Talk:The Unbelievers

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lawrence Craig, random "dude", rebuttal edit

Facts edit

The following addition to the reception-section:

Christian apologist William Craig made three half hour podcasts about the film and its flaws and errors, on the basis of "illegally acquired" audio tapes, ahead of the film's official release, "intentionally" according to Krauss misrepresenting its content.

was deleted, with the comment:

a random dude making a snorefest podcast with no press about it except for Krauss giving him the time of day by saying he's wrong isn't notable

Arguments edit

He (Sam Harris) called Craig "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."^[1]

Craig is the most prolific^[2] debator of atheists, who among many others has debated Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman and 3 times Lawrence Krauss.

Craig, considered one of today's leading Christian apologists, has authored or edited more than 40 books and over 150 journal articles, including his signature book Reasonable Faith. ^[3]

Conclusion edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

William Craig is to be considered on the side of the "Believers to be just as prominent as Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins are on the side of the "Unbelievers".

His reaction, i. e. the reaction of a leading "believer", to a massive attack of the leading "unbelievers" is to be considered relevant.

Quessler (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notes edit

Add topic

[1] ttps://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/

[2] ttp://www.stafforini.com/blog/william-lane-craig-a-complete-list-of-debates/

[3] ttp://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/

[1]

[2]

[3]