Funny that Krauss would even lie in his accusation.

Using an audio copy of the movie to criticize it is not "theft", nor is it piracy, and it falls under fair use.

Not defending WLC's for twisting Dawkins' words, but he did apologize for it and admitted it was a mistake, yet shit-head Krauss has to continue to try and "expose" him.

God I fucking hate Lawrence Krauss.

He stole unreleased intellectual property. It's theft. How is that fair use?

I respect the man for being an excellent debater but i take nothing he says seriously because he always strawmanns his opponents arguments and presents bullshit to support his own claims.

He's good at winning over simple crowds but he can't win over any one with a basic grasp of various branches of philosphy, science etc.

Or even with the basic capability to think critically about what they are being told. No wonder his two biggest fans on jsp are IceMage and HST.

You think every argument for Christianity is bullshit. You can point to any Christian apologist and say what they present is bullshit. Why is WLC any different?

Not talking about christianity for starters

I have no interest in christian apologists trying to vouch for christianity

Would you listen to someone trying to explain why unicorns are blue and not red, yellow or any other colour? Ofcourse you don't, it's nonsense until they can prove that unicorns exist.

The content of wlcs debates are focused on god in general without narrowing down to explain why the christian god is more probable than the islamic god. Any believer of any faith can listen to his debates.

If you want to engage in civil dialogue i can drop the hostilities of calling it bullshit and explain what's wrong with it. If you've got anything convincing (all it has to do is make sense) then you'll make a believer out of me.

Because they all use either suppositionalist or circular arguments and tend to lie and make shit up.

He stole it? Is there evidence of this claim? The claim from Krauss is that he used a pirated audio file for his critique, which is legal.

Btw, I think while WLC is no Plantinga, he's a pretty decent philosopher (though I, obviously, disagree with his conclusions and I think I have good reasons for that). To dismiss his thinking on the basis of his character or behavior is pretty lame.

You proved my point. You all attack WLC because he's a Christian apologist. That's the only reason. It's petty, but I don't expect much more from atheists.

It's not my job to try to convince you of the evidence for Christianity. The evidence is out there if anyone wants to find it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 5 2014 07:40am

Not sure why i wasted time trying to explain these things to you. If you read THAT as hating on wlc because he's a christian apologist than you need to find help for your persecution complex.