Loftus "SLAM DUNKS" William Lane Craig?

For those people that don't know, or haven't been around the neighborhood of Loftus enough, Dr. William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist with a doctorate in philosophy and other related subjects. WLC is related to Loftus in that he is now his former mentor as self-admitted here: I have the near equivalent of a Ph.D. in the Philosophy or Religion/Apologetics (three master's degrees and Ph.D. studies). I majored under William Lane Craig and earned a Th.M. degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985.

For the few years I've gotten to know John, I've learned that he's very egotized when it comes to this simple fact about his personal history. I think his intention behind making the matter publically known is self-explanatory: William Lane Craig is an apologist for Christianity, and John is an apostate for Christianity. Two polar opposites in the same basket: WLC the teacher, and Johnny Appleseed the student. Put two and two together, you get a student who somehow manages to surpass the teacher! Wow, that's credibility!

Another fundamental difference between Craig and Loftus is that Craig has authored a countless number of books about different subjects all correlating to what Loftus argues against in his blog. John, on the other hand, has authored......err....um.....one single book? If you search "John W. Loftus" on Amazon.com, you'll be suprised if you come up with little more than a handful of books by John, all essentially under the same exact title, or at least, all about the same exact topic, yet refined here and there (depending on book copy). You see, John has this obsession of his that his books needs constant perfecting...over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Certain prior versions to John's contemporary update of his book may be sold for three times the price you would get for a new copy. Quite honestly, I'm not sure if John keeps good enough track of his book versions from time to time, as he often updates his cumulative text as much as the Apple Company comes up with some new fancy edition of what was once known simply as "The iPod."

Most TWebbers are by necessity, Christian. They spend a great deal more time than I ever would involved in forums that pertain to Dr. Craig and his works, or any other popular apologist. Apparently, as pointed out by TWebber Pumbelo, John's been looking for other outlets in which to avoid "the sewer" he frequents on occassion (I guess, for a momentary time period in his life, John aspires to develop consistency). John took recent events in academia in which there was a debate between Dr. Craig and the recent doctorate-holder, Richard Carrier. See the comments for yourself and judge whether or not John's statements to be made are full of double standards and pretentious ego:

I didn't think Carrier did badly although I do question why he focused on that which he did.

Still, even if Dr. Craig won this debate as some have said, what does that show? Nothing that I can tell, at least not to me. Craig is a formidable debater having started out by being on a High School debate team. And Craig is very knowledgeable on these issues having written or contributed to many books on these topics. One would guess there isn't anything an opponent could say that Craig hasn't already considered before. And given his huge advantage as a skilled debater his opponents don't have much of a chance to win.

But Craig is wrong. Jesus did not rise up from the dead. Craig is merely giving answers to beliefs he adopted in his teenage years for less than intelligent reasons. Dead people do not rise up from the grave. They can't. Such a thing is fairy tale wishful thinking unbecoming of what best represents scholarship. He has a presumption in favor of that which he seeks to defend. He marshalls together all of the confirming evidence based upon conjecture after conjecture, and he discounts all of the disconfirming evidence. I'm not saying this is intellectual dishonesty, but if anyone is actually persuaded by his historical case then I have a piece of property on Mars I want to sell him. Such a person is deluded.

There can be no historical confirmation of such an event that would ever persuade an intellectually honest person. One must first be able to cross over Lessing's Broad Ugly Ditch, which cannot be done with historical evidence. Hence Craig's case is doomed. He even admitted so in a Q & A about Lessing's ditch. So the rest is a shell game, a charade, a sham. He's like an emperor with no clothes on smiling at the crowds as he parades down the streets where everyone pretends not to notice he's naked. He is naked. I can see this plain as day, and it's very embarrassing.

Debate skills don't prove anything to me. Even having the knowledge he has doesn't prove anything to me. People can have a great deal of knowledge more than I do on a topic and be dead wrong about their conclusions. That describes Craig. He's a deluded man--a brainwashed man from his youth. A likeable man, no doubt, for I like him a great deal and consider him a friend. But he desperately needs an intervention soon.

Harsh words for a former college mentor. Indeed, extremely harsh...and very pretentious. My feelings on John's intention by parading himself as a former WLC student have now been confirmed as fact. It is also extremely pretentious that John would ridicule Craig for the circumstances of his religious preferences, and not being sensitive to those areas considering John has "been there before." And the possibility that Craig could be right, and John could be wrong, is simply non-existent in John's mind. He's found the answers, through his mentor's training, and has utilized his experiences to his advantage. Hence, he reigns superior. It's nothing short of pretentiousness, in reality.

I wonder if Craig considers John to be his "friend" when John makes posts like these:

I learned from DC member Darrin at the Carrier/Craig debate that Craig said he would not debate his former students. That's what he said. I am now classed with a group of people, i.e., the people comprised of his former students. And Dr. Craig says he will not debate anyone in that class of people. Okay, I guess. But given the fact that I'm probably the only member of this class of people who wants to debate him he might as well have said: "I will not debate John W. Loftus."I've heard him say this before about former students, so it’s not really like he’s singling me out, or is it? While I was a student of his he said something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig was on a High School debate team and has been debating these topics for probably just as long as I've been thinking about them. And he had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."

He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will.

I wouldn't doubt the possibility that John has become accustomed to using reverse psychology on his readers, whether they agree with him or not. Actually, it's not even so much a possibility, as it is a truth. That can be deduced from John's blog shenanigans a couple of years ago. And John's largely inflated ego and overall low argumentative intelligence, give me the impression that this is no different. Am I expected to believe that John's former professor who has authored many more books than he ever has is somehow afraid to debate him, or that he even said what John claims he said back in 1985? I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone else should subject themselves to buying it either.

Does he really fear me? I don’t know. But just maybe he does after all. He could change his mind though. I think a lot of people would be interested in this match-up.

If he changes his mind let me suggest a debate topic: Evangelical Christianity is More Probable Than Any Other Alternative. Why should he want to debate any other topic? This is what he believes is it not?

Since John basically argues against Evangelical Christianity, and makes that highlight out to be the entire depiction of Christianity, how are we going to believe that Craig is convinced that evangelism is the most probable alternative as John would have this debate titled? So John is not only being pretentious here, but additionally presumptous. The sad thing is, most of his subscribers believe him, uncritically.

While our good hero DJ presumes that TWeb is a "sewer" to be avoided, he isn't getting the good reception he would like to have from elsewhere:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/p...6&postcount=56

"Forget about trying to win friends and influence people; this kind of obnoxious bluster is the reason that many people don't take you seriously. If you kept better control of your tongue, more people might be interested in what you have to say. But the unargued assertions and name calling in which you're indulging here are not a good advertisement.

Hey John, by the way, how many times has it been now that you've written the same book? Wait, let me guess, your next book it going to be about how you were once a Christian and now you're an atheist! Wow! I've never heard that one before (especially from you John)! It's time for another topic John!!!"

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/rfforum/show_single_post?pid=32671070&postcount=58

"Look John, we know you've been doing everything to make your name off of Dr. Craig's. You name drop him like a baby drops bombs. Coming here in this forum and being an arrogant jerk just makes you look like a clown. I wonder if you can go at least one year without mentioning Dr. Craig's name."

It's just as fellow TWebber "Mountain Man" once stated:

"And he thinks he has it rough here at TheologyWeb."

Amen to that.