinkers of this time wrote extensively about the power of its motivation for political upheaval. One of the social institutions that stood diametrically opposed to this new way of justifying the flow of power for political authority was religion (for lack of a better name). Of course any institution that stood against this overthrow-of-the-old and instituting-of-the-new would have its agents targeted.

        The catholic church didn’t then and doesn’t today grant the individual authority for his or her autonomy. It continues like it did then and still does today to demand obedience to its authority to represent god’s wishes and intentions. This is played out in all kinds of legal issues todaywhere the church insists it still has the final authority to interpret god’s wishes on your behalf… from who owns your life to how you can exercise it. That’s why the church continues to meddle in secular affairs (meaning respecting the political and legal rights of autonomous individuals) over medical practices, reproductive issues, civil rights, end of life treatments, and so on. It interferes in secular education, secular law, secular politics and claims to be the interpretive source for your values and morals, your behavioural ethics, your political rights, your civic freedoms, all in the name of worshiping through cannibalism some invisible schizophrenic sky daddy suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

        The totalitarian dictatorships you mention replace religion as the ultimate authority. Of course any institution that stood against this overthrow-of-the-old and instituting-of-the-new would have its agents targeted. But you do historical accuracy no favour by pretending that these revolutions were undertaken to overthrow religion; that the religious institutions were targeted was merely part and parcel of the revolutions as much as the killing off the intelligentsia and members of the old social hierarchies. That’s what makes them revolutions.

        If you wish to protect your religious rights and freedoms, then it is your own best interest to support the secular state that holds individual autonomy as the final authority for its political power. When you go after the secular state, you are doing the dirty work of those who would remove your claim as an autonomous individual to your religious rights and freedoms and replace that with an authority to disburse what it deems appropriate. You empower this by supporting people like Craig who willingly submit themselves to this authority and who end up justifying genocide – the mass killing of individuals – because god (through whoever speaks on its behalf) and not these individuals being slaughtered holds the final authority. Clearly, this is step directly away from those enlightenment values that empowered you to have the right and freedom to your own religious beliefs.


      2. tildeb,

        Your reading of history and even my messages is very one-sided. I’m amazed at how you could not see or how can overlook why I mentioned the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution. It’s because they were systematic assaults and overthrows of religion, what you seem to be wanting to do. You can’t read the history of the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution and not see it.

        I’m not sure whether or not you have shared your position on abortion. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? (It is related to this thread.) Last time I asked, you hid behind a feigned sense of mystery as to my “anti-choice”. It’s curious to me that you can complain about a genocide in the Bible, yet you don’t have anything to say on the genocide here-and-now. In fact, you seem to support it.


  6. Okay, I see. I didn’t know it was causing you harm. I can well understand your disdain for unjustifiable faith-based beliefs. Really.

    As a theist though, I am just far more intrigued by the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth than I ought to if he were just another person.

    My take is that all philosophies and religions are exclusive and intolerant. What makes Christianity different is how it deals with differing views (ie what Jesus of Nazareth said about the issue).

    I disagree that the sort of criticism you’re engaging in will over time reduce it’s influence. If anything you’ll only elevate it. Are you aware of that? Your efforts may be counter-productive. Certainly, your attitude is.


  7. No Andy, all philosophies are NOT exclusive and intolerant. If you studied any philosophy at all, you’d understand why your claim is groundless. If you actually wanted to study the life of Jesus, you’d do it as an historian. The fact you do so as a theist means you are most likely to put the cart before the horse, meaning you will assume you conclusions a priori to first suit your beliefs before you then try to learn anything approaching historical accuracy. Christianity is broken into more than 30,000 sects many with contrary truth claims. Much of this difference is based on what people believe Jesus said about many things but as the guy who has introduced eternal and everlasting hell, I tend to want to know if such a remarkable claim about reality is true. Your belief doesn’t help me, as disappointing for both of us as that is.

    As for my disappointing attitude, I’m sure you’ll cope. But my efforts do yield change. I have received many testimonials to that effect. And my efforts do challenge others to clarify what it is they actually think about this stuff. I will never convince anyone that something they believe in is wrong but may help them re-examine why their beliefs do not deserve certainty. And like any good scientist must do, the theist also has to learn to allow for doubt, to allow for the fact that his or her theistic beliefs may in fact be wrong. That in and of itself is a huge step in the right direction, in the direction of respecting why what’s true matters.

    As for the broader efforts of gnu atheists, we are told all the time by apologists and accommodationists and the faithful that our efforts are counterproductive. Well, it’s not the first nor will it be the last time that your beliefs – like the faith-based beliefs relied on by so many others – misguide you into drawing a false conclusion. To take but one example, just look at the drop in the aggregate religiosity after the gnu atheists began publishing. There are dozens of strong statistical indications that in fact the public argument against respecting faith-based beliefs is gaining greater and greater traction and effect… especially with the younger generation where those who claim atheism outnumbers any other singular religious denomination. This should not be happening if your claim were to be true. Fortunately, it’s not.

    Why doesn’t it cause you any intellectual angst that you can be led so easily astray by ill-informed beliefs into thinking something is true when it is not? At what point do you admit that you cannot trust any faith – except in matters that have nothing to do with reality – that aligns you with people who excuse mass murder, for example, on the basis that all of us eventually die? I honestly don’t get how one can prostitute one’s mind and ignore the most fundamental moral commonalities we share and think it is of service to the divine. The notion – the willingness – for the faithful to then defend this capitulation to undermine and (too often in the case of evolution) reject what’s true in fact is bizarre to me.


  8. tildeb. I’m trying very hard to understand you. I know you think you are making sense and that I’m some irrational and stupid Christian, but perhaps you need to take a step back and just have a look at yourself and what you’ve said?

    Look, I don’t know what brand of breakfast cereal you got your education from, but even the most tolerant of people, are simultaneously intolerant of those who they perceive as intolerant. Haven’t you seen this? whatev’s.

    Re Jesus, studying him as a historian is exactly what I do man. It’s also the reason I am so convinced about him. Have you????

    As for the supposed 30,000 sects of Christianity. Dude, your information is waaaay off. What whack-job internet atheist website did you get that from? A quick google of that and you’ll see what I mean. 1. it’s highly exaggerated even with the most liberal of criteria. 2. these “sects” actually agree on all the core tenets of Christianity (ever heard of mere Christianity?) and there are really only minor differences, eg style of worship, or an interpretation on something like the mode of baptism or some other trivial detail. You’re wrong when you say much of the difference is on what Jesus said about hell or something like that. This just shows your sheer ignorance, and, it also shows where you’re getting your information from… most likely one of the whacko internet atheist websites around which while purporting to be intellectual, are just full of deliberate misinformation, and, essentially, flat out lies. Good grief man.

    As for doubt, I agree with you. Doubt is really important, I’ve come to see. The reason being that it can lead you to question previously held beliefs, and hopefully approach what is actually true. The important thing though, is to be thorough in your questioning. I have some Muslim friends who keep telling me about someone who grew up a Christian and then started asking some questions about it (such as why did Jesus have to die when the people in the old testament were going to heaven anyway) and he couldn’t get a decent answer from his parents so he became a Muslim instead. That seems ludicrous to me.

    And as for intellectual angst, well, actually, I actually have a lot of intellectual angst because I know people can be so easily led astray. It’s so damn easy. You gotta be so careful, I fully agree with you here too. But dude, comparing Dr Craig with a Nazi war criminal is, well, stupid. It merely reveals your own stupendous ignorance of the kind of person Dr Craig is, and also what he has actually said about the matter. Again, which of the whack-job internet atheist websites have you gotten all this from?

    Re the rise of atheism. Atheism is still a vast minority in the world. Less than a few percent. Christianity is growing. Only in some western nations is atheism on the rise, but globally, that’s not true. Check your stats on a non internet-infidel site, one with a shred of credibility and you’ll see.

    Look I get your scepticism, I totally understand it. But firstly, you need to get your facts straight about what people who disagree with you are saying (ie Dr Craig – comparing him like you have merely belies your sheer ignorance), also, you need to stop going to those pathetically misleading internet-infidel atheist websites. Many are good, but the vast majority are just a bunch of people back-slapping each other in their mutual disdain of religion. And I can understand some of that, I too do not like religion either. But for the most part, they are just fallacious, and the ranting and raving that you’re spewing out sounds verbatim like the sort of rubbish they give. I don’t like religion either dude. Seriously. I’m just enamoured with the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. To me, he stands well apart.


  9. No, Andy, you are not trying – neither very hard or nor hardly at all – to understand. You are substituting your assumptions to ‘explain’ what you would prefer to understand and then commenting on these misrepresentations.

    For example, my claim is that there is no qualitative difference in the apologetic thinking from either Craig or Himmler that excuses genocide on the basis of ‘just following orders’ and suggesting that we should feel compassion not for the victims but for the murderers.

    Neither you nor NAA have done anything other than reject this claim of similar thinking not because it isn’t true but because you simply don’t like it. Well… tough. Craig’s reasoning is as morally repugnant for supporting the divine command theory as is Himmler’s for supporting the Final Solution. It’s exactly the same respect for divine authority with a single substitution: Hitler for God.

    You continued jabs at my level of education and source materials that inform my opinions suffer from poor targeting. I’ll write it again: your assumptions are wrong.

    If you were honest, you would admit that the quality of the existing historical record about Jesus compared to the kinds of claims made about him that you find so enamoring leaves us no choice but to accord these claims as highly suspect at best. Being enamored at what you believe about Jesus is not evidence for Jesus’ historical importance. What is evident is that you don’t care about being honest; you care about wanting your beliefs to be right. On the alter of your beliefs you are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to achieve this goal including honesty and intellectual integrity. But most disturbing of all is that you are willing to embrace Craig’s/Himmler’s abhorrent moral stance to maintain your beliefs. You’re obviously eating the wrong cereal if you think the problem here is with others.


  10. tildeb. What’s going on in your life that is making you behave this way? Are you angry at something? Has someone hurt you? What is it that makes you behave like this? It must be pretty bad, right?


  11. I mean, I’m sorry that you think I’m not trying to understand you, but I am. I think I am starting to understand you a bit more, but you’re just surrounded by a wall of hate and bitterness, and for your own sake, you need to let that stuff go, it’ll harm you and your life.


  12. You see, Andy, you’re doing it again… trying to divert the issue away from what’s true in fact – WLC’s apologist approach is so morally bankrupt that it actually tries to excuse genocide if ‘god’ commands it – to something personal about me. I responded to this post to point out this obvious moral shortcoming deduced from Craig’s reasoning. This shortcoming should concern you deeply. That it matches up so well with the reasoning by Himmler should also concern you deeply and make you question not the motives of the person pointing out this apt comparison but you who are willing to excuse it.

    This moral shortcoming has nothing to do with me. It is reprehensible. Anyone who excuse it should be challenged to confront what it is they are excusing. Some ideas, Andy, are worthy of contempt and WLC’s apologistic assumptions that lead his reasoning to excuse genocide is one. That you cannot appreciate the scope of your moral capitulation to excuse Craig’s repugnant opinion is the issue and not meant for you to defend yourself from me but to defend your choice with your own moral sense to agree with Himmler’s reasoning, which produces exactly the same result when put into action as Craig’s pious hypocrisy… an hypocrisy that pretends to lay claim to the moral high ground when it so blatantly arrives at its bottom. Craig’s argument includes the notion that atheists have no comparable ground on which to claim moral firmness accessible to believers. This is so obviously false that it stupefies the mind that any rational person could agree with its absurdity when the evidence clearly shows that Craig’s moral ground leads to excusing genocide and tells us to hold compassion for those who have to carry it out rather than its victims who – no, really! – deserve this divine retribution. It’s so obviously backwards that it astounds those us not so befuddled with religious nonsense that this transparent hypocrisy isn’t met with more laughter and derision, for that is exactly what Craig’s moral claims deserve.


  13. NAA, consider this a response to the very skinny comment you made way up there in this thread.

    In that skinny comment you write It’s because they (the French revolution and the Chinese cultural revolution) were systematic assaults and overthrows of religion, what you seem to be wanting to do. You can’t read the history of the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution and not see it.

    No, NAA, you are factually wrong. The central cause that promoted each revolution was not to overthrow religion. This is a bizarre understanding of the historical record… especially in the Chinese example where any traditional/cultural practice came under attack in the name of replacing everything with Mao’s socialism. China in the 60s was hardly a bastion of religion. Please reread my earlier comment about confusing a single effect (an attack against a religious institution and its agents) to be the focus of what caused the revolution. You have put the cart before the horse with this understanding but this is absolutely typical of a religious apologist to seek out only what evidence seems to support their previously formed conclusion rather than have to deal with all the evidence. And the overwhelming evidence is that these revolutions attacked everything that represented what came before… including religion. Every totalitarian government does this and every revolution targets whatever impedes it.

    Your abortion question has nothing to do with supporting the immorality of Craig’s apologetics. It doesn’t matter what I think about abortion when it comes to Craig supporting genocide and offering compassion to the perpetrators rather than the victims. What you are transparently trying to do is label anyone who disagrees with your anti-choice stance to be equivalent to supporting genocide. This is duplicitous of you so I didn’t go there because it’s irrelevant to Craig and his hypocritical morality.

    Because you’ve asked twice, I’ll respond.

    The issue of respecting personal choices about personal medical issues has nothing whatsoever to do with someone supporting a genocide and excusing it on religious grounds. Whether or not this woman or that for whatever medical reasons there may be decides to undergo an abortion is an issue not of morality but of access to medical treatment. As such, the issue you label as ‘pro-life’ is really about whether or not anyone has any right to have that choice. That’s why I relabeled your term as that which is against anyone exercising that choice, namely anti-choice. The ‘life’ part is an intentional misrepresentation about the issue that bears no resemblance to what’s factually true in reality.

    For example, a woman and mother and wife who must undergo a therapeutic abortion to save her life for very sound medical reasons must face this ridiculous label you support as being against ‘life’ because she has to make that very difficult choice to end the life of her fetus to save her own. Regardless of which choice she makes, the fetus is going to die. The incoherency of the ‘anti-choice’ lobby with their delusional labels and fervent fundamentalist beliefs about the sanctity of the zygotes and blastocysts becomes apparent as soon as one steps into the real world of human medicine and watches this woman needlessly die in the name of protecting her now dead fetus. You see, the greatest abortionist is nature herself – a state of the world we inhabit often confused with a supernatural agent of intention and intervention called god – who spontaneously aborts about a third of all human pregnancies. Reproductive medicine – vilified by the anti-choice crowd to be evil and immoral – is working very hard to reduce that percentage so that more women and less nature have a choice in the matter of keeping a pregnancy to term… not that any of the anti-choice crowd has a clue about the real work done in such areas of medical research that dares to use any fetal tissue without incurring the wrath of the wingnuts and whackjobs who support the murdering of doctors and hypocritically call themselves ‘pro-life’ers. But hey, we already know that hypocrisy and religion’s necessary faith-based beliefs have always been co-joined twins.


  14. tildeb. The reason I respond that way is because you comparison is just so far off it’s not funny. I know you think you’ve made some big point about WLC, but it’s just so far removed from reality it belies to me some inner working going on in you that would prompt you to be so vitriolic. You’re a long way from reality or the truth, but I have hope for you yet. I know that statement probably infuriates you, sorry, but your comparison between Craig and Himmler is just completely absurd. You need to get a grip and stop being such an “angry atheist”. Why not read the articles you posted above? They’re pretty interesting.


    1. You keep denying the comparison yet the reasoning is identical. I submitted the two articles to show that this is not about me and the ‘anger’ you falsely attribute to my motives to expose this identical reasoning; both authors – including a self-admitted believer – are equally disturbed by Craig’s reasoning! Do you also attribute the same imagined ‘anger’ to their observation?

      The reasoning Craig has expressed – and that I quoted – is not imagined. The reasoning really IS Craig’s opinion and the fact – not imaginings – that it is identical reasoning used by Himmler – which I quoted – is not made up. It is the same reasoning leading to the same results: killing in the name of some ‘authority’ and blaming the victims for deserving the slaughter for some supposed failing while we are to feel compassion for the murderers and the hard task they have of killing women and children!

      The fact that you continue to deny what is right in front of your nose is really quite remarkable. The power of your assumption that what Craig stands for is somehow morally acceptable because it comes from an authority you respect (god) is understandable. Your bias to excuse even an atrocity as if it were moral may appear sound when the authority is god. But when you replace the authority with Hitler and achieve exactly the same results, it should create significant cognitive dissonance to be considered moral. In other words, the Sesame Street song should come to mind: ‘One of these things just doesn’t belong here’. And guess what it is? Committing an atrocity and calling it moral (based solely on the source of the authority) cannot be logically consistent. That’s why Craig cannot respond – as both articles point out – coherently to the charge that a god-sanctioned genocide is somehow moral when a man-sanctioned genocide is not. Genocide is not moral, by the way.

      When you think this through and stop rejecting it out of hand because you don;t like it, then you will begin to open your eyes to the depth and breadth of your religiously inspired bias and perhaps – if you are honest – begin to see just how dangerous beliefs such as yours expressed and supported in the public domain really is. Hitchens didn’t just make up the notion that religion poisons everything; it is played out every day to the very real cost and additional suffering of real people while the Craigs of this world continue to spew their metaphysical nonsense and think themselves pious.


      1. tildeb. I can see that you’re quite disturbed by what you see going on here. You see Dr Craig making similar sounding speeches to those Himmler gave. I can well understand the moral repugnance you might feel from that. But rest easy man, because you’re not quite hitting the nail on the head here. The issue is not quite as black-and-white as you might think. Interpreting old testament scriptures is a task that can go horribly wrong when you lack the cultural and linguistic back-drop of the authors. For example, you read about ‘eye for an eye’, right? And so you think if someone hurts you, the legal system says they get hurt in the same way back, right? Wrong. That’s not what that means as any scholar familiar with the work will tell you. You’re just being too simplistic to understand the nuances going on here.

        Look, the bible is full of horrible things that I wish were not there. Actually, I don’t know why you’re not railing against other worse things, such as hell for example. The idea of hell is far more repugnant to me than the ‘atrocities’ of the old testament. I wish it wasn’t there, but it is.

        I read the articles, and I see that a lot of people, like you, completely misunderstand what’s going on.

        And you’re right, some Christians don’t agree with his interpretation. But even Daniel Came said “I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament’s infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation.” Interesting.

        Of course no one likes to think of God killing people, or ordering people to kill other people. But even so, he allows this to happen to thousands every day, and yet you choose something that happened thousands of years ago to be the focus of your moral repugnance? That seems weird. People die needlessly every day and God allows it and Christians have been saying for thousands of years that God allows it. Injustice happens every day and God allows it (though it’s also clear from biblical texts that he hates injustice). That injustice goes on makes me kinda mad at God, you know. The driving out or killing of a people group thousands of years ago means relatively little to me right now in light of what I see happening today.

        Honestly, I don’t understand why there is suffering in this world. But I do know this: that it is not logically contradictory with the idea that God exists, and if God exists and is the creator, then I guess he can do whatever he likes and there’s not much I can do about that. I don’t like that, you don’t like that, but it’s not illogical.

        Look, there has been a lot of work done in this field. I suggest you avail yourself of the work so you don’t sprout your ignorance on forums like these. You’re really not doing yourself or atheism any favours by being so self-contradictory, vitriolic, and simple-minded.

        Why not head over to this website had have a read, it’s interesting enough:



  15. I should mention that the ‘bad’ stuff I talked about being in the bible is less than half the story. You see, only with Christianity is there a sense that there is anything good. Look at what it says about wrongs done, and about justice and in particular mercy and grace, and you’ll hopefully see what I mean. I just realised that I was sharing a lopsided view of the bible. It’s not all doom and gloom, quite the opposite. But it’s not ‘pie in the sky by and by’ either.


    1. Having read and studied different versions of the bible, I am well aware of those cherry-picked sections believers like to use to show what you imply is the good stuff. My atheism – contrary to your opinion – has been arrived at honestly: by treating the bible and the koran and gita and the book of the dead seriously.


  16. Andy, of course the problem of suffering reveals a logical inconsistency of a benevolent all powerful god. But the Euthyphro Dilemma is not answered by the divine command theory Craig argues because you know and I know that this reasoning produces an immoral result. Genocide is not morally defensible, whether commanded by god or Hitler. Yet Craig continues to argue that it is, presuming that there has to be some greater moral good hidden in the background because god is moral. The logical inconsistency of this circular reasoning is readily apparent to anyone who can think straight. But Craig doesn’t stop here in his decent into the moral rabbit hole of his own making: he then argues that morality comes from god and that without god we cannot be moral!

    The reasoning is broken from the top down and stands in stark contrast to the evidence we have that morality begins with our biology and is developed through our interchange with our environment over time. We see the same behaviours we identify as moral behaviours in many other animals as well: compassion, comfort, aid, sharing, etc.. This fundamentally different understanding of morality as part of our biology helps us to better understand through real world evidence its important role in human interactions. The notion that it comes from god is actually quite infantile in comparison with the evidence we have on hand and stands without any equivalent evidence to back it up. In fact, Craig’s position clearly shows that this notion of a bestowed morality – yet contained and revealed within christian scripture – is contrary evidence to what is true in reality. To add insult to injury, Craig would then have us think that atheists have undermined their ability to receive god-sanctioned morality because of a lack of belief and so are morally impaired. The argument is patently wrong.

    You, like every other apologist, switch your failed defense of god’s morality to explain this dichotomy – scriptural evidence that your god is NOT moral – as a matter of correct scriptural interpretation because – like Craig – you have to presume your god is moral. What I find absolutely fascinating is how easily apologetic believers use their presumed conclusions to defend their premises and then boldly pretend that their logic is sound and it is that rational process that has led them to their faith-based beliefs! The opposite is what’s true in fact: that it is the faith-based belief alone that has led them to rationalize the square peg of their beliefs into the round hole of reality and that any problem encountered must be the fault of reality and those who respect it.

    I am beginning to take umbrage at your repeated assertion that my understanding of the bible is lacking. In comparison to most christian believers who have the audacity to think that they should believe what the bible says, my biblical scholarship is certainly no less than theirs and I would argue quite a bit more. But that fact, whether you agree with it or not, doesn’t alter the content of my argument: Craig’s claim to the moral high ground through his faith is demonstrably false and it is ironic that NAA has so grossly missed the mark by drawing a ‘world-renowned biologist preparing another press release’ from the book of shameless personal insults when all it takes is a mere moment of clear thinking to reveal Craig’s duplicity.


    1. You’re killing me again, tildeb. Just when I thought you were making progress in your online social skills, you immediately go back to insults. Where’s your positive case for atheism? Why is it a superior worldview? What explanatory power does it have for anything? What has atheism contributed to the advancement of the human species? Those are questions I want you to address. Not here, but on your blog.

      You stare into an abyss of ultimate nonsense and meaningless that compose life and the universe according your worldview and claim to understand what you see. You then pretend to care in a careless universe by posting comments here to the effect that we, theists (Christians specifically) are deluded, duplicitous, liars, and frauds. You’re welcome to your opinion. I’m welcome to disagree. We’re welcome to argue. Meanwhile, while we’re being keyboard commandoes, the world limps along on the brink of financial ruin. This sort of interaction is just not fun or appealing anymore to me. What about you?

      You’re attacking Craig and I personally couldn’t care less. He doesn’t need my meager help to defend him. (In fact, I’ve only ever bought and read one of his books, and even that one was just $1 USD!) I don’t agree with Craig on several things and the purpose of this particular cartoon was not a defense of Craig personally. It was to shed light on what Dawkins missed out on by being anti-intellectual in his snubbing of the debate. Dawkins missed out on laying down a clear, concise case for atheism to probably the largest audience of “deluded” Christians he may ever have the opportunity to speak to (both there and subsequent online audiences, like YouTube, Vimeo, etc.). (Even Peter Millican, a very articulate atheist, noted this about the number of people who follow Craig in their recent debate.) Did he do it? No, he just rambled in the press. Where he legitimately concerned that we Christians in particular are deluded, why not show up and explain to us?

      And you made strong accusations about the content of my cartoon. But even a fellow atheist, Daniel Came, called Dawkins’s excuses “cynical and anti-intellectualist”. Speaking of Dawkins’s latest statement to the press, he even called it an “undignified rant”. Here’s the story:

      The Guardian UK: Richard Dawkins’s refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist

      Let me end my responses on this thread with this: I would challenge you to step away from the keyboard a short time. Get outside. Go help somebody do something. At times, you do leave a sentence or two that adds to thinking, but now you are just wandering far away from anything constructive. You want to sweep history in all its warts under the rug, throw religion (specifically Judaism and Christianity) out of the public realm (which you’ve yet to define, I think). It has been tried. Like I told you, you have the benefit of enjoying the fruits of such labors now by immediately moving to North Korea or China.

      Oh, my name is Joshua, by the way.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s