Atheist villains

[historia]

I look on [William Lane] Craig as dishonest, a mountebank, a flamboyant charlatan.

[Bart Ehrman] was called out by [Richard] Carrier and other peers for giving false evidence misinfomating the public.
Reacted only with either Arrogance or not at all, proving that the lies are intended.

One of the things I've noticed over the many years participating on this forum is that some of the atheists here have a great personal dislike of certain authors -- in particular William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.

It's not just that they disagree with Ehrman and Craig about particular conclusions they have reached. Rather, these atheists (of which the two quotes above are just examples) feel that these authors are being in some sense dishonest.

I don't always agree with Craig or Ehrman, but I've never seen them as dishonest, so I'm always a bit surprised by such assertions.

Questions for debate:

(a) Is William Lane Craig dishonest?

(b) Is Bart Ehrman dishonest?

(c) If not, why do some atheists here think they are?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to historia in post #1]


Honestly, you refer to atheists as villains?

[historia]

Honestly, you refer to atheists as villains?

Honestly, I do not.

[The Nice Centurion]

Honestly, you refer to atheists as villains?

Honestly, I do not.

But you called people Atheist villains in your OP title!

Whom then do you mean with Atheist villains?

Barholomew and Billy ?

[The Nice Centurion]

I look on [William Lane] Craig as dishonest, a mountebank, a flamboyant charlatan.

[Bart Ehrman] was called out by [Richard] Carrier and other peers for giving false evidence misinfomating the public.
Reacted only with either Arrogance or not at all, proving that the lies are intended.

One of the things I've noticed over the many years participating on this forum is that some of the atheists here have a great personal dislike of certain authors -- in particular William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.

One of the things I've noticed over the many years participating in all kinds of religion-related forums is that most of the members everywhere, if you come out as an antichrist, take for granted that you are an atheist.
I am a Hard Polytheist, as fitting for a roman Centurion.

It's not just that they disagree with Ehrman and Craig about particular conclusions they have reached. Rather, these atheists (of which the two quotes above are just examples) feel that these authors are being in some sense dishonest.

I don't always agree with Craig or Ehrman, but I've never seen them as dishonest, so I'm always a bit surprised by such assertions.

Questions for debate:

(a) Is William Lane Craig dishonest?

(b) Is Bart Ehrman dishonest?

(c) If not, why do some atheists here think they are?

Yeah, take that up with the atheists.

[historia]

Honestly, you refer to atheists as villains?

Honestly, I do not.

But you called people Atheist villains in your OP title!

Whom then do you mean with Atheist villains?

Craig and Ehrman, who some atheists here treat as "villains."

[historia]

I am a Hard Polytheist, as fitting for a roman Centurion.

Okay.

Questions for debate:

(a) Is William Lane Craig dishonest?

(b) Is Bart Ehrman dishonest?

(c) If not, why do some atheists here think they are?

Yeah, take that up with the atheists.

One does not have to be an atheist to answer the questions.

[The Nice Centurion]

Honestly, you refer to atheists as villains?

Honestly, I do not.

But you called people Atheist villains in your OP title!

Whom then do you mean with Atheist villains?

Craig and Ehrman, who some atheists here treat as "villains."

All right, but in that case the grammatical correct spelling is "Atheists villains" .

[historia]

Whom then do you mean with Atheist villains?

Craig and Ehrman, who some atheists here treat as "villains."

All right, but in that case the grammatical correct spelling is "Atheists villains" .

I think you mean to say the grammatically correct term is "Atheists' villains."

Which certainly would have been clearer. But, since the title of the thread was just intended as click-bait, would have been less entertaining. Glad we got to spend nearly the entire first page of the thread discussing it, though.

[William]

Atheists are not exempt from having in company, weird folk who make outlandish statements about theistic notions.

Even ex-Christian atheists give it a shot to try to educate the ignorance in their midst.



Apparently believing in something as TRUE allows one the right not to be referred to as a "liar" however, how much grace need be given if folk refuse to investigate before making sweeping belief-based statements? [regardless of which side is making them].
How much of a period should folk be allowed to have to investigate after being informed that their belief-based "truth"-statements require working on?