William Lane Craig Tries To Debunk Top Atheist Arguments. Fails.

Don't forget to like the video, comment, and subscribe to my channel!
Responding to: • William Lane Craig Deb...
background animation:
provided by Videezy.com

[@AndyWilliams8]

Christian: "There was nothing wrong with biblical slavery." Me: "So then why did Moses bother leaving Egypt?"

[@rationalsceptic7634]

The Exodus and Moses are not actually Historical facts either

[@dragonhealer7588]

Biblical slavery was A-OK, unless God's chosen people were enslaved 😅

[@atraxisdarkstar]

@@rationalsceptic7634 There is certainly no evidence for any sort of mass migration from Egypt to Canaan that any archeologists have ever found. However, up until the Late Bronze Age Collapse, Canaan was Egyptian territory (except when the Hittites had it), so there may have been some who were taken or chose to leave and live in Egypt. Also, the Moabites worshipped a deity they called YHW, so there's some thought that Canaanite craftsmen returning from Egypt passed through Moab, were shown kindness by a resident there, and began to extoll the virtues of their God (thus Yahoo becomes Yahweh). Really the Exodus was meant to reflect the actual exodus, the Levites being held captive in Babylon. From there, they would attempt to encode their laws, myths and customs into written form, to thus maintain control over their peoples back home.

[@alanrosenthal6323]

Excellent question!!! I never actually thought of that. If you don't mind I'd like to use it the next time the topic comes up?

[@pollypockets508]

Good point

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

Craig is the poster child of motivated reasoning. And a great example why studying a lot doesn't make you immune to confirmation bias.

[@LomuHabana]

This dude is confirmation bias exemplified. Like most if not all apologists.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

a polite way of saying a charlatan

[@sarshanden8033]

Lmao, and you are the rational ones. How convenient. 😂

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

​@@sarshanden8033Yes, when it comes to logically valid arguments, we are. It's not convenience, it's refusing to appeal to irrational excuses from superstition evoked emotions.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

@@sarshanden8033I don't know what you're getting at. WLC himself said, he is enamored with the idea of his religion so much, that no matter the odds, he will always believe it he finds a tiny chance. What would you call that?

[@limbo9803]

"One should never attribute to malice what can be better attributed to stupidity" My new life motto.

[@scambammer6102]

false dichotomy. humans are very good at playing stupid when they really dgaf.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

that's "Hanlon's razor"

[@altosack]

I prefer “incompetence” to “stupidity”.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

There is _one_ problem I see with that saying though - it all too often leads to a lack or reduction of consequences. "Nah, just let him be, he doesn't mean it, he's just stupid." How would we treat that person if it _was_ malice? How do, or at least should, we treat a mass murderer when we know that it's a tumour causing his uncontrollable aggression? Do w let them continue to wreak havoc, or do we do our best to stop them from causing any more harm - and _then_ see whether we can address the underlying problem before we let them loose again?

[@moodyrick8503]

Agreed. But don't forget, unjustified malice, can also be attributed to stupidity.

[@davonuk1]

I've often said that Craig sounds like a used car salesman, and here we see that he is just as dishonest as one.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill is trapped in his "cause" argument instead of seeing that all "causes" are part of a single gigantic event.

[@charliecoley2423]

I agree 100%

[@13shadowwolf]

Mr. Craig's entire life is based in a lie, he can't stop because it's his entire existence.

[@anthonysmith8800]

At least the used car salesperson sells you something real.......

[@mountainking1166]

I never noticed that, but your right!

[@graladue]

I have long felt that WLC is a knowing liar. He is far too intelligent and well educated to be able to ascribe his lies to any kind of mistake. He lies about Kalaam, he lies about slavery. He lies all the time.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

That opens an interesting question... While we can be pretty sure that Dennis Prager (and his mini me Ben Shapiro) and Jordan Peterson do NOT believe in a god in the biblical sense, but still favor the plebes to follow at least christian moral values to "save society from downfall", is WLC a true believer or a true charlatan?

[@twilightparanormalresearch186]

Which means he’s actually not being moral anyways lmao

[@SR-ry6hs]

I have felt the same way for some time. Unlike those "send me all your money" mega preachers who have no idea how to use logic, and avoid science, WLC is intelligent and thoughtful, I say the sunk cost fallacy has got him by the neck and his followers would crucify (:D) him if he changed his mind now. He HAS to keep to his bad arguments.

[@uninspired3583]

His refusal to admit the Vilenkin lie should be enough. When you cite a scientist, and that same scientist goes on to clarify "no thats not what any of this means" and you still won't drop it... that very much is a knowing lie.

[@JosephKano]

It's been my experience in life that all theists lie. I have to date not met any honest ones. They all knowingly lie. They know their gods do not exist and just deny it in their righteousness.

[@grrsss8335]

I like how you debunk what he says about slavery by just putting up the bible verses that shows he is lying.

[@Mr._Nobadi_M._Portent]

Shades of DarkMatter2525

[@BestAnimeFreak]

And yet when done in an online debate, where you are easily able to google that stuff and literally copy&paste it, the theists always ignores it ... Or claims that "it is out of context" or what other nonsense >.>

[@JosephKano]

@@BestAnimeFreak oh but in the original gobbledygook that word is actually 'meflibblewatsits'.

[@ChJuHu93]

@@BestAnimeFreak "I have read the whole book of that verse and wasn't able to find a justification. Could you please provide the context that makes this moral?" And if it is about the meaning of a word include that you checked a variety of translations. (And make sure that you actually did it.)

[@BestAnimeFreak]

@@ChJuHu93 Good luck not getting ignored after that xD

[@rickyd.989]

Craig was debating Hitchens. He asked where evil comes from, Christopher replied, “Religion.” (To raucous laughter from the audience.)

[@guywilletts2804]

That might have been Turek

[@pythondrink]

​@@guywilletts2804 yes, that's indeed Turek, not Craig

[@andyr6267]

'Let's just accept that God exists so that all my arguments work'. Best strap line I've seen on KZbin..

[@bobmudge4836]

The unending dishonesty of apologists is evidence of one thing: They don’t believe their lying will keep them out of heaven - if they actually believe in it and aren’t just in it for fame and fortune.

[@scambammer6102]

"They don’t believe their lying will keep them out of heaven" Paul says that in Romans

[@DCronk-qc6sn]

Apologists are like the diaper that's been on the baby for 6 hours ....

[@JamesRichardWiley]

How come Jesus and his heavenly father can't fix things?

[@DCronk-qc6sn]

@@JamesRichardWiley Reading the Bible demonstrates that "gawd" is a sick, sadistic monster. Why would there be any attempt to fix what was clearly part of the plan? As Hall and Oates taught us to sing, "I Can't Go For That." The children that got slaughtered in Texas this week and all the babies in the pediatric cancer wards around the world would like to know what part of that effing plan are they part of? Innocents made to suffer. That's torture porn and anyone that thinks that is o.k is just as sick as Jehovah, Yahweh, or whomever.....

[@davee.9906]

Better title for this video: Two Bible fanboys flirt with each other while denying their true homosexual feelings.

[@scambammer6102]

@@MrRezillo true, bible fanboys is gross

[@SR-ry6hs]

@@MrRezillo I'm sure Dave is sorry for hurting your fragile sensibilities. Lol

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@SR-ry6hs I mean, regardless of how much I dislike Shapiro and WLC, OP's comment is rather distasteful and shouldn't be applauded. It has nothing to do with my feelings, I just have a bit of what should be common human decency.

[@davee.9906]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Lol, we're all impressed I'm sure. 😂

[@pythondrink]

​@@MrRezilloactually that wasn't an ad hominem. It was an insult (and a funny one imo), but nevertheless not an ad hominem.

[@Nocturnalux]

The problem with abdicating one’s sense of morality by simply assuming there is a higher justification for the vilest of atrocities, is that it opens up a precedent. Apart from doing away with human reason. How are we to know Hitler did not have a “morally justifiable” reason for the Holocaust? And considering Craig and co. believe God speaks to people, He may have spoken to Hitler and told him to do it. It’s not as if God had no inspired genocides before, as per the bible.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Hitler offered his reasons in various speeches and a truly atrociously unreadable manifest he called "mein Kampf". They are not logical and not justifiable. Calling them rambling conspiracy theories is misusing the term conspiracy theory...

[@Nocturnalux]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Indeed. But if we apply Craig's way of thinking, we are mere puny humans. Who are we to know God, by allowing Hitler to kill so many, did not have a "morally justifiable" reason? Not to mention we cannot know God did not even commission Hitler either. Craig likes to ramble about how without a belief in God, all is "permissible" when in reality, he is the one who accepts that an agent- God- can do whatever he wants and we have to accept it as "good"; not to mention he is also the one who abdicates his reason by his own admission.

[@55Quirll]

Make a good defense if allowed, 'god told me to do it'! Which is what Moses told the Israelites to kill their brothers because they worshipped a golden calf, to kill every living thing except young girls that were virgins and take them for themselves to name just a few. No accountability or responsibility, just 'God told me to do it'.

[@tatiana4050]

@@Nocturnalux they just weren't praying hard enough. Because apparently that helps. But also it's all according to God's will and humans can't do nothing to stop God's will

[@Nocturnalux]

@@tatiana4050 Craig has gone on record saying that something like the death of a starving child can be a net positive if it, says, teaches us us how to be good. He has also said that when it came to the killings mandated in the bible, including killing babies and pregnant women, they went to heaven anyway so the real victims are the Israeli soldiers doing the killing because, poor things, they were surely emotionally scarred.

[@geraintwd]

Craig sounds like he's trying to dilute biblical slavery down to the level of having to spend a few nights washing the dishes in a restaurant because you couldn't afford your bill.

[@Kevin_Williamson]

It's interesting how often apologists and preachers can speak for God with confidence in so many instances. Especially when things seem to be going well. But point out an apparent issue -- like when a mudslide killed a Sunday school full of little children (sad but true) -- and the apologist rushes to the "we can't know the mind of God" or "God is a mystery" or something along that line. In other words, they know the mind and intent of God until something comes up they don't want to acknowledge and address. How does a pastor look victims of a shooting (especially one inside their very walls) and console them, and continue to assert God is loving and protects His people? I couldn't do it. And, of course, who doesn't enjoy this gem: "Who are atheists to say what's right or wrong? They have no basis for morals." Basic, blanket excuses to run away from the problems.

[@uninspired3583]

Pleading of the most special kind

[@HurricaneJD]

I always wonder why people bother with praying if God gave you free will then you praying for him to help you isn't going to do anything because he's not supposed to interfere with you in your life in any way shape or form whatsoever. And then there's the people that say that God did help them. And these people can't say that it was my thoughts of God that helped me which in turn I say that God helped me. that is not the case. it will be one of those instances where a tornado wipes out everything except one room in one house, and they thank God for helping them. it's more than thought in that case. You're talking about a physical type of a help that you're claiming he gave you. But if these idiots actually read the Bible they would know that could not possibly be true by the Bible

[@HurricaneJD]

I used to like watching a show called mystery diagnosis where they are trying to diagnose these medical problems that are quite rare and very hard to detect at times. At the end of these episodes, after this doctor who probably went to school upwards of more than a decade to get this knowledge and skill , they thank God for helping them. if I was that doctor that would be like a slap in the face to me

[@StopWhining491]

Cowards.

[@andyr6267]

This is argument is underated and not put to theists often enough. It's absurd to claim to know God's mind when it suits, but not when it doesn't.

[@davee.9906]

It's always hilarious watching two people have a discussion about something they can't possibly know anything about because the thing they're talking about doesn't even exist in any way that can be shown. And then they try and turn it around on us and say we're the ones that can't prove our side of the argument which is nonsense since you can't prove a negative.

[@ancapftw9113]

Reminds me of conversations I've had about various superhuman and who would win in a fight

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@ancapftw9113 Yes. The only difference between this and that is that the people debating about superhuman powers would not have any problem acknowledging that said superhumans are not real.

[@BitchspotBlog]

Yet that's religion, isn't it? It's why I always ask two questions of them. How do they know that and how have they tested it in any objectively verifiable way to ensure that they're not just blowing smoke? They don't have any answers to that. How do they know that their god has these omni-properties? Where did they get that information, and more importantly, how have they verified it? They haven't. It says so on the Bible? Well where did they get that information? In reality, they just made up all of these characteristics and stapled them onto their deity because it makes them happy. It's as simple as that. There's no reality to it at all. It's pure childish fantasy. That's what Craig is pushing.

[@TheJAYoung81]

You actually can prove a negative (I don’t have a million dollars in my bank account. I’ll prove it to you by showing you my bank statements). You just can’t falsify an unfalsifiable claim.

[@whatsupinspace854]

What's even funnier is that they're having this conversation while fundamentally disagreeing on the most core parts of their belief. Only 1 of the 2 people in that interview are even Christian.

[@Xsetsu]

Craig isn't stupid or malicious he is just intellectually dishonest far past any reason. As an atheist, I have listen to this guy for years, and I have yet to hear much of value come from him.

[@CeezGeez]

exactly! i don't give them (WLC, and the rest of these mainstream apologists ) the benefit of the doubt either.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

its a job and pays well.. he is a snake oil salesman.. a charlatan....

[@lauraj8429]

I completely agree. How do you explain what happened in the debate between Craig and Hitchens? The whole thing makes me cringe for numerous reasons, but what are your thoughts on it?

[@Xsetsu]

@@lauraj8429 I haven''t seen it so long I remember much about it. Isn't that the one where Hitchens is drunk? Edit: I do love Hitchens btw I just remember him being drunk for that debate.

[@lauraj8429]

@@Xsetsu They apparently only debated once one-on-one. He doesn't look drunk to me at all. He just looks stressed out.

[@ms.nettimusic6429]

I don't know when this interview was published, but when I saw someone else review it, I knew WLC could not be trusted or taken seriously. You're absolutely correct that he KNOWS that the bible has rules for slavery that are different from the rules of indentured servitude. He's not stupid, but he definitely is a liar.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Slavery was common under Yahweh. Jesus said "Slaves obey your masters". There you go.

[@joshridinger3407]

also his claim that indentured servitude was a 'poverty program' is a slimy lie given that the exodus law code seems designed to keep the poor in a constant state of dependent poverty (they work for nothing for six years, then go free with nothing). the deuteronomy law code even revises this by commanding that the servant must be liberally provisioned after they're freed. it also provides other anti-poverty regulations, such as commanding the israelites to leave their fields partially unharvested so that the poor could glean from them. now this does show that some israelite reformers really did care about alleviating poverty, but they went about this by placing much stricter regulations on an economic practice that originally served only to accumulate the power of magnates.

[@B0uff0s]

man, can never forget the Hitchslaps Craig has taken over the years. Yet he is still at it.

[@MattSingh1]

*Hitchens easily dispatched him. It's very satisfying to watch Lane Craig defeated so roundly.*

[@lauraj8429]

I really want it to be true that Craig got Hitchslapped, but I've watched some of the debate between them and it just seemed the other way round. Please tell me I'm wrong and how I'm wrong? Also, what really aggravates me about this man is that he is always smiling and he thinks he is always winning. I was almost fooled. Self-righteousness at its finest, perhaps.

[@martinmckee5333]

The more I watch apologists, the more clear it becomes that I have always been an atheist. Even when my interest and "devotion" to religious writings was strongest, I would have found WLCs arguments unconvincing, or even insulting of my intelligence. I truly do not understand the ability to presuppose the existence of a god. And emotional arguments, no matter if they affect me or not, are wholly unconvincing as well. I need evidence. I always have.

[@BenYork-UBY]

Craig betrays his own concept of objective morality when he claims "whatever God says becomes moral and we should do it". That's not objectivity, that's absolute authoritarianism. Objective morality should be possible reason and demonstrate on its own merits without appealing to authority. And just saying "god said so" is not reasonable or demonstrable.

[@TheQuantumWave]

Yep. The thing they hope we won’t notice is that if true objective morality exists, then their god is inly relevant in that it could reveal that morality but there is no way for us to know that what it is revealing is actually objective or subjective.

[@avishevin1976]

I've long held that all Bible-inspired religions prove beyond a doubt that morality is subjective. And I say that as an Orthodox Jew.

[@jaclo3112]

Christianity and the bible are the OGs of Orwellian double speak and disinformation. Hence they constantly screech that authoritarianism=objectivity, slavery=freedom, hatred, genocide, subjugation=love.

[@clemstevenson]

William Lane Craig is just another example of someone trying to sell beliefs as facts. Religious people perpetually assume conclusions, without first gathering the necessary evidence to reach those conclusions. That is why there are so many conflicting religious beliefs. They all make stuff up, and claim it to be the truth.

[@HurricaneJD]

If it were found to be true it would not shock me to find that 3/4 of Americans that claim to be religious have never even read the Bible and they do not even go to church. And if you ask me Americans are much too easily manipulated and highly susceptible to suggestion. Much more so than most other people around the world. William lane Craig would not need much effort in selling a telescope to a blind American

[@clemstevenson]

@@HurricaneJD I found this to be the case, when I connected a 56K modem to a phone line in the year 2000. I hadn't realised that so many Americans took the bible to be the literal truth, without any evidence to support it.

[@SlowMotionAtheist000]

Snake oil salesman.

[@clemstevenson]

@@SlowMotionAtheist000 Christians are so naive that they will unquestioningly accept the unsubstantiated supernatural claims in the bible. The supernatural entity that they call ‘god’ has never been proven to exist, yet Christians claim to know god’s properties.

[@stevewebber707]

WLC arguing against atheist arguments, yet taking time to brag about his homophobic, anti abortion stance. I guess we know who this talk is targeted to.

[@Nocturnalux]

I'm actually glad he's showing his true colors. Craig has made a career out of presenting this veneer of "reasonableness" ("reasonable faith" and all that) in contrast to Young Earth creationists. He hardly ever touches upon what he thinks about homosexuality or abortion so having him actually express his views, is almost refreshing: it goes to show that for his highfalutin stance, he is every bit as much of a bigot as your average Southern Baptist ranting at the pulpit.

[@tjenadonn6158]

He's being the worst thing a Christian can be: honest.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill dislikes living in a cruel and unjust reality so he created his own version and invites others to join him.

[@soulcage6228]

Why should Craig be pro choice and pro homosexuality? Genuine question?

[@tjenadonn6158]

@@soulcage6228 Because basing your morality in a book that includes things like talking donkeys and dozens of divinely-ordered genocides is objectively stupid? Nobody here is surprised that a bigoted, intellectually dishonest dumbass like WLC with a fanbase consisting entirely of other bigoted, intellectually dishonest dumbasses has opinions in line with those held by bigoted and intellectually dishonest dumbasses: he has to appeal to his fans, and he knows that if he expressed ideas like the possibility than female humans deserve human rights or that sex is good as long as it's consensual (something his good friend and colleague Rapey Ravi Zacharias would take issue with) his fans would treat him like the second coming of Karl Marx, Christopher Hitchens, or that one teacher they had who tried to get them to read a book. Billy "I bought my Doctorate on Wish" Craig, like all evangelical leaders, is a con man who will say whatever it takes to keep the money flowing in from rubes like you.

[@paulcontursi5982]

I've never understood how Craig came to be the heavy hitter of the bible thumping crowd. His delivery may be a little more polished but his arguments aren't any stronger than the average believer.

[@DaroffApFire]

The slavery thing really... really pisses me off. Yes.. it WAS slavery as we think of it, and perhaps even WORSE. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence to say otherwise, as it literally lists rules about there being no punishment for beating your slave to death so long as they don't die within a certain time period of the injuries. More than that, however, there is no HISTORICAL evidence to support the claim that slavery in the middle east 3k years ago wasn't like it was in the American South. This is one of the main reasons why I personally discredit Craig as a reputable "scholar". He's dishonest and doesn't care about any facts or evidence, and instead relies on his own beliefs to twist whatever topic in the favor of said beliefs.

[@dhwyll]

Not only does the Bible command (not merely condone but COMMAND) chattel slavery, the Bible commands SEX slavery. Go to your neighbors, kill all the men and boys, slaughter all the women who have ever had sex, and keep the virgin girls for yourself.

[@rickyd.989]

Selling your daughter to slavery. (But not your son.)

[@beautifulnova6088]

The beating them to death thing is probably an attempt to outlaw murdering your slaves while allowing you to beat them. Which doesn't help the situation AT ALL, mind, since making it legal to beat someone as much as you want as long as you don't kill them is horrific in and of itself.

[@DaroffApFire]

@@beautifulnova6088 Except you CAN beat them to death in the bible. They just can't die from their wounds within a certain period of time, and when they do all you do is pay a small fine. You don't get punished for it if their death falls within that certain time frame.

[@beautifulnova6088]

@@DaroffApFire Them not dying for a few days is, to my mind, an attempt at making sure that the cause of death was actually the beating. Again, I think we're focused on the wrong thing here, the fact that you're allowed to beat them *at all* is already horrific, and the fact that if you beat them literally to death all you get is a slap on the wrist is a far better point to make.

[@FoxyRaccoon84]

I almost choked from laughing when the christian says to the jew "if god wanted dietary restrictions, he would have said so."

[@cosmikrelic4815]

the bible is full of dietry and clothing restrictions, but doesn't give an obvious health tip of washing your hands.

[@reptoidrenaissance]

He also ignores polygamy, and the fact that marriage wasn't even mentioned as a necessary thing until halfway through the OT...

[@whatsupinspace854]

"Without God how would you know For sure what the objective truth or morality is?" Asked a member of a religion with more than 2,000 official interpretations... All of them being even more different than the religion of the Jew he's having an interview with.

[@blu3d3vil97]

The two facts that 1: morality is subjective and 2:truth can be both objective n subjective, is just soo beyond theists comprehensive capabilities is always hilarious

[@deadweaselsteve3262]

Every time I watch these guys talk, I have to ask, "How can I feel better after this?" Then I tell myself, "At least they aren't trying to fix my car's transmission." That works.

[@FakingANerve]

Wellll...

[@thesacredlobo]

I guess you could watch that old clip of Ben humiliating himself by accusing Andrew Neil of being on the left side of politics and then running away.

[@mikelapine1]

I think that I’ve said it best: When the religious argue in favor of a divine morality they aren’t arguing in favor of a working system of morals but in favor of an authority, an absolute authority to dictate how people are to live their private day-to-day lives. And WLC has illustrated that beautifully in this video.

[@uninspired3583]

Agreed

[@soulcage6228]

Why can't it be both and? And is this necessarily bad? Especially considering any functioning society (secular or otherwise) would still employ the use of an authority figure that dictates what people can and cannot do.

[@uninspired3583]

@@soulcage6228 a system of morals is presumably built on goals of wellbeing. An absolute authority can dictate whatever they want, it doesn't matter if the subjects wellbeing is kept in mind. For example, the bible teaches children should be obedient above all else, and advocates for abuse to keep them in line. The bible calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death. The bible allows for slavery, and for slaves to be beaten within an inch of their life if necessary. The bible teaches women should be subservient to men, to not hold teaching positions, and not speak in church. The bible advocated for various forms of gaslighting such as thoughtcrime. The overall theme is abuse is perfectly acceptable in order to keep people in line, obedience is more important than empathy. This is in conflict with wellbeing. I know Jesus said love was the greatest commandment, but loving God is higher than loving peers. Abuse to inspire obedience to God in that light can be justified as adhering to the greatest commandment. So yes, in the case of the Bible, holding it as the ultimate authority is in conflict with wellbeing.

[@soulcage6228]

@@uninspired3583 *"So yes, in case of the Bible, holding it as the ultimate authority is in conflict with well-being"* Was going to respond to the things you said point by point, but this stood out. First, how do you define well-being? Second, if you grew up in the west, your worldview is already inherently Christian(biblical). So I find it amusing when you say that holding the Bible up is antithetical to well-being. Especially when most of the things I'd assume you value (charity, scientific methodology, universal human rights to name a few) are grounded in the Biblical belief of the individuals that sired them. Point is, much what we consider a net positive in the well-being department is directly attributable to the one thing that you say is antithetical to it.

[@uninspired3583]

@@soulcage6228 there are nuanced challenges with every definition, but roughly speaking wellbeing is the goal of living healthy and happy. What exactly this means can be contextual, though much of it does have consistent guidelines. I did grow up in Western culture, but very much disagree that western moral culture is founded on Christianity. In fact, Christianity has transformed itself over and over on secular pressure. I can cite many examples of moral progress that occured despite religious opposition that we now take for granted. The biblical position on women is they should be subservient to men, quiet, and not hold positions of teaching or authority. Men are to own their sexuality through marriage. This is why till recently, women were not to be educated, could not own property, vote, and rape within marriage was not considered possible. I would suggest that these guidelines are not beneficial to women's wellbeing, and now that we have accepted that women's wellbeing should be valued, we have largely done away with ancient tribal thinking in place of a wellbeing centered set of laws. We are currently witnessing moral progress in sexual orientation. More churches than ever have changed their position on what love means, and become more accepting. Public pressure has caused these churches to re evaluate, and make some decisions on how to treat others. Do we prioritize obedience or love? Churches are divided on this topic, but we don't have to go back very far to see unification in intolerance. In Canada we have a distinction between church and government authority. We recognize cultural freedom is important. These are not biblical principles, these decisions are arrived at after evaluating what people need to be healthy. We value freedom. Where in the Bible is freedom promoted? It isn't, obedience is all. We came to value freedom for secular reasons. I can go on, that should be enough for now.

[@macieyid]

Craig looks like he's about to start jumping, singing and clapping his hands at any moment. It must feel so good to be able to spew all that crap without being interrupted or objected to.

[@twilightparanormalresearch186]

Probably

[@soulcage6228]

You should watch some of his debates and see how well he deals with contention.

[@tjenadonn6158]

@@soulcage6228 I've seen his debates. In every one of them he deals with contention by ignoring it and responding to the question he needed the moderator or his opponent to have asked in order for his prewritten talking points to work instead of responding to the question that was actually asked or to the points that were actually raised. He's always in some flavor of preacher mode, which only works if you are conditioned to treat anything anyone says while in preacher mode as the unquestionable truth. Thankfully the number of people who fall into that category is shrinking at an ever-accelerating rate. I don't believe that dialogue between people with conflicting viewpoints is impossible. Most of the best conversations I've had in my life have been late night rambles between myself (pagan with anarchist and transhumanist tendencies) and my brother-in-law (post-evangelical Christian) touching on everything from the immortality escape velocity to the merits of pen-and-paper versus digital tablets to the nature of faith itself. But key to dialogue is that both parties are willing to honestly consider the other participant's views, learn from them, and admit when they might be wrong. I don't see that from Billy. When he's not taking in debates I just see him counting the seconds until he can go back to spreading The Gospel™. He's not there to engage in dialogue, he's there to engage in mission work. I can't get behind that, my BIL can't get behind that, and honestly I think Christians should hold their public intellectuals to higher standards and stop getting behind that if they want to be taken seriously.

[@tjenadonn6158]

Craig Uncaged.

[@soulcage6228]

@@tjenadonn6158 It's interesting how two people can see different things. I remember in his debate with Hitchens where he (Hitchens) blatantly refused to answer one of Craig's questions. Do to have a particular example that you're willing to reference? *"Thankfully the number of people who fall into that category is shrinking..."* Why do you think that this is a good thing? One of the central tenants of the Christian faith is that all people hear the gospel, so his worldview mandates that he operate in that capacity. *"I don't believe dialogue between people with conflicting viewpoint is impossible"* Agreed. *"...He's there to engage in mission work..."* He's admitted this on a few occasions, and as previously mentioned his worldview requires it. Why are you opposed to him sharing what he thinks is true? I think it safe to say everyone has some belief that they would want others to adopt, don't you? Also, I'd be interested hearing a little bit about your pagan, transhumanist worldview.

[@Never-mind1960]

What is most terrifying about these people is the extent to which they will twist themselves into the most desperate mental contortions, rather than just admit that it is utter nonsense. This is why they have historically been so violent to people for nothing worse than saying "I don't buy it". My MAGA friends are like this. I just have to shut the conversation down as quickly as possible because it is way too cringy to let them continue.

[@georgeworley6927]

As soon as I found out that some of my friends were MAGA followers I went no contact with them. I don't have to put up with their conspiracy theories. However I do like commenting to these non-biblical propaganda Apologetics promoting idiots on KZbin.

[@HurricaneJD]

I would love to see William lane Craig respond to and explain some of the things that random boneheads that claim to be religious say about things related to this topic. because some of the things they say are just absolutely stupid. They are so inconsistent and show that they have no idea what their religion is all about. I am almost certain that I bet about 3/4 of all people that claim to be religious here in US have never even read the Bible and don't even go to church I think Americans are one of the most easily manipulated people in the world. And highly susceptible to suggestion

[@kamikeserpentail3778]

I could not have friends like that. I refuse. I could have Christian friends, if they're not the psychopathic megachurch kind. But no MAGA conspiracy nuts, they literally believe they are right in wanting me to die, or just be miserable fuck them.

[@paulspence7600]

MAGA friends? Contradiction in terms.

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

I have no idea why Graig is so highly regarded by some. I haven't heard an argument from him yet I didn't think was a pile of poop

[@uninspired3583]

Similar reason to why people follow ben Shapiro, or Jordan Peterson. They've learned to present well. Being someone who works for a large company, I can tell you there are many out there whose entire function is to present well, regardless of being utterly vacuous on substance.

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

@@uninspired3583 Getting to be a grumpy old man I guess but bling and sparkle are my first alarm bell for bs

[@uninspired3583]

@@smooth_sundaes5172 I'm something of a grumpy old man myself. It's a bit of a catch 22 though, I can certainly see where strong verbal articulation is a benefit. I'm terrible at it. I need time to process, it can disrupt conversation flow, and my filler words are out of control. But having these issues polished out has nothing to do with the substance of an argument, and that's all I really care about.

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

@@uninspired3583 True and I'm not arguing with you. I'm a guarded person much of the time but even I get caught out on occasion. It's a good motivater to get educated.

[@algi1]

I think you're making the mistake of projecting your idea of "love" onto them. In their mind love means hitting your child and kicking the poor, loving your neighbor means causing as much suffering to the "Other" as possible.

[@vestafreyja]

I have to admit I'm not a fan of William Lane Craig. Some people may consider me to be highly educated having earned a BSc in Psychology with a minor in Biochemistry, BSc & MSc in Computer Science and a PhD in Computer Science and Engineering. The more I hear William Lane Craig speak the more I become convinced he was what a poorly or uneducated person believes a well or highly educated should talk like. What I hear when William Lane Craig speak is a highly educated person say really stupid things. I was dumbfounded when in a recent interview WLC thought Adam & Eve may have been Homo erectus as that had to be close to the dumbest thing I have ever heard a highly educated person every say while stone cold sober!

[@bodricpriest8816]

You assume he actually believes any of it, given the number and extent of the corrections in debates and discourse he's sat through without changing his schtick at all I have to say you're being very very charitable. Personally, I just see a grifter with a nice accent...

[@Julian0101]

@@bodricpriest8816 I do believe WLC believes, the crisis of faith he passed through after he finally couldnt deny the non existence of adam and eve is what sold it for me. But i think his 'arguments' are made more for himself than for other people, which would explain why he refuses to fix them (similar to what flatards do)

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

This just goes to show that stupidity and ignorance are not correlated. Going through the hard work of obtaining a Ph.D will turn an ignorant person into a well-informed person. But college level education cannot fix stupidity. If you are stupid before entering college, you will remain stupid after you get your Ph.D. And there are many with Ph.Ds that are stupid. There are Nobel prize winners that are stupid. There are stupid people in all groups of humanity. Stupidity is essentially incurable. WLC can be as deceivingly eloquent as he wants to be. It does not change the fact that he behaves like a stupid person. And yes, he is dishonest, and I do think he is probably aware to some extent that he is lying, but ultimately, that does not change the fact that he is stupid. He may have a Ph.D, and that fact does not change. Education does not mean anything with regards to stupidity.

[@flowingafterglow629]

5:00 Oh FFS. "God works in mysterious ways, and who are we to judge" Seriously. That's it? His solution to the problem of evil is that maybe God doesn't think it is evil? What nonsense

[@page8301]

Yes that is the quintessence of the cult of Christianity and all other religions: Nonsense.

[@irrelevant_noob]

Well i mean if there was a non-nonsense solution it would've been found by now. ^^

[@Paul-D-Hoff]

The real bottom line is, for WLC, as long as he can make money on his BS, he will continue to BS.

[@Never-mind1960]

Almost all apologetic is just slight of hand/ misdirection to distract from the obvious conclusion - Any being smart enough to create this universe and life as we know it, would be smart enough to not do it. In a debate between Craig and Sean Carrol, Sean wisely pointed out that the universe is exactly what you would expect if it happened unintentionally.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Matthew 7:15-20 New King James Version Apply this to God when he betrayed Adam and Eve and killed all the unborn babies on the earth.

[@soulcage6228]

Why would such a being be smart enough not to do it?

[@NN-wc7dl]

Distinguishing "intellectual" from "emotional" evil is like saying suffering in real life and fictional suffering in movies aren't the same thing. No, so let's talk about suffering in real life then. Not the metaphysical BS.

[@moirasoma2863]

Yeah, that was utterly stupid argument, I dont even understand why he would make such a distinction, old Billy must be really desperate.

[@oscargr_]

​@@moirasoma2863 I think it's pretty clear why he makes the distinction. - it's likely a convincing argument for those who follow WLC and are conflicted by suffering... "Oooh.. it's just emotional" - The other part is intellectual (WLC quickly pulls it in the philosophical domain) and he just claims that it's very difficult to show that it's incoherent to have the omni-'s god and yet have suffering. Well.. he is the expert, so it must be true. Christians reassured!

[@yo-Rowe]

Back in school we had a debate in philosophy class to answer the question “Is Craig a liar or does he honestly not understand philosophy, logic and science? We watched and read several anecdotes to establish the premise such as when Craig defined the fallacy of “begging the question” accurately, then followed that by blatantly committing said fallacy by asserting the existence of a god in his first premise. Then he denied the fact he was begging the question. The entire class, professor included concluded he is not that stupid, he is a liar. But many of us also believe his untrue statements are not all “lies” per se, due to the role indoctrination most likely played in his life. When inflicted on a young, pre-pubescent brain, the violation of indoctrination leads to a lifelong syndrome. The mental abuse can and does lead to exhibiting irrational and unreasonable emotional conflicts in the victim that divorces the person from a full grasp of reality. When addressing the subject of their indoctrination they are neither stupid nor lying, but are emotionally incapable of reasoning or considering any facts or logic that contradicts their embedded belief. Before their logic and reasoning faculties are functioning in their undeveloped brain, the idea was planted like a seed in their emotional core alongside basic instincts like fight or flight and the security they feel around their parents. Telling an early childhood indoctrinated person their god is not real is like telling them their mother doesn’t love them. They are emotionally incapable of even considering the possibility. Overcoming indoctrination as an adult isn’t just about intelligence and honesty, it also takes courage and mental strength.

[@nicholemoore2448]

Thank you for pointing out the extreme grip that indoctrination can have - even on adults. It took me so long to get out of that debilitating mindset. Your comment gives accurate insight of how deeply indoctrination can entangle people, and it makes me feel better about how long it took me to finally deconstruct. It's good to know there's people out there like yourself, who understand :)

[@MrGreensweightHist]

Craig has a Doctorate in philosophy, and is a living example of "Knowing the rules so you can break them" HIs arguments are always rife with fallacies, and at his educational level, there is no way he could possibly not know he is doing it.

[@hreaper]

I almost choked when he said "emotional problem of evil".

[@MisterLumpkin]

Sophistry at it's finest.

[@ScottDaniels1977]

I wonder if Craig's outfit is a of one fabric or if he has ever eaten shrimp? But I guess he just forgets about those rules like he does with slavery.

[@owenritz1224]

To anyone who has read what the bible says about slavery, Craig is a shameless liar. He'd be better off if he just said the matter is a "Holy Mystery" like the Catholics often do when confronted with bible contradictions.

[@SR-ry6hs]

How do Christians still, after all this time, and many, many better arguments, still try to peddle the tired old "slavery was different a long time ago" argument. They know better, he knows better, but has nothing else to sell. Gotta cater to that militant Christian audience.

[@jaclo3112]

@@SR-ry6hs Even christians not that long ago realised that the bible condoned and legislated chattel slavery...which is why they used that biblical model for the brutal and inhumane slavery practised by christians for centuries. Now modern christians want to lie to our face and tell us the sky is pink with purple polka dots when we can see for ourselves it is blue.

[@farrex0]

"When we hear slavery, we think about slavery in the America south" I can imagine a serial killer using the very same argument. Victim: Wait so you are a serial killer? Why would you do this? You are a professor of ethics. Serial Killer: Oh wait, wait... I am ethical... Look, silly uneducated you... when we think of serial killers, we think about serial killers such as Jack the Ripper. Who killed their victims in gruesome ways. I am not like them so it is completely ethical. Victim: Uh... ok... but it is the killing part is what is wrong. Serial Killer: You do not get it, I am not like Jack the Ripper, I will make it quick. Therefore it is good. Victim: Uh... but dying is actually the worst part out of it, I do not want to die. It is unethical to murder. Serial Killer: But it is not as bad as Jack the Ripper, therefore it is not wrong at all.... Victim: Yes it is. Serial Killer: Pff, do you have a degree in philosophy? No? Well I do... have you written papers on the topic? No? Well I have... so your opinion doesn't matter.

[@jon66097]

11:20 Please, someone capture and record this and have it played directly back at WLC every time he makes a public appearance. The world famous rich bastard who thinks poor people should be slaves rather than receive welfare.

[@Cellidor]

"Subjective morality is a thing" I would say that subjective morality is the ONLY thing. Inescapably so. You can't _have_ a moral statement free of subjectivity in a way that makes any sense at all. Subjectivity is inherent in morality to its core. Even the most closely held 'objective' moral statements exist _within_ a _subjective_ world view.

[@wafflesultimate7312]

Absolutely right, a feeling is felt by an individual, the core of any moral statement.

[@Sidmen2200]

Even if the God of the Bible was the source of morality, it would still be Subjective. The subject being that God's opinion.

[@starfishsystems]

Yes. Consider how wolves and deer would define morality. There would be necessary points of disagreement.

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

Morality is basically a goal, or set of goals, and the methods to achieve them. The _goals_ are always subjective, even if we accept that they somehow come for a god. But applying the terms "subjective" or "objective" to the _methods_ is a category error. Methods can be effective or ineffective, efficient or inefficient, and we can certainly measure objectively whether they are effective and how efficient they are, but that's about it. Calling morality "objective" or "subjective" is like calling it "effective" or "efficient" - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever since you're only addressing one aspect of it, and the term doesn't apply at all to the rest.

[@Cellidor]

@@Wolf-ln1ml I remember one example I heard that I rather liked equated morality to a game of chess. There are no objectively right or wrong ways to move the pieces inherently, they're just carved pieces of wood or stone on a grid. However, once two players agree on and establish the rules of the game and how each piece moves, _now_ a judgement can be made on what makes moves better, worse, or objectively wrong. It's one of if not the biggest divides between secular morality and religious morality. Both players are using the same pieces, but are playing based on two different rule sets.

[@Solenum756]

Woooww!! Wlc is well past his time in this arena in my opinion, but way to show just how detached from reality he is. I'm a little surprised he said something so disgusting and yet also not surprised? I guess that makes sense. It just shows what kind of an echo chamber he has been in and for how long because I genuinely believe that he genuinely believes what he says and that's awful.

[@algi1]

Amazing that they think "If God says absurd thing X, then we should obey X." is a great argument to obey God and not a great agrument AGAINT obeying God.

[@uninspired3583]

There are a number of offenses for which the bible dictates killing the perpetrator. If Christians where more honest with their moral absolutism, there should be a lot more seriel killers.

[@Chaosmancer7]

Especially since one of those "absurd" things.... is actually in the Bible as a thing God said not to do. That's why stricter and more traditional Jewish people don't eat Pork, because God said not to eat pigs.

[@uninspired3583]

@@Chaosmancer7 lol right. Bacon is bad, but ceremonial cannibalism is good.

[@blu3d3vil97]

@@uninspired3583 yup Pig bad, sell daughter to her rapist, good

[@SC-zq6cu]

Craig doesn't realize that simply claiming "God has a higher justification for evil" does not make it fact. Craig, if things could be true just because someone said so then saying "WLC is an idiot" would be enough to convince your worshippers of that fact but we all know better.

[@scambammer6102]

that's the same god who demands humans worship him. higher justification my az.

[@robertmiller9735]

To an authoritarian, the rightness of authority is a given, unquestionable assumption. I imagine Craig both thinks non-authoritarians are just nuts, and is trying to avoid giving the impression that questioning authority is even possible.

[@page8301]

But he is an idiot... or a disingenuous p.o.s? -Prophet of Zod reference.

[@starfishsystems]

@@robertmiller9735 Yes, and this is closely tied to faith, more closely than the faithful or the authoritarians like to admit. The reason is that faith isn't presented as justification for accepting random claims. That would be the honest inference, wouldn't it, if faith were truly somehow a sufficient basis for determining correctness? If any claim can be accepted on faith, then its converse can equally be accepted on faith. (That would be incoherent, so we would reject the entire premise of faith. But the truly faithful should not, if they're honest.) But that's not how it works, because it's not honest. Instead faith is proposed as the basis for accepting certain select claims. And who decides which those claims are to be? That's where the appeal to authority comes in. The claim didn't just magically occur to you. Somebody made it, and now wants you to take it on faith, which is to say on authority, either their own or that of the supposed author of the claim.

[@SR-ry6hs]

WLC is an idiot. Maybe if enough people say it, then it will start convincing worshippers. We may need to put it on his YT replies. Hmmm

[@grapeshot]

Yes theists just can't admit that the world the way it is means their invisible sky wizard cannot be all-powerful. Since it seems to be powerless against stopping evil and suffering. Either that or their invisible sky wizard is just a sadist.

[@christophermonteith2774]

with their own holy books, it really would show the latter. they just wont accept that

[@lnsflare1]

So you're saying that Yahweh is still in the running, then?

[@christophermonteith2774]

@@lnsflare1 on that point it would be yes

[@QuickJiggs]

He said "Anti-Poverty" with a striaght and confident face.

[@markevans8206]

Gaslighting for Jesus.

[@davidburke4249]

Anti-poverty program literally made me LOL!

[@beerkrump]

Ben Shaprio always sounds like his voice is sped up two times.

[@geraintwd]

Even worse, WLC sounds like he's been slowed down by about the same amount. I want to play the video at 1.5x speed so he speaks faster, but then Ben's segments would be completely unintelligible.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@geraintwd you just haven't trained yourself to listen at 1.5x... imo it becomes easier with time. :-)

[@geraintwd]

@@irrelevant_noob needs a normalize function - speed up WLC and slow down Ben to about normal speed.

[@symantares9171]

13:14 to be honest, he knows most Christians in his audience haven't read it, and he probably only skimmed it

[@stuboyd1194]

So, Willy Craig, why does the all-powerful creator of the universe need you to make excuses for it?

[@JAMESLEVEE]

Abortion probably saves more lives in the long run than it takes in the short term.

[@bariumselenided5152]

I’ve said it before, but if Craig wants to say that something YHWH said was later revised, he has no way to defend any position as being biblical or godly. If 1) YHWH doesn’t always tell us what he really wants, 2) YHWH changed his mind previously by using an updated book, and 3) YHWH no longer speaks by writing new books but by a still small voice in the hearts of believers, then all any Christian has to do is claim that YHWH told them that law x was no longer binding, and they’re free. Craig’s only possible defense against that is to say the Christian is lying. There’s no reason to think that YHWH would stop amending his laws just because his method of communication changed. And I’ve actually seen this in practice, my mother has used the word “conviction” to mean a personal law that YHWH gave specifically to you, and used the Bible phrase “work out your own salvation” as justification for this.

[@bradgaines]

Very interesting points you made here. Well done. Subbed.

[@elainejohnson6955]

No matter how many times people debunk WLC's nonsense, he keeps saying the same thing.

[@Venaloid]

If suffering is the only way to build virtue, and this is one reason why we suffer, then it would follow that God is not virtuous because he cannot suffer or learn.

[@fred_derf]

So Craig's first argument against the problem of Evil is (paraphrased) "god works in mysterious ways". I know Craig only has the arguments of a simpleton, but this puts him on another level…

[@TamerSpoon3]

The atheist is advancing a proof against God by trying to establish a logical contradiction between God's benevolence and the existence of evil. In order to prove the contradiction, you must show that God could not have any possible justification to allow evil to exist. Since you can't prove that, the objection fails.

[@fred_derf]

@@TamerSpoon3, writes _"The atheist is advancing a proof against God by trying to establish a logical contradiction between God's benevolence and the existence of evil."_ It's a logic proof against a particular god, specifically one described as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent. A god that has the knowledge all the evil being done, the ability to prevent it, and the will to do so. If any one of those characteristics is taken away then the _problem of evil_ doesn't exist. _"In order to prove the contradiction, you must show that God could not have any possible justification to allow evil to exist."_ I disagree with the premise of your claim as the description of god requires understanding of what the characteristics of god are. You're basically saying no one can know what god is yet you are positive that it (whatever it is) exists. That's a nonsense claim. "This thing exists, I don't know what it is, but it exists, trust me!" -- yah, I don't trust you. What possible justification is there for a two year-old little girl to suffer incredibly for several months before dying of leukemia? Or whole towns getting Loiasis?

[@grapeshot]

Oh yeah they downplay the indentured servitude in the Wholly Fables aka the Bible and they outright ignore the chattel slavery that was very apparent during that time period.

[@nsjohnston]

WLC looks like he's just walked off a Drag queen stage, taken his wig off and put on a jacket.

[@rieskorin2027]

😱

[@vestafreyja]

Darn you as you just gave me a visual brain worm. 🤣

[@ceceroxy2227]

you mixed him up with Dillahunty

[@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj]

Important note: "Taking the Lord's word in vain" does NOT mean swearing. It means using it to manipulate, harm, or corrupt. All the things apologists do.

[@scienceexplains302]

When I think of *slavery,* I think of one person owning another and the Bible says that is OK when they are not Israelite men. And they can do that indefinitely. WLC either doesn’t know the Bible or is depending on his listeners’ ignorance WLC trying to twist this into something good shows that he doesn’t care about people’s well-being, but about people feeling OK about Christianity. “Anti-poverty”? Up yours, Craig. Slavery is evil. This was the most disgusting promotion of biblical slavery I have heard yet.

[@scienceexplains302]

@Robert Boland The Tanakh is not completely consistent on this, but generally, Israelite men can be exploited for 6 years maximum, but others can be owned as property. I will post the evidence in a separate message. In the meantime, you’re referring to Exodus 21:20-27

[@scienceexplains302]

@Robert Boland Genesis Noahide Covenant Genesis 9:1-18, considered by most in Abrahamic religions to be binding on all people. Elohim prohibit(s) shedding “the man’s” blood, but not slavery or rape. Genesis 9:22-26 Noah, the righteous, blameless man who walked faithfully with the gods per Genesis 6:9, swears that Canaan will be a slave of slaves to his family because his father Ham saw Noah naked. By Biblical sequence, this is the first mention of slaves per se and it is seen as a curse, not a noble solution to economic realities. (Ebed/abad- same word used in Deuteronomy 6:21 to describe the Hebrews’ status in Egypt). Elohim’s moral favorite thinks hereditary slavery is a just punishment for a single “lewd” act. Genesis 12:4 Abraham had “acquired” _(asu)_ people. Genesis 12:10-20 Abram sells his wife Sarai. Abram is deceitful and rewarded. Pharaoh acts honorably and is abused, effectively taxed, many livestock by Yahweh. Gen 15:12-13 In a dream “terror and darkness” seem to tell Abram that slavery can be a holy mandate from Yahweh, who told him, “Know for certain that for 400 years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.” Based on the rest of Tanakh, the punishment is not for slavery _per se,_ but for slavery of Yahweh’s people. In Exodus 9:12, 15-16, 27, Exo 10:1-2, 16-20,27, Yahweh says he raised Egypt up for the purpose of the Exodus scenario to show his power. Genesis 16:6-9 6: Hagar flees Sarai and Abram, because, with Abram’s approval, Sarai is mistreating Hagar. 7-9: The {Malak} king/messenger/angel of Yahweh found Hagar near a spring which was beside the road to Shur. The malak makes “Slave” part of Hagar’s identity. “Hagar, slave of Sarai, ... Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” The abused slave, not the abusive owner, is corrected. Genesis 16, 21:9-10, Abram’s/Abraham’s first son, Ishmael, was born from sex slavery enforced by Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah. This first son is disinherited because he was born from a slave, a concept upheld in Galatians 4:28-31. Abraham is revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Genesis 17:12-13 is part of the covenant between Elohim and Abraham and it mentions slavery approvingly as part of the covenant. Genesis 17:12 and Exodus 12:44 and Leviticus 22:10-11 Israelites, including priests, can buy people from foreigners. The root words of the phrase _umiqnat kesep_ in G17:12 denote “livestock-property” (Milgrom via Bowen, p77). The verb, root qnh, is used for buying anything, but most often people and land. It can also mean Acquire. Some apologists use the fallacious translation method of saying that since acquire in 21st C USA can mean to have rights to a sports contract, that it could also refer only to the work rights in Ancient Hebrew society. That fails on its face, but also because even when _qnh_ should be translated as Acquire, as in Proverbs 4:5 and :7 it refers to something the acquirer has full use of for himself (the Hebrew Bible was written to men) without limit, i.e. wisdom. Genesis 17:12 may be the 2nd example (after Noah cursed Canaan) showing that the authors of the Bible knew slavery was not desirable to the slave. Genesis 20:1-16 Abraham again pimps out Sarah to a king. The gods come to Abimelek, king of Gerar and threaten to kill him, again for a crime he was tricked into committing by Abraham. Genesis 20:14-17 Abraham prayed to the gods, and god(s) (Elohim) healed the slave owner’s family and slaves, effectively condoning slavery. Genesis 21:10-12 Elohim agrees with Sarah that Abraham should throw slave Hagar and her (and Abraham’s) son Ishmael out and Ishmael won’t count as Abraham’s seed. Genesis 22:1 “Take your only son (Isaac)…” Ishmael, born of a slave, doesn’t count. Genesis 26:1-33 Isaac pimps out Rebekah as Abraham did with Sarah twice. The same king falls for Isaac’s trick. Genesis 27:29 Isaac’s blessing includes one brother being master {gebir} over the other and his future brothers bowing down to him. Nations will also bow down to Jacob. Genesis 29:24 Laban gives a servant to his daughter Genesis 30:1-6 Since Rachel isn’t bearing children, and the author makes her assume it is her fault, she gives a human being to her husband for reproduction (Biblical family values?) The “baby-maker’s” name is Bilhah (Hebrew?) and her consent is never considered. When Dan is born from this sex-slavery, Rachel claims Elohim has honored this act of slavery and rape by giving *Rachel* a son - the assumption is that she owns everything Bilhah does. Elohim does not correct her. If Elohim gave Rachel a son (and nobody is gushing over daughters in this book), why couldn’t Elohim have given her Dan via her own womb? Leah did the same with Zilpah in Genesis 30:12-18. Then when Leah bore Issachar, she claimed that Elohim had rewarded her (and, effectively, Jacob) for the sex-slavery of Zilpah. This is how Elohim started several of the 12 tribes of Israel. Genesis 33:1-10 Is Jacob/Israel offering humans, including some of his children, as part of his gift to Esau? Or is the offering referring to the livestock in 32:13-20? Genesis 34:16-30 Altho the patriarchs are being deceitful, the passage shows that the Israelites were equal to their neighbors in seeing daughters as commodities for trade. The Israelites murder all the males of Hamor and take the women and children as plunder. Jacob complains about the slaughter because of what the Canaanites and Perizzites might do, not because they wiped out a society as revenge for a rape committed by one man. Genesis 35:17 Rachel is dying, but she shouldn’t be afraid, because she is bearing a son, as if a woman’s only purpose or value was to produce sons for her husband. Genesis 37:26-28 The eponymous heads of the tribes of Israel sell their brother. Meaning of {Ivri/ibri} In Genesis 39:14,17, 40:15, 41:12, 43:32, and Exodus 1:19, Ivri refers explicitly to the ethnic group of Joseph and the slaves and is therefore logically translated as Hebrew. Genesis 39:4-9 Joseph and narrator speak of Potiphar’s wife (who gets no name) as one of Potiphar’s possessions. Genesis 42:38 Jacob speaks only of Rachel’s biological sons as his sons, even though he has 10 other sons. Neither the slaves’ sons nor Leah’s are esteemed. Genesis 47:19-23 Egyptians offer themselves for sale in order to eat. Joseph reduces them to servitude. He does not reply, “There is no need for us to own you. We will pay you to work. That way you can live freely with full dignity.” (I include this because some apologists argue that slavery was the only option, considering the conditions)

[@scienceexplains302]

@Robert Boland Exodus Exodus 9:14-16 The story Yahweh’s freeing of the slaves from Egypt as proof that he opposes slavery would be laughable if people didn’t use it to minimize the evil of slavery. Yahweh put Israel’s family there to show his strength, so you can’t logically point only to their release as evidence for how he feels about slavery. The Bible says slavery is a valid way for a god to demonstrate its power. Exodus 9:14-16 is specifically about the Egyptians, but the effect is the slavery of the proto Israelites 20:10 (commandment) Nobody, including a servants, apparently of any kind, was to do work on the Sabbath of Yahweh. “The Covenant Code, or Book of the Covenant is ... Exodus 20:22-23:19; or, more strictly, the term Covenant Code may be applied to Exodus 21:1-22:16.” Exodus 20:17 The commandment is directed at men. The assumption is apparently that god speaks only to men or that these 10 commandments were written only to men. Wives are listed along with other possessions. Also Deuteronomy 5:21. Exodus 21 codifies several aspects of indentured servitude and chattel slavery, so part of Yahweh’s holy covenant includes codifying ownership of human beings. Exodus 21:2 When you acquire/buy a *Hebrew* slave... How does “acquire” make this better than “buy”? It is still a property relationship. Supposedly it allows for the possibility of the Hebrew volunteering to create the relationship, but in any case, it is about Hebrews only, not slavery in general. The 6-year limit in Exodus 21:2 and Deuteronomy 15:12 applies to only Hebrews. In Exodus 21:4, masters can give women to male slaves (Hebrews, in this example). The woman’s consent is apparently not worth considering. The master can then use any love the male slave develops for a) the woman, and b) any children that result from the union, against the male slave to make him stay a slave for life. In any case, the woman and children remain slaves. The ritual Yahweh demands for the Hebrew male slave who loves his family more than his freedom is to go before Ha Elohim (“the gods”, if we accept the text as written) and mutilate his ear. This is very similar to Hammurabi’s Law #282 written about 1,200 years before and the Laws of Ur-Nammu #4 from about 1,500 years before. The three have one more thing in common: slave ownership trumps matrimony in the authors’ eyes. “The similarities between many of (Hammurabi’s) laws to (the Covenant Code) in substance and style was so striking that scholars ever since have speculated about the relationship between the two... When compelling explanations can be provided that differences have come about through (intentional transformation), certain differences may... become evidence for dependence.” Professor David P Wright www.thetorah.com/article/how-exodus-revises-the-laws-of-hammurabi Hammurabi #117 allows debt slaves to go free after 3 years. Exodus says 6. With 1,200 years to advance society, Yahweh is still crueler than Hammurabi in some ways. Exodus 21:7 is about a woman sold as a bride. Like the already-slave woman in 21:4, whether the daughter-slave-bride consents is apparently not worth considering. Fathers owned their daughters. And men who bought brides could treat them as captives for longer than non-brides. Verses 8 and 9 make it clear from another angle that love and consent need not be considered. She is not complete chattel, tho: her owner cannot sell her to a foreign master. _(Slaves in the USA were also not always complete chattel: masters were forbidden to teach slaves to read or write.)_ Exodus 21:8 if she displeases her master... How? If he had sex with her she is considered damaged goods in this patriarchy. She can never have a respected marriage if people know about this. If she tries to hide this rape from a future husband, she can be killed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Exodus 21:16 (see also Deuteronomy 24:7) prohibits stealing {gnb} a male or having a stolen male “in hand”. The translation “stealing” makes more sense than “Kidnapping”, since the latter word carries at least one connotation that did not exist in the ANE. A person’s value was seen in financial terms, as Leviticus 27 shows in detail. In Exodus 21:16, Yahweh had just finished codifying some aspects of slavery, so clearly slavery was *legal,* whereas Exo 21:16 applied only to *illegal* captures. An example of legal capture (maybe the most common one by far) occurred during wartime, regardless of who the aggressor was. (See Numbers 33:17-18 below) Exodus 21:20-21 The male or female {abdow or amatow} is the silver (possession of monetary value) of the master, so the master can beat them. This may be mitigated by the preceding verses which prescribe punishment/vengeance for killing the slave... unless it takes the slave a few days to die. The slave should go free if the blows knock out an eye or tooth (Exo 21:26-27). Exo 21:20-27 strongly resembles Hammurabi laws 115-116. Ox that Gores - Exodus 21:28-32 If an ox with a history of goring gores a free person, the ox’ owner will be killed as punishment, unless he can pay whatever the victim’s family demands. If such an ox gores a slave or servant, the owner must pay 30 shekels to the slave owner. The servant’s family receives nothing. (A rapist had to pay 50 shekels - Deut 22:28-29). Or is this in addition to the first part before servants were mentioned? Exodus 23:11-12 The land shall go fallow in the seventh year. The slave born in the household and the man’s ox should not work on the seventh day in order to be refreshed. If this makes the servant not a slave, does it also make the ox and the land not property? 23:12 gives a practical reason. 20:10 gave it a ritualistic reason and did not limit it to slaves born in the house

[@scienceexplains302]

@Robert Boland Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy Leviticus Holiness Code: Leviticus 17-26 1. allows the purchase of human beings as property that can be passed on forever/indefinitely. 2. Considers children born to slaves as slaves Leviticus 19:18 admonishes the Israelites to not bear a grudge against the sons of their people and love _(weahabta)_ their neighbors _(lereaka),_ i.e. fellow Israelite men, as themselves. The specific overrides the general. Whatever weahabta meant to Israelites, it didn’t exclude servitude (see below) On what “love” can include. Leviticus 19:33-34, which says to love a resident foreigner as yourself, most likely relates in one of these 3 ways A) contradicts the laws above and in Leviticus 22 explicitly permitting ownership of non-Israelites or B) does not contradict the laws above, in that the authors did not think selling-into-slavery and love were mutually exclusive. After all, as Bowen pointed out B1) Exodus 21:7 shows it was fine with Yahweh if a father sold his daughter into slavery. Can we know that the father did not still love his daughter? B2) In Proverbs, 13:24 correlates violent discipline with love for the child, 22:15 says it removes their folly, and 23:13 seems to say that violent discipline of children is fine as long as the child doesn’t die. or C) rests on the assumption that the reader knew that 19:33 did not apply to slaves. Leviticus 22:10-11 See Genesis 17:12 above. Leviticus 22:10-11 slaves may be born in an Israelite household, so Yahweh condones the ownership of babies who obviously had incurred no debts. But Leviticus 24:22 appears to be a clear contradiction to to the laws distinguishing between foreigners and Israelites. As a guideline, tho, the specific overrides the general. If one law says you can beat someone under certain circumstances, but another law requires you to “be nice” to people, and both laws are assumed to be still valid, then regardless of what “be nice” means now, “be nice” in the original text did not exclude occasional beatings. (per Dr Josh Bowen, Bernard M Levinson argues that Leviticus 25 was written to turn Exodus 21 on its head regarding slavery laws.) Leviticus 25:10 All slaves go free at Jubilee? It refers to all inhabitants (Yashab). Leviticus 25:39-42 prohibits *Israelite men* (“your brothers”) from being sold as slaves because Yahweh brought them out of Egypt and *they are Yahweh’s slaves.* Yahweh doesn’t oppose slavery, he glorifies it, as long as his property is not affected. Leviticus 25:44-46 Assumes that “god’s people” will have slaves. “… they will become your property.” And their children will be born property of the slave master. This passage allows Israelites to buy non-Israelites as possessions that the Israelites can own and pass on as property forever/indefinitely {lə·‘ō·lām}. Does this mean that all the descendants of that slave are also slaves? But slaveowners must not “rule with rigor” {tirdeh bow beparek}. Leviticus 27:29 All proscribed people will be put to death. Nahum Sarna wrote that this refers to non-Israelite slaves. Leviticus 27 On the financial value of people. Numbers Numbers 15:14-30 covers food offerings to Yahweh, not slavery. “Praise” took 15:15-30 out of context to say Israelites and foreigners were under one law. Numbers 15:32-36 Yahweh demands death for someone picking up sticks on the Sabbath. So why not death for holding humans as slaves? Numbers 31:17-18 once you slaughter the men of a town that has tried to seduce you, you can take the virgin females, regardless of age, as possessions and murder all the males among the little ones. Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 5:21 wives and servants are are listed as possessions. See notes to Exodus 20:17. Deuteronomy 10:18-19 tells the Israelites to love the stranger/foreigner. See notes on Leviticus 19:33-34, and Deut 20 below where Yahweh shows what “love” can include. Deuteronomy 20:10-19 In instructions for how to slaughter and subjugate a city, including all animals, Yahweh gives women and children to the Israelite men (the Tanakh is written to men) as war plunder. It does not say why an omnipotent god would need his people to commit such violence, especially when he is “with them” (Deuteronomy 20:1) and can defeat armies more powerful than the Israelites’. But for cities that are given by Yahweh as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. So no slavery there, just genocide. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Details on how to make a plundered woman, whom Yahweh your god has delivered to you, your wife. Her consent is irrelevant. Deuteronomy 22:29 If a rapist wants to marry a woman, he just has to rape the woman and pay her father 50 shekels. That was probably not the intende Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.” At face value contradicts the spirit of the slave laws above, specifically “he/it is your silver/money/property”. But according to Raymond Westbrook in “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law”, 23:15-16 is meant to ban extraditions of foreign slaves. My assessment is the same, based on 1. The contrast of “to their master” with “among you”, i.e. the slave’s master is not among the Israelites. 2. The escaped slave choosing their town. An Israelite would be expected to return to their family’s region. Or maybe Westbrook was mistaken and it is a contradiction. The author(s) of Deuteronomy and Exodus were different people and even a single author could express contradictory ideas. Deuteronomy 24:7 Death penalty for kidnapping {ganab- furtively stealing} a male Israelite. This is consistent with women as servants and with the distinction between Israelite debt slaves and non-Israelite chattel slaves.

[@scienceexplains302]

@Robert Boland Rest of Tanakh and Tanakh summary 2 Kings 4:1-2 The prophet Elisha implicitly agrees that the creditor of a deceased bondsman has the right to take his children as servants Nehemiah 5:1-9 Due to taxation and hunger, people are forced to sell their children into slavery. The rulers are rebuked because the Jews’ enemies will see how immoral they are. So Yahweh has failed to make them more moral than their neighbors. (Nehemiah was written approximately 445-430 BCE) Psalm 18:30 El’s way is perfect. Yahweh’s word is proven. He is a shield to all who trust in him. Psalm 19:7 the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making the simple (people) wise. Proverbs 29:19-21. Beat your slaves if you want them to obey. A servant pampered from youth will turn out to be insolent. Ecclesiastes 2:7 One of Yahweh’s people brags about buying human beings and owning their babies Jeremiah 34: the “unchanging” Yahweh everydayservant.com/top-13-bible-verses-god-never-changes/ changes his mind and orders all Hebrew slaves freed. When his people, who apparently don’t fear his wrath, change their minds and recapture their slaves, Yahweh removes his protection and will allow them to be killed by their enemies. Amos 8:6 Don’t be cheap in financial dealings, including when purchasing humans. (Amos 750 BCE? Maybe the earliest book of the Bible) Children Born as Slaves Genesis 14:14, 7:12, Exodus 12:44, 21:4-5, 21:44 Leviticus 22:10-11, 25:45-46 Jeremiah 2:14 Ecclesiastes 2:7 General Apologetics Addressed If slave masters were treating their slaves as well as some apologists argue and the relationship was a mere matter of paying off debts, then the ownership aspect was unnecessary. People could have worked off their debts without being owned as property and without their children being born as property... as was the case in Babylonia in the first millennium BCE (Anchor Bible Dictionary: Slavery, pp58-65 per Bowen)... where the authors of the Torah had been exiled. The laws from Yahweh/Elohim regarding servitude were not significantly better, and sometimes they were worse those of any of the societies around them - including laws from 1,200 years prior. (Give examples from kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaDZgaeDppiDrMk) Yahweh promised to take care economically of people who followed his laws (Leviticus 25:18-22). He also promised to take care of generous people (Deuteronomy 15:10). So the economic excuse apologists give for slavery is anti-biblical. (Thanks to Joshua Bowen of Digital Hammurabi for pointing this out.) The simple conclusion is that the authors of the Bible saw no moral problem with owning people as *property,* just as Leviticus 25:44-46 indicates. Yahweh forced languages on people at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:5-9). He could have forced other knowledge and understanding. Instead, according to Exodus, etc, he codified slavery and other forms of degrading servitude. According to Yahweh, such “nudging to be better”, as some apologists frame the slavery laws, failed (Ezekiel 5:5-10), and Yahweh would punish the Israelites for this failure by having people *eat their own family members.*

[@paulcleary8088]

One aspect I rarely see addressed is that if suffering is for the "greater good" than sinners are simply doing their "part" toward the greater good. Which either destroys the argument of free will, or destroys the concept that we are not to sin.

[@captainkelley2339]

First of all: indentured servitude is not an anti-poverty program- it's slavery light. Second of all: F in American History, Craig. The slavery in America's past was based on and often defended by the slavery condoned in the Bible. Southern protestants being so religious and all. I don't get why they insist that the book doesn't say what it very clearly says.

[@agiraffe3673]

He forgets that we can just not believe. We don’t need to justify our non-belief. They are trying so hard, because they need to reassure themselves they are on the right boat.

[@moodyrick8503]

*The Worst Thing Ever;* How can simply _"not being convinced"_ of an ancient miracle story, (resurrection/Jesus), be the worst thing a human could ever do? And that _"not being convinced"_ is deserving of annihilation at best, or worse, eternal hellfire. *(bizarre & immoral)*

[@chantiemaya]

having grown up in nearly completely atheist surrouondings, it’s actually so wild to me to see a whole @ss adult claim these things completely seriously 🤣

[@jonathandent3445]

Why do people with a strong religious conviction bother going to a hospital to be cured rather than just praying to God. Answer because they have faith , but not enough to rely on their prayer been answered, so they hedge their bets and rely on Doctors just in case.. And if the Doctors heal them and make them better who gets the praise not the Doctors because now its " Oh I prayed and god answered my prayer." the double standard makes me sick.

[@geraintwd]

And if the Doctors fail to save them and they die, of course it's a medical negligence suit.

[@todo9633]

Imagine how much we could get done if all the smart people who wasted their lives following or studying a god that doesn't exist instead focused on improving people's lives in meaningful ways beyond the supposed spiritual.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

The older he gets the more sickening he seems to become, or I've been at this for too long.

[@Clockwork_Myr]

I missed these types of backgrounds, bless.

[@YDV669]

They're so serious in their discussions about a book written by men who though you get differently striped sheep depending on what kind of reeds the sheep see when they woo-hoo.

[@juanausensi499]

Not exactly an argument anti-fine tuning, but one that i don't heard much is: 'what compels a perfect being into doing anything at all?' If the being is absolutely perfect and it's all what exists, that's already the perfect outcome. You can't improve perfection.

[@thesacredlobo]

You have to remember that God's name is Jealous. So the God of The Bible isn't perfect and is willing to admit as much. How else could he be made to feel shame for his actions?

[@h.g.wellington2500]

I wish I were there with them: "So, Dr. C, what happens to people who don't think Jesus is the son of God after they die?... Ben, what's your reaction to that?"

[@lnsflare1]

"Dr. Craig, what, to your knowledge, are the common signs of sexual arousal in women? Ben, what do you think of that?"

[@ancapftw9113]

I'd love to see him tell Ben that he's going to hell for being Jewish.

[@memecity9849]

I think people like Low Bar Bill forget that indentured servitude also existed in the Americas, as well as chattel slavery, just like it mentions in the Bible.

[@HurricaneJD]

Every time I see and hear William Craig speak I just think of Used car salesman. Trying to get you to buy this car that has problems but you won't notice until you're already gone and the sale is final. I personally am floored to hear him say that slavery back then was an anti poverty program..... holy crap (pun intended) part of me wants to smile because I would have to think that there's no way people could see that in that way, but then again yes... yes they can just mindlessly nod their heads at whatever he says. And they do. so I guess I can't smile

[@JosephKano]

He has three names, just like most serial killers. Just saying...

[@HurricaneJD]

@@JosephKano lol good one. William lane Craig has been murdering the minds of the youth for decades

[@k-berry8771]

18:47 "A parent creates their child, do they get to tell them exactly what to do forever and ever"? I find this point interesting because... if you as a christian their answer would probably be "yes", the bible pretty much asserts the absolute control of the father over their children and is entitled to infinite respect from them

[@williambeckett6336]

Craig is lying about slavery being "indentured servitude." Because truncating, altering or misrepresenting a fact is still lying. That is one minute segment of biblical slavery. The other segments he'll never acknowledge is IN his bible, right alongside the facet he wants you to concentrate on, is the standard, brutal and total ownership of another human being against their will slavery with life and death control of said person.

[@SR-ry6hs]

Yup, WLC is an abhorrent, terrible, worthless waste of a mind. Imagine if he used it for the betterment of society instead of dragging it backwards. What an awful person.

[@gctcauto]

The indentured servant argument reminds me of what country store operated in the past. What prevent someone from trapping someone into a debt cycle so many every years? St. Peter don't you call me, cause I can't go. I own my soul to the company store.

[@Anonymous-md2qp]

When they say you have to “believe”, is the moment they lose all credibility. Just present some convincing evidence.

[@sourisvoleur4854]

"The atheist would have to show..." . Atheists don't have to show shit. The sooner you get this, WIlliam Lane, the sooner you will understand what you are talking about. Because at present you don't.

[@blacky_Ninja]

He‘s totally right! I mean how could we possibly know without a god that the behaviour that hurts the fewest people ist the behaviour that make the most people happy… ? 😐 (and thus is most likely to make us happy aswell, but since he apparentlycan‘t even grasp the first step to this, imma not talk about that right now 🤫)

[@jmr5125]

Two points in regards to "Biblical slavery is *totally* different from antebellum US slavery": 1) Albert is in debt to Bob and becomes Bob's " indentured servant". Albert, being a lazy person (because why else would he be in debt?) refuses to perform the tasks that Bob assigns him. What recourse does Bob have? 2) Albert is in debt to Bob, and Bob *offers Albert a job* to enable Albert to repay the debt. Albert, being a lazy person, refuses to perform the tasks Bob assigns. What recourse does Bob have? Its petty obvious that in scenario #1, Bob is expected to coerce Albert to work, while in the second scenario all Bob can do is fire Albert. If the purpose of "Biblical slavery" is to repay debts, why doesn't the Bible describe the 2nd scenario?

[@waveman0]

that's bullshit about setting the Hebrew slave free after 7 years, there was a loophole, get them married (while they were slaves) and the wife remains the slave of the slave owner and the male slave has the option, to go free (and leave his wife in slavery) or remain a slave for life (which I guarantee every slave chose). Plus this was for Hebrew slaves only, gentiles were slaves for life. I also say indentured servitude is immoral anyway, so the point is moot either way, whether it was slavery (which it most certainly was) or indentured servitude, either of which is immoral and evil.

[@lauraj8429]

This is such a good video. Why is no one making these points directly to Craig? Or have they?

[@inquisitorbacon8170]

I have zero reason to believe that a god that would abandon a child to live in an abusive home is all loving at all. I can only trust god to not be there when I need him if he exists.

[@arentol7]

All you need to know about this God is found in Genesis. He created a man and woman with 100% innocence and no understanding of consequence or punishment. He set them free in a garden with one rule that they could not possibly comprehend because they didn't have knowledge of Good and Evil. He then sent a lizard to them knowing for certain it would convince them to break the rule. Then he punished tens of billions of people to eternal damnation for the very thing he forced the first two humans to do. Literally the equivalent of burning a dog to death because it ate the steak you placed in its food bowl.... But not before ensuring it procreated, providing you with endless generations of dogs you plan to burn as well after they each procreate. This is the behavior of an absolute psychopath.

[@QuiveringEye]

@@arentol7 But the old testament doesn't count :')

[@page8301]

@@QuiveringEye So the ten commandments to do not count? I approve!

[@Nerobyrne]

Only a narcissist would create a machine that is capable of independent thought, then forbid it to do so.

[@Crazy5711]

WLC does not establish gods existence, nor has he established the the bible as the one and only communication from god in its entirety without any changes. Because even if a god does exist, why should I believe that that god chose the bible as it's only means of expressing itself to us.

[@atticusrex2691]

The mental gymnastics required to say "keep his self respect" and "selling himself as a servant" is unreal Edit: then he made it so much worse with the "who's to say oppressive societies are wrong for brutalizing people?"

[@bskec2177]

14:10 If there are no objective moral values, who is to say the moral values of a society that discriminates against people and oppresses people is worse than one which is liberal and tolerant?" The people who live in that society. That's who gets to say. How does he not understand this very obvious, very basic fact?

[@raduking]

Imagine what’s going on in Shapiro’s mind, him being gay, imagine how hard is for him to be a right wing conservative fundamentalist gay Christian :)))

[@MrRezillo]

Wow, this shows me a lot about WL Craig I hadn't seen before. He's out and out lying, right up there with Kent Hovind. Thanks for the passage in Exodus; i hadn't realized the slavery situation was so bad.

[@robertmiller9735]

And there's more: the seven-year rule doesn't apply to women or non-Jews.

[@avishevin1976]

@@robertmiller9735 The seven year rule absolutely applied to women. Young girls, however, were either married or went free at puberty. And it was a six year rule.

[@robertmiller9735]

@@avishevin1976 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." Exodus 21:7

[@avishevin1976]

@@robertmiller9735 Right. Sells his (prepubescent) daughter. But not all women are prepubescent. Some would argue that, strictly speaking, _no_ woman is.

[@robertmiller9735]

@@avishevin1976 And that makes it okay?😲 If you're splitting hairs, tell me where it says the enslaved daughter's age. Anyway, I hate to be the one to have to tell you, but children grow up. Do you really think she'll be let go then?🙄

[@humanbn1057]

I think Craig has seen his area of expertise slowly becoming irrelevant over the past 20-30 years and he's mad about it.

[@lorifiedler13]

Shapiro's voice is so annoying.

[@DraperStan23]

If someone is attempting to rationalize slavery… then you know they’ve got isssues

[@christoph4977]

The only two things I find interesting about Craig is for one his ability to look like someone who has deep thoughts and insights about the given issue while simultaneously talking absolute nonsense and secondly, having been debunked and absolutely demolished time and time and time again by intellectual giants whom he had no right to be in the same room with let alone discuss anything and still shrugging it off like nothing ever happened or like he had any positive contribution in those talks. In other words, his level of delusion is just staggering.

[@manusnigrum]

Apologists like Craig like to use the problem of evil because it allows them to sidestep the question of whether or not God exists, and substitute it with a discussion on whether or not God is evil.

[@NottherealLucifer]

We atheists use it to make the discussion about their god being evil, that's the entire point of the argument. It's not meant to disprove their god, it's meant to point out that their god isn't worth worshipping, which can lead them to atheism.

[@whatsupinspace854]

.....did I seriously just watch WLC use "thou shalt not eat pork" in the Bible, which he doesn't follow, as the reason for why he should follow the "thou shalt not suffer a homosexual to live" claptrap?

[@stevewebber707]

Amazing how flagrant the cherry picking gets, isn't it.

[@avishevin1976]

The Bible never mentions homosexuality. That's another lie that Christians love to tell about a book anyone can read.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@avishevin1976 What does Leviticus 20:13 mean to you? Maybe you can construe that as referring to something other than homosexuality , but to call others liars for construing it as homosexuality seems very dishonest

[@avishevin1976]

@@scienceexplains302 Non-homosexual males engage in anal sex with each other. The concept of homosexual attraction is never mentioned in the Pentateuch.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@avishevin1976 You are switching the goalpost to emotional attachment. And even if you’re right about non homosexual sex between two men (homo “same” + sex is the etymology of homosexual), which seems obviously false, calling people liars for interpreting sex between two men as homosexual is dishonest

[@bulwinkle]

The top athiest argument isn't an argument, it's a statement, "I don't believe theists claims that a god or gods exist." I have lived for more than 7 decades and have still to see any falsifiable evidence that any such supreme being exists, just empty claims.