‘Unbelieving’ WLC – William Lane Craig exposed by Lawrence Krauss

0


Published on Aug 13, 2013

This video follows up the exchange between physicist and author Lawrence Krauss and christian apologist William Lane Craig, which took place at Brisbane's City Hall on August 7, 2013.

During his introductory speech, Krauss candidly exposed a number of falsehoods and besmirchments recently propagated by Craig in response to the upcoming film, The Unbelievers. The film (scheduled for release later this year) follows famed scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss as they travel the world promoting science and reason.

Following the event, Craig offered an "apology" on his Facebook page, in which he denied any wrong-doing but, instead, proclaimed it all a big misunderstanding.

This video documents the lies and misrepresentations made by Craig, as well as corresponding video footage pertaining to the comments in question.

Full text of WLC's apology:

After a very full day at a Pastor's Conference yesterday in Adelaide, Jan and I finally have a bit of a break. This gives me a chance to address one of the personal charges that Krauss issued in his opening speech of the Brisbane event.
It concerns a mistake which I had already realized and corrected some time ago. When Kevin Harris and I recorded our podcasts reviewing the movie "The Unbelievers," we worked off an audio recording someone had made of the movie. So we could not see who was actually speaking. I mistook who was speaking in an exchange between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell and so misinterpreted the exchange. When we became aware of the mistake, we immediately corrected the podcast so that the misattribution was no longer made. However, Krauss obtained a copy of the initial uncorrected podcast during the few days it was public and played it during his opening speech, followed by the clip from the movie showing what had actually taken place. He construed this as deliberate misrepresentation and distortion on my part, thereby impugning my character.
The mistake was mine, and I regret it. It was, however, an honest mistake, self-corrected as soon as we became aware of it. It was not deliberate misrepresentation or distortion as Prof. Krauss charged. I explained this to him personally after the Dialogue, but he remained unmollified. It will be interesting to see if he brings it up in the Sydney Dialogue.


continue to source article at youtu.be

NO COMMENTS

  1. For the most part I think, religious individuals live within an unverifiable and unfalsifiable subculture, so perhaps they end up incapable of distiguishing truth from falsehoods; bit like the members of the Texas Education Board.

  2. It is easy to find controversial talking points when you blatantly lie and make up false arguments.

    I applaud Dawkins’ refusal to “debate” WLC and I hope other public figures will take note of his dishonest tactics.

    • In reply to #4 by DHudson:

      It is easy to find controversial talking points when you blatantly lie and make up false arguments.I applaud Dawkins’ refusal to “debate” WLC and I hope other public figures will take note of his dishonest tactics.

      Why are you accusing Richard Dawkins of being dishonest?

      S G

      • In reply to #23 by Stafford Gordon:

        In reply to #4 by DHudson:

        It is easy to find controversial talking points when you blatantly lie and make up false arguments.I applaud Dawkins’ refusal to “debate” WLC and I hope other public figures will take note of his dishonest tactics.

        Why are you accusing Richard Dawkins of being dishonest?…

        Because secretly I’m a huge William Lane Craig fan.

    • In reply to #4 by DHudson:

      It is easy to find controversial talking points when you blatantly lie and make up false arguments.I applaud Dawkins’ refusal to “debate” WLC and I hope other public figures will take note of his dishonest tactics. Come on, DHudson! Get serious. The whole world knows that Dawkins reasons for not debating WLC is because he KNOWS he will be humiliated and it will ruin his cause and profile, just like his debate with John Lennox. Excuses, excuses, excuses!

  3. It would be fascinating to gather up a few of the best federal psychologists who specialize in the criminal mind and have them give their professional opinions about any number of people like WLC. Surely they could tell a thing or two about eye movements, body shifting, voice inflections, etc.

    In fact, I’m surprised there aren’t perennial, best-selling manuals from those in the criminal justice system describing the persuasive tactics used by those with religious power. Instead, it seems to me that scientists alone are left with the burden of protecting society from the clear and present danger of pervasive faith-lying for personal gain.

    Mike

    • In reply to #5 by Sample:

      I don’t really see how that should work. Even psychological scientists, yes psychology is a science, are not able to categorize statements as ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’ beyond any doubt just by looking at eye movements or body shifts. These can merely be cues indicating potential lies, and do not allow direct computations of the sort: “eye movement downwards + body shift backwards = lie!”. Consequently writing ‘how-to manuals’ for detecting liars, or publishing “lie-analyses” of WLC speaches would be more closely related to palm-reading than to scientific methodology. For the same reason any professional psychologist engaging in these behaviours would make himself vulnerable to the accusation of violating binding ethical codes he has to stick to.
      Don’t get me wrong, I also think that the society must be protected from faith-liers like WLC, but I also think that it is important to use proper evidence-based and ethical techniques in doing so, because otherwise you’re in danger to start fighting fire with fire.

  4. Is it bad of me to think it was only a matter of time before Craig was caught doing something unethical?

    Those who shout the loudest always seem to be the ones who are sailing closest to the wind.

    • In reply to #6 by Stephen of Wimbledon:

      Is it bad of me to think it was only a matter of time before Craig was caught doing something unethical?

      Those who shout the loudest always seem to be the ones who are sailing closest to the wind.

      It’ll definitely be weird when he finally comes out.

    • In reply to #6 by Stephen of Wimbledon:

      Is it bad of me to think it was only a matter of time before Craig was caught doing something unethical?

      Those who shout the loudest always seem to be the ones who are sailing closest to the wind.

      From King Lear: “Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand! Why dost thou lash that whore?… Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind, for which thou whip’st her.”

      This is why, whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite.

      Christopher Hitchens Hitch-22: A Memoir

  5. Whenever I hear William Lane Craig or similar persons of dubious character speak, ironically, the gospel of Matthew springs to mind (words spoken with the deep voice of Gregory Peck): “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…you brood of vipers!” Again, the Bible is the best book to become an atheist.

      • In reply to #48 by godsbuster:

        In reply to #9 by hfaber:

        Well done Lawrence! WLC seems to have a degree in philosophy. I wonder how he did that, or did he?

        That tells us as much about Craig as it does about philosophy

        I think there are enough examples in the archives of “philosophy students” and ex-philosophy students, who cannot recognise fallacies or string together a rational argument.
        Maybe these are “theosophy” faith-thinking students from theological colleges, or maybe all the scientific “Natural Philosophy” and logical reasoning, has now moved over into science departments leaving only flawed perceptions from history, and theological junk in these so called “philosophy” courses.

  6. Obviously WLC lies.

    I do not think Professor Dawkins would ever say; ” Do you believe humans are evolved from apes? “

    I think the professor would be more biologically accurate than this and I think he has been in other videos.

    • In reply to #12 by Vorlund:

      To be a successful pseudologue first be adept at lying to yourself. Willy Lame Brain is an expert liar for jeezas

      If you are going to insult someone, the least you can do is spell their name correctly and respect the one they believe in. It is William Lane Craig: a believer in Jesus.

    • In reply to #14 by adey5:

      Storm in a teacup kids, seems that WLC made an honest mistake, and he has apologised publically, hey we are all human.

      No, it was not an honest mistake, and do you think that WLC would have come clean once he realised that he was wrong, God the man is a theist, what would you expect?

      • In reply to #18 by MikeDeF:

        In reply to #14 by adey5:

        Storm in a teacup kids, seems that WLC made an honest mistake, and he has apologised publically, hey we are all human.

        No, it was not an honest mistake, and do you think that WLC would have come clean once he realised that he was wrong, God the man is a theist, what would…

        Totally agree Mike, this was no mistake by WLC, and his apology was pathetic.

    • In reply to #14 by adey5:

      Storm in a teacup kids, seems that WLC made an honest mistake, and he has apologised publically, hey we are all human.

      There’s nothing “honest” about Lane Craig. Even his apologies contain untruths.

  7. Has Cardinal Pell chimed in? Does anyone expect him to or is this just another example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”

    Mike

    Edit: WLC in the “wife-beater” t-shirt made me laugh out loud (and reflux a little bit).

  8. This should come as no surprise. God-botherers, particularly prominent ones, will resort to any shenanigans. WLC must have taken a leaf out of the Muslims’ book where it is permitted to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. They are all the bloody same!

  9. That WLC is a liar and a manipulating people in such a manner should come as no surprise. Falsehoods appear to be his specialty. People (mainly uninformed people) are constantly lambasting Dawkins and Krauss for things they either don’t understand or don’t bother to research. WLC doesn’t even bother to do that, he just makes stuff up and halfheartedly retracts it.

    Honestly I’m surprised this guy hasn’t sought out politics, he can spin and misinform better than a lot of the shysters out there.

  10. LMAO, Krauss accuses WLC of unethical behavior?! The one who PZ Myers affirms the story of Krauss’s unethical behavior of sexual assault? Look at comment 244 under his blogpost http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/comment-page-1/#comment-661679. Or in this blogpost where an atheist woman talks about being threatened to be sued for including “Famous Skeptic”‘s real identity and unethical disgusting behavior. Who is “Famous Skeptic”? Read comments 45, 51 who mention Krauss from here http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2013/08/covering-my-ass/, and then read comment 54 -”Hey, folks, let’s not use Famous Skeptic’s name here to be on the safe side. Refer to him as the Famous Skeptic or Arizona State University physics professor.” Gee, I wonder who “Famous Skeptic” is? Nice try, but sexual assault is a more serious offense.

  11. Theists and politicians are the original make-up artists. They make up their own reality and try to pawn it off on others. WLC is an unethical piece of work. He speaks with great confidence that he knows things that no one can possibly know. Buyer beward.

  12. I see that the posts have been deleted, but I think that this point does (unfortunately) require clarification.

    Why? This post is about unethical behaviour, right?

    The issue in question is intellectual honesty. Lawrence Krauss could be a serial rapist, and yet this fact alone would still have no bearing on any purely academic point he wished to make. One needs to learn how to separate the artist from their art.

  13. Wow! Is this all ya got, Professor Krauss? This desparate attempt to smear WLC is very revealing of just how poorly equipped you are to engage with him on an intellectual level. Please, if you’re stooping this this kind of stuff, for the sake of the honest and respectful atheist out here, stay out of the debate. And please tell me that the atheist community has better arguments and better debaters.

    Socrates said it best: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

    • In reply to #31 by 17Biscuits:

      Wow! Is this all ya got, Professor Krauss? This desparate attempt to smear WLC

      Did you watch some other video of do your bias-blinkers prevent you recognising WLC’s lies?

      is very revealing of just how poorly equipped you are to engage with him on an intellectual level.

      In you very humble opinion. – This is comical!!

      Please, if you’re stooping this this kind of stuff, for the sake of the honest and respectful atheist out here, stay out of the debate.

      Honest atheists do not respect liars, or scientific illiterates spouting about science. That is a a feature of cheerleaders for fundamentalist ignorance, who are usually incapable of rational debate!

      Socrates said it best: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

      Perhaps someone should explain psychological projection to you!

      WLC could not win a scientific debate to save his life! – But you need to be educated in science to recognise that!

    • In reply to #31 by 17Biscuits:
      >

      I believe you and WLC are missing a few biscuits! You are so wrapt in you religion that it creates your whole environment. The religious mind only sees what it believes to exist. Both you and WLC made comments on video that you never saw. The comments you made were fabricated from what you believed it should say without knowing the content., much like your idiotic religion. You both exhibit classic symptoms of induced psychosis. Science has nothing to do with WLC’s studies, nor the ridiculous religious beliefs he defends. He is either a barefaced fabricator of truth or a raving lunatic. I’ll leave that choice entirely up to you.

      • In reply to #36 by AlGarnier:

        In reply to #31 by 17Biscuits:

        I believe you and WLC are missing a few biscuits! You are so wrapt in you religion that it creates your whole environment. The religious mind only sees what it believes to exist. Both you and WLC made comments on video that you never saw. The comments you made were…

        And you are so wrapped up in your religion of atheism that it creates your whole environment. The atheist mind only sees what it believes to exist. Both you and practically every other atheist in this world made comments on a religion that you truly never knew. The comments you made were from what you believed about Christianity without knowing the content. (the so called “idiotic” religion) You have used an ad hominem by attacking William Lane Craig’s character rather than attacking his argument; and you even went so far as to combine an ad hominem with a false dilemma by saying that “He is either a barefaced fabricator of truth or a raving lunatic.” Your arguments are fallacious and illogical, and you should not even be commenting if you cant use a logical argument. Science has everything to do with William Lane Craig’s studies and the logical religious beliefs that he defends.

    • In reply to #34 by Booska:

      To be fair, the clip of Prof. Dawkins and Cardinal Pell has been available for a while on YouTube. A simple search will turn up several postings of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OQ9Fg1u5cw

      So since this part isn’t among the unreleased material from “The Unbelievers”, it makes it especially easy for anyone to check up on Craig’s claims… and see what a blatant liar he is. Just shameless!

      It’s in the lazy-brained disingenuous nature of “faith-thinking” – no effort or objective research required!
      “It was revealed to me in a delusion”, will produce “faith” answers”! *
      ( Not to be confused with accurate or correct real-world answers.)*

  14. After watching many videos of Craig on YouTube, I concluded long before now his dishonesty and intentional (or stupid) misinterpretation of other people’s arguments. And then he applies his own faulty logic, and tries to defend it by using obscure terminology and constantly calling himself a trained philosopher of science. Craig is, at best, Krauss’s favorite word in this video, “disingenuous”.

    • In reply to #37 by downshifter:

      …I concluded long before now his dishonesty and intentional (or stupid) misinterpretation of other people’s arguments. And then he applies his own faulty logic…

      I’ve seen a lot of videos now of creationists and intelligent design advocates, and I’m quite sure that most of them don’t really believe what they preach. I’m sure that they have some kind of psychological condition where they feel the need to pretend to misunderstand something. I don’t know why that is, maybe they have a deep-rooted need for confrontation, or more likely for attention and sympathy.

      That’s just my layman’s interpretation. Does anyone know if it’s a recognised psychological condition?

  15. WLC should be a little less foolhardy than taking on someone as bright as Lawrence.
    He’s starting to fall down the bog along with Ken Ham,Ray(crackpot) Comfort and the rest of the fundamentalist snake oil salesmen.

  16. Quite apart from Craig’s dishonesty, is the implication that Richard “set up” Cardinal Pell by asking him an unfair question about human origins. For a man supposedly on the hotline to Jesus, Pell showed an abysmal ignorance of human origins.. Even if Richard had set him up, and sprung his trap, which he clearly didn’t, the holy man was shown to be an ignoramus. Of course that fact is just ignored by Craig.

    Clearly WLC’s motivation is character assassination by misrepresentation, – hardly a surprising tactic for a Christian ! Indeed par for the course.

    • In reply to #40 by Mr DArcy:

      Even if Richard had set him up, and sprung his trap, which he clearly didn’t, the holy man was shown to be an ignoramus. Of course that fact is just ignored by Craig.

      Would W. Lame Craig know rubbish about evolution from science to be able to judge? His records on video suggest that this is one scientifically illiterate ignoramus “defending” the ignorance of another with his usual sort of dishonest made-up nonsense!

  17. Wow! Is this all ya got, Professor Krauss? This desparate attempt to smear WLC is very revealing of just how poorly equipped you are to engage with him on an intellectual level.

    Attempt to smear? This is all WLC does to people that don’t share his myopic ideas about religion and faith. Do you have refutations for what Krauss is saying or do you just want to defend someone who has yet to be right about a single one of his claims?

    Please, if you’re stooping this this kind of stuff, for the sake of the honest and respectful atheist out here, stay out of the debate. And please tell me that the atheist community has better arguments and better debaters.

    Debating isn’t just throwing around insults and voicing opinions, which is all you’re doing here. If you are the voice of theists, then please tell me the theist community has better arguments and debaters than either you or WLC.

    Socrates said it best: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

    And are you going to address the issue, or merely sidetrack it with an opinion?

    For the record, I doubt Socrates would care much for WLC. Intellectual honesty actually meant something to him.

  18. First of all, why is Krauss making a big fuzz over this? Dr. Craig already made public his mistake and admitted to it. Second, why isn’t Krauss dealing instead more with Craig’s arguments? Why go and drag red meat across the public? Krauss and his fellow atheists need to build a bridge and get over it. And honestly, it is sad how many atheists are attacking the character of William Lane Craig. Like Jesus said to the Pharisees, “if any of you is without fault, throw the first rock”. Seems everyone in this atheistic community is throwing rocks all the more. So much for tolerance and being reason-driven right? So much for valuing other people. If all atheists do is make fun of people who differ with them, then I wouldn’t never want to become one. I would rather be some sort of deist or what have you.

    Peace and love my brothers. We should love each other for who we are and not step over each other for our beliefs or mistakes.

    • In reply to #45 by ThisLoveWalks:

      Krauss and his fellow atheists need to build a bridge and get over it.

      There is no common ground with dishonest people like Craig.

      And honestly, it is sad how many atheists are attacking the character of William Lane Craig.

      Honesty and Craig are not two concepts which go together. He spends his time trying to pervert and disparage honestly researched and proven scientific information to pervert the education of children.

      It is a peculiar claim that the integrity of Craig is being attacked, when he has repeatedly shown (on record) a lack of having any such integrity.

      Like Jesus said to the Pharisees, “if any of you is without fault, throw the first rock”. Seems everyone in this atheistic community is throwing rocks all the more. So much for tolerance and being reason-driven right?

      Tolerance of lying and dishonesty is not a virtue! Courts make pronouncement on crooks every day. Take the blinkers off!

      So much for valuing other people.

      Craig’s dishonest arguments and debating style are of no value to anyone who has standards. They are designed to con the ignorant and gullible.

      If all atheists do is make fun of people who differ with them, then I wouldn’t never want to become one.

      Like some other atheists, I make fun of comically incompetent, scientific illiterates, when they posture dishonestly as scientific experts. It’s the least honest scientists can do for those observers trying to get a proper scientific education.

      I would rather be some sort of deist or what have you.

      If you think you can choose what to believe about reality on the basis of emotional feelings of sympathy about the treatment of lying rogues like Craig, rather than to rely on scientific research, you obviously have no respect for honesty or objectivity.

      Craig as a total scientific incompetent looks to challenge scientific experts when he is armed only with his rhetoric, ignorance and bigotry. In any scientific debate he is going to be humiliated for presenting wilfully misleading nonsense, but he brings this on himself.

      All opinions are not equal. Expert opinion trumps ignorant assertions.

    • ” First of all, why is Krauss making a big fuzz over this? Dr. Craig already made public his mistake and admitted to it. “

      Well, LK appears to say that WLC only admitted to a mistake after being confronted. And from the
      evidence LK has provided, WLC should have apologised for lies in his podcast. WLC claims to have attributed
      questions or statements to the wrong people because he only had the audio. However LK points out that WLC turned
      an answer into a question in order to make his case against Richard Dawkins. I suggest you re-play the video above with your eyes closed and ask yourself if you would be likely to make the same “mistake” as WLC claims.

      ” Second, why isn’t Krauss dealing instead more with Craig’s arguments? Why go and drag red meat across the public? “

      I’m sure it’s very embarrassing for followers of WLC to be confronted with this evidence of his dishonesty. But this is important, particularly as WLC frequently brings up morality and ethics in his debates. And it seems he has no problem with making use of illegal audio recordings.

      ” Krauss and his fellow atheists need to build a bridge and get over it. And honestly, it is sad how many atheists are
      attacking the character of William Lane Craig. Like Jesus said to the Pharisees, “if any of you is without fault, throw
      the first rock”. Seems everyone in this atheistic community is throwing rocks all the more. So much for tolerance
      and being reason-driven right? So much for valuing other people. If all atheists do is make fun of people who differ
      with them, then I wouldn’t never want to become one. I would rather be some sort of deist or what have you. “

      In this case WLC threw the first rock, so I guess he considers himself without fault. And it’s not easy to build bridges with people who believe you are going to hell and openly tell you so. Religious people have for a long time been pretty much immune from criticism of their bigotry but in recent times people in the public eye, such as Krauss, Dawkins etc, have been in the forefront of a backlash, at least in the west. More and more people have realised that they have been giving the religious a free pass and have decided to change that. If you believe that a wafer turns into the body of the son of a God or that bad things happen because the first man and woman ate the wrong apple, then in these days of free speech you can expect to be made fun of. If you claim the right to discriminate against minorities then you can expect to be questioned and perhaps prosecuted.

      ” Peace and love my brothers. We should love each other for who we are and not step over each other for our beliefs or mistakes. “

      We are all human and make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes can be politely ignored, sometimes those mistakes need to be pointed out so that those mistaken can learn and move on, sometimes those mistakes need to be pointed out so that those mistaken will be stop hurting others.

      In reply to #45 by ThisLoveWalks:

  19. It would be unfair of me to assume from this video that Craig’s scholarship on the matters he speaks and writes about is substandard. Does Craig tolerate this kind of independence from reality in an adversary? Certainly not. This hypocrisy is characteristic of the man. This video is merely MORE proof of the man’s dishonesty and freedom from scholarly integrity. The only question is how much (if any) of his deceit is self-deceit? How much is delusion? Or is he really just a mercenary liar? Perhaps some combination? Intriguing. Wouldn’t you love to question this guy under an MRI lie detector session?

  20. I am fascinated by this seeming cult of personality that surrounds WLC and his ilk. It in many ways seems completely independent of his evangelism.

    But I digress, ThisLoveWalks…

    First of all, why is Krauss making a big fuzz over this? Dr. Craig already made public his mistake and admitted to it.

    Hmm, let me think: If I had just labored to put together a video with another noted scientist for public consumption just to have someone (nevermind a dishonest evangelist) come along and both slander it before it came out and do so with is apparently an illegal copy I would have a right to be upset as well.

    And has been mentioned WLC only fessed up when confronted and wanted to save face.

    Second, why isn’t Krauss dealing instead more with Craig’s arguments? Why go and drag red meat across the public? Krauss and his fellow atheists need to build a bridge and get over it.

    Obviously the dishonestly of this action were Krauss’ pressing concern, or so much of the video (all of it really) wouldn’t have been dedicated to it. But as a side note others have addressed WLC’s (Hitchens, Harris) claims and he does little to nothing to address them. If ever the blinkers were on someone….

    And honestly, it is sad how many atheists are attacking the character of William Lane Craig. Like Jesus said to the Pharisees, “if any of you is without fault, throw the first rock”. Seems everyone in this atheistic community is throwing rocks all the more. So much for tolerance and being reason-driven right? So much for valuing other people.

    Wait is this coming from a member of the same theistic community (if you wish to make blanket statements about a large group of people) that were all too happy to celebrate the death of Christopher Hitchens like it was a holy event? Not accusing you in particular of doing so, but I recall many theists on this site and elsewhere wishing the most horrible things on the man. So let’s not try the ‘he who is without sin’ nonsense. Sin doesn’t exists and no one is perfect.

    And spend some time on this site to actually be objective about your accusations. We spend a great deal of time dealing with WLC fans and other evangelists of different types throwing rocks all the time. Secondly, this is far from the first time WLC has done something like this, he and his fans always get a bit uncomfortable when his hand is caught in the cookie jar and like to play the ‘oh, it was an honest mistake’ card as well as backtrack a go-go.

    So, if you’d be kind enough to stop throwing rocks of your own….

    If all atheists do is make fun of people who differ with them, then I wouldn’t never want to become one. I would rather be some sort of deist or what have you.

    It’s fascinating to see how quickly you paint yourself and Craig as victims here. But the problem here is you’re making a blanket statement throughout this post: that all atheists are any one thing beyond non believers. The word atheist does not give you free reign to just make whole cloth accusations against a lot of people who really do think very differently on a lot of subjects. Stop pretending that just because you read bits of a thread that you know all atheists and how they think, or that you even know all atheists on this thread.

    And never ever, forget what the world was like when religion had all the power. Stop pretending that religion has always been this paragon on ethical morality and paragon of virtue when neither has ever been the case.

    Peace and love my brothers. We should love each other for who we are and not step over each other for our beliefs or mistakes.

    Then stop pre-judging a whole group of people you clearly know nothing about. WLC is a big boy that routinely makes a lot of false statements regarding science and scientists. As long as he keeps doing it, he can expect exactly this kind of reaction.

  21. I’ve no doubt that Craig isn’t afraid of scoring the occasional low point, but let’s face, it’s not like Krauss or Dawkins even post an apology when they have once again misunderstood and misrepresented Christianity. Krauss is showing his small side here.

Leave a Reply