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 #3]

I just wondered because I am a villain wannabe and happen to be an atheist, is there a difference between atheist villains vs theist villains?

[Tcg]

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?

Given that The Nice Centurion has revealed that they are not an atheist your question is reduced to:

"Why does one atheist here think William Lane Craig is dishonest?"

I'd suggest that wiploc is the only one who can answer your astonishingly narrowly focused question.


Tcg

[otseng]

weird folk who make outlandish statements about theistic notions.

Moderator Comment

Best to just leave out the "weird" description.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[historia]

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?

Given that The Nice Centurion has revealed that they are not an atheist your question is reduced to:

"Why does one atheist here think William Lane Craig is dishonest?"

I'd suggest that wiploc is the only one who can answer your astonishingly narrowly focused question.

You seem a bit confused here.

First, there are three questions, not just one, under consideration.

And, second, the quotations in the OP are, as I noted, just examples. The fact that The Nice Centurion doesn't identify as an atheist does not, in itself, somehow dispel my assertion that some atheists here think Craig and Ehrman are dishonest.

I take that assertion to be non-controversial. But, if you would like to formally challenge it, I'll happily assemble the evidence to support it, as I have in the past when similarly challenged.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to historia in post #3]

I just wondered because I am a villain wannabe and happen to be an atheist, is there a difference between atheist villains vs theist villains?

How do you understand the term?
In a context where atheists and theists are the villains, or in a context where atheists and theists have villains?

Example: The Flash has the Rogues Gallery, Gorilla Grodd, Reverse Flash, The Turtle 1&2 et cetera as villains.
Therefore they are referred to as Flash villains.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose I'm a bit uncomfortable with tossing such epithets as 'villains' and 'dishonest'. I have applied the term 'dishonest' to theists, not because I think they are villains, but because their methods of argument are dishonest. It's what faithbased argument seems to do.

I have come across many atheists I disagreed with. I have argued with them as fiercely as I do with Bible - believers, sometime. One on a former board on my theory of "Q" document. And I recall he became as partial as any theist in denying the evidence I was putting forward. It didn't make him a villain though, and I don't doubt that many theists are decent and nice people. But the apologetics of Theism are dishonest and the apologetics of atheism don't have that drawback. Being mistaken doesn't make one dishonest. Disagreeing with them doesn't make them a villain. There's no question of being sinful, immoral or an evil person because the Bible is being misunderstood.

There is the problem of some people slipping into dishonesty or at least denial, when presented with evidence they don't like, but that's a natural human bias, and I don't believe that being human makes one a villain.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
Found a thread on Craig, that might shed some light on him in favor of this thread here:
viewtopic.php?t=36085

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
Found a thread on Craig, that might shed some light on him in favor of this thread here:
viewtopic.php?t=36085

I'm sure that it would be enlightening to listen to Lane =- Craig trashing atheists without their being able to respond.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Questions for debate:
(a) Is William Lane Craig dishonest?
(b) Is Bart Ehrman dishonest?

Beats me. I find the more important question to ask is if God / religion promoters're honest.

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

Folks're folks.

I don't believe every "patriot" who refuses to accept a lost election.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
Are there more atheists supervillains in existence?

Ray Comfort could be sort of Gorilla Grodd, for both like bananas.

Dr. Kent Hovind could be seen as Sauron from Marvel.

Gary Habermas could be the Mole man.

Donald Trump could be seen as President Luthor, Mayor Fisk or Premier Zemo.

Mike Pence could be Mephisto.