Contra Smith
|
by Frank Walton To My Favorite Blonde Mark Smith
The Airhead of All Atheists
The views and methods used on this website do not necessarily reflect that of Dr. William Lane Craig's. For instance, name-calling Mark Smith "a blonde", "a dork", "a moron", "an airhead", "an idiot", "a weenie", "a hypocrite", "a fideist", "a man blind to objective reality" have not been endorsed by Dr. Craig. Though some of you may not like the name-calling you should know that Mark Smith has endorsed this website with a link! Told you he was a blonde. Also, calling Mark Smith a dumb blonde is not meant to offend blondes out there especially the dumb ones. Although we believe we made a clear case that Smith being a blonde and dumb at the same time is not coincidence, we believe that being blonde does not make you necessarily dumb. Check out the reason why Smith will soon start losing debates:
Welcome to Contra Smith- a site devoted to dissecting & disemboweling the arguments against Dr. Craig by the one and only blonde himself: Mark Smith
In Smith's Universe, FACTS are outdone by IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and BIASNESS I welcome all to submit their best arguments and articles or links to such, in this endeavor: All articles must be in English- I can translate some PhD philosophical geek-speak, and so can 99.99% of Earth's population. So send them through! For articles submitted, please keep cheap shots and ad hominem attacks to a minimum- after all, that's exactly what Mark Smith does although he denies it; and we don't want to sink to that level, do we? (was that itself an ad hominem attack? If so, oh well...) After all, this is what Mark "let's not take cheap shots" Smith says: "And as Craig has made an inconsistent policy to only debate those with PhD's, this web page will probably be as close as I'll ever get to debating him (though I'd blow him out of the water, given the chance)." Pretty ironic, huh? We want to deal with the arguments; not the man behind the arguments. But, I take exception with Mark Smith, because that's what he does to Dr. Craig. I have no personal animosity towards Smith, but he has always seemed to me "subconscious toward his own methods". So, please stick around. Oh, and here's a stupid joke by blondie himself: "Christian apologists may come and go depending on the latest bedroom or bankroom scandal; arguments last forever (or at least it seems to those of us who've been married before!)."
My Assessment of Mark Smith's Editorial1st paragraph, Smith strokes his own "intellectual" ego by stating how great he is at debating by beating a Mormon missionary in an argument at the age of 15. 2nd paragraph, Mark Smith continues to stroke his intellectual prowess: "After college, I continued debating (as opportunity presented) any Jehovah Witness or Mormon or 'cultist' that was foolish enough to take me on. As far as I know, I never lost a debate." 3rd paragraph, you guessed it... basically Mark Smith shares how great of a debater he is. Christians he's taken on tend to execute "a hasty retreat!" 4th paragraph, more ego gratification: "In the opinion of myself and many others, I won the (Tom Dervartanian) debate hands down." But, notice, Blondie briefly mentions his debate with Rev. Bob Illman. There's probably good reason for this. Apparently, Master Debater Mark Smith got beat. We e-mailed Rev. Illman. This is what he said after being asked whether he debated Mark Smith or not:
I think he soundly lost. He mentions the debate in passing on a web
page. He quickly runs over the fact that it was held, and then goes on
to talk about another debate he won. I think he must know he lost.
He did not, in my opinion, vary from his prepared "text." He did not
seek to refute my points, and all the people I talked to after felt that
it was rather one sided.
Our topic was Matthew 24, I think, and his resolved was that Jesus did
not come back as promised, therefore he was wrong. My thrust was to
interpret Matt. 24 responsibly and show that his assumption about Jesus's
statement was wrong.
Hope that helps.
5th paragraph, Mark Smith, the master debater, is an expert at examining debates. He uses Michael Shermer as an example of how ungreat a debater can be. Which us brings us to...
Shermer-VS-Mark Smith!
Mark writes:
I have also attended several Christian-vs-Atheist debates. One of these was on March 10, 1995 at UCLA between Duane Gish and Michael Shermer on Creationism.
WRONG! This was not a "Christian-vs-Atheist" debate! Shermer writes in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (WH Freeman and Company. NY, 1997. p.136): "I knew Gish had a lengthy section in his presentation on the evils of atheism as a technique to destroy his opponents (who typically are atheists), so I made a point of stating in my introduction, loud and clear, that I am not an atheist." (paranthesis his; emphasis mine)
See, how Smith tries to weasel his way out of this lie.
Mark writes:
I apparently managed to piss off Shermer to quite an extent, as he even wasted his time on the clock in a (failed) attempt to publicly humiliate me for having passed out leaflets, on a public sidewalk, before the debate began. And years later he was STILL having a hissy fit, for in one of his books he trashed me again but not by name! Talk about carrying a grudge!
WRONG! Shermer writes (p.136): "I even called the audience's attention to the man passing out anti-Christian literature, who was now sitting in the front row, and I told him that I thought he was doing more harm than good." Does that sound like Shermer was really carrying a grudge? Gee, it's easy to guess who really holds a grudge now! Anyway, thanks to you, Mark, we know who the mystery man is
6th paragraph, our master debater, Mark Smith, knows how great of a debater Dr. Craig is.
7th paragraph, master debater Smith enquires: "Debating is a skill that has to be learned and requires experience to perfect." Really?!
8th and 9th paragraph, Dr. Curley is not a master debater. The next time you send someone to debate Dr. Craig make sure he's a master debater like master debater Smith.
10th paragraph, master debater Smith cites Eddie Tabash among the few who actually beat Dr. Craig in a debate. Really?? Hmm, atheist Richard Carrier disagrees with Smith on that one. But, what does Carrier know? He's not a master debater like master debater Smith! Furthermore, Smith says:
"Strangely enough, this debate is ONE debate that seems to be lacking from Craig's website!"
Straw Man! Master debater Smith is making it look like Dr. Craig doesn't want anybody to know about this debate. As an avid fan of Dr. Craig's I can testify that there are many debates that are not listed on Dr. Craig's website. Here they are: Debate with Dr. Hector Avalos, Debate with Mr. Ron Barrier, Debate with Dr. Brian Edwards, Debate with Mr. Phillip Adams (and here), and Dr. Henry Morgentaller.
A Blonde Moment!
Master debater Smith says,
How to Beat Dr. Craig in a Debate
Atheists, Agnostics and the Freethinking community will continue to get their butts kicked by Craig unless and until they have the resources and intelligence to sponsor a full-time debater, such as Craig himself is. This debater should be someone with years of solid High School and College debate training and experience behind him. He should also be a former Christian, as it takes one to know one. He also needs to be brought up through the ranks, debating smaller fish for several years, to gain experience, before being set loose on Craig. AND- when the match finally arrives, he needs to be someone who has taken it seriously, prepared for it like a maniac, and has all his arguments and data organized and ready to go. Any academic qualifications take a distant back seat to his skills as a debater. Remember: debating is a SKILL, like plumbing or water skiing. It needs to be learned, practiced, and lived. Having a PhD in some obscure specialty, writing a book, or being good at arguing with one's wife, does not qualify one as a debater. Would you send a PhD, or a plumber in, to fix a leaking toilet? You would send in the person who had the skill to fix it. These geeky inept intellectuals have no business embarrassing the rest of us Freethinkers by trying to pass themselves off as debaters on a stage shared with Craig. Welp, it doesn't seem Doug Krueger can debate Dr. Craig according to these rules. Proof Mark Smith hasn't studied Dr. Craig's book Reasonable Faith The topic under discussion comes from Chapter 1 entitled: "Faith and Reason: How Do I Know Christianity Is True?" It may interest some of you but we wanted to know if Mark Smith knew whether atheism was true or not. Doesn't seem likely.
Above is a photograph of page 37 from blondie's copy of Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" (pardon his childish scribblings in the margins). I have put this page from his book in here to document to everybody some of what Craig believes. Which brings us to... Another Blonde Moment Blondie says:
Hard to believe? If blondie did some homework he'd know that Reasonable Faith was previously published as Apologetics: an Introduction where Dr. Craig practically repeats everything (and then some) in the first chapter! No, it wasn't a typo stupid! Furthermore, Dr. Craig uses the phrase "immediate experience of God" on page 32. Dr. Craig has used the "immediate experience of God" term in many of his debates. He used it with Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, Dr. Corey G. Washington, Dr. Douglas M. Jesseph, Dr. Michael Tooley, just to name a few. Also, notice on blondie's website he has a link to Dr. Edwin Curley's debate with Dr. Craig. This is presuming Smith actually read the debate. Not likely. Because Dr. Craig used the "immediate experience of God" in this debate, too! It's certainly hard to believe that Dr. Craig wouldn't believe this.
Blondie writes:
What else is new?! Dr. Corey G. Washington set up a similar scenario against Dr. Craig. This is what Craig said in response:
Blondie would have saved himself a lot of space had he studied Craig more meticulously. Or, he could have tried to counter Dr. Craig's argument but that's like a bumble-bee trying to do a physics equation.
**************
First off, Blondie has absolutely no clue what a proper basic belief is despite that being mentioned in the first chapter of Reasonable Faith . Alvin Plantinga popularized the phrase and it would be wise to study him some more to put things in perspective. But, briefly, this is what Dr. Plantinga says:
In "Reason and Belief in God," I suggested that such propositions as: However, notice where Dr. Craig differs with Dr. Plantinga:
My final reason for theistic belief is that belief in (Christian) theism is properly basic both with respect to raionality and warrant for a person who has experienced the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and so come into personal relationship with God. Philosophers of religion will recognize this as the religious epistemology articulated and defended so ably by Alvin Plantinga in his epochal trilogy on warrant. My main differences with Plantinga are that I eschew any innate sensus divinitatis in favour of reliance solely on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (testimonium spiritu sancti internum) and that I construe the latter, not as a belief-forming process analogous to a congnitive faculty, but as part of the circumstances in which a person whose congnitive faculties are functioning properly forms for himself the relevant beliefs, such as 'God loves me.' The claim is that I am rational and warranted in holding such beliefs in the absence of any defeater of them. As a couple of our respondents remind us, such defeaters need not be rebutting defeaters, such as arguments for Gods' non-existence, but may be undercutting defeaters, removing any warrant I have for thinking my belief to be true. The goal of this argument for the proper basicality of belief in God is not, of course, to hold forth my experience as evidence to others of Gods' existence, but to invite others to embark on what Geivett calls 'a devotional experiment' with a view to finding the knowledge of God themselves: 'Tast and see that the Lord is good!'.(William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate, Stan N. Wallace(ed.), Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. P. 179.) Now, on to the comments:
Dr. Craig is NOT Coming Out of the Mormon Closet, Stupid!
As we've seen, Mark Smith is not nearly competent enough to give a coherent criticism of the Proper Basic Belief in God, let alone a criticism on Dr. Craig. With the question of Mormonism, Dr. Craig writes:
The most significant objection to such a religious epistemology, as several respondents observe, arises from the diversity of the religious claims supported by religious experience. Since these claims are logically incompatible in many cases, the experiences cannot ground them all as properly basic with respect to warrant (assuming that truth is not pluralistic and person-relative, but is one and objective). Either at least some of the experiences are non-veridical or else veridical experiences of the divine have been conceptualized in false propositional claims. For example, while the Christian theist may claim to know the great truths of the Gospel through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the Mormon polytheist will claim to know the truth of the Book of Mormon through the 'burning in the bosom' he experiences as he reads it. Does not the presence of the confident claim of the Mormon to know the truth of LDS doctrine based on religious experience serve to undercut the claim of the Christian to know the Gospel truth via a similar religious experience?
This is far from obvious. It is clear, I think, that false claims to an experience of God do absolutely nothing to undermine the veridicality of a genuine experience of the Spirit's witness, any more than the insistence of a colourblind person that there is no difference in colour between a red object and a green object undermines my veridical perception of their difference in colour. Even if I were utterly at a loss to show him that his faculties are not functioning properly or that mine are, that inability in no way affects the veridicality of my experience. So what the detractor of religious experience owes us here is what Plantinga calls a de jure objection to theistic belief: an objection, in this case, to the rationality or warrantedness of theistic belief even given the veridicality of my religious experience. (William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate, Stan N. Wallace(ed.), Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. P. 180.)
In light of what Craig admits to here in his own damn book, as
well as the thought experiment I put him thru regarding the time machine, why in the hell haven't the debaters going up against Craig in public been beating him relentlessly over the head with his own comments???
Because they already did! Here they are again:
You see, Blondie is only feigning rationality for the express purpose of deceitfully luring suckers into hell. There is no need to quibble with Mark Smith over minor petty details such as
when he has already confessed in writing, AND SIGNED HIS JOHN HANCOCK TO, the fact that he just doesn't believe in objective reality.
Yes, Craig Will Only Debate PhD People, it Ain't a Ploy!
Dr. William Lane Craig has two masters and two PhDs, and he has a knack for beating his opponents (as Blondie would agree), I think it would be sensible to have someone equivalent to his academic background to debate him. I mean, why not have Willie the Pizza-delivery man debate Dr. William Lane Craig for crying out loud?! Yes, he has a policy of debating those with a PhD but he would make rare exceptions to debate those without such a degree. That's all. What's the big deal? Furthermore, is there anything new Doug Krueger can bring to the debate that an atheist hasn't already? *********************
(Note: This is NOT Doug Krueger although they have a striking resemblance: overweight, long-black-hair, glasses, mustached, and ugly)
According to Mark Smith, he who debates Dr. Craig must have these indispensable traits:
Personally, we don’t think that Krueger qualifies according to rule #1, but we will grant it for argument’s sake (Krueger claims he used to be a Christian). We’ll also grant #2 and #3. But, I’m afraid, we cannot grant #4. Thus, Krueger doesn’t qualify to debate Dr. Bill Craig. Krueger started debating in College graduate school, but not in high school! Here’s his own words in an e-mail when asked if he debated in high school:
There you have it folks! According to blondie, Doug Krueger does not qualify to debate Dr. Bill Craig. Hey Blondie, we'll forward you the e-mail if you want.
We have shown how misplaced and deranged Mark Smith is. He still remains an iconic dork of all dorks. For instance, he thinks Dr. Craig should debate non-PhDs like God and Jesus. And, Smith overlooks evidence when they are literally in front of his face. To illustrate, he overlooks Craig's debates on the "immediate experience of God" and makes the embarassing claim that nobody challenged him on this; yet links to a debate where Craig actually mentions the "immediate experience of God" and was challenged on it! Furthermore, Smith's embarassing incomprehension of the proper basic belief in God (despite that being mentioned in Chapter 1 of Dr. Craig's book Faith and Reason - the chapter he critiques) is self-explanatory and for all to read and laugh at. I can go on and on but you get the point. He does nothing more than avert to smear tactics.
However... Dr. William Lane Craig still remains to be one of the most important and scholarly authors, lecturers, teachers, and defenders of the faith. If the Protestant church adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of sainthood, Dr. Craig would surely be branded as such. God bless him! Hey Marky, Thanks for being a sport by putting a link to our website. We were hoping you would respond. But, oh well... Anyway, we hope you didn't take any personal insults personally (like calling you a "moron" or that you're blind to objective reality). It was just a satiritcal jab at ya is all. Anyway, since you've decided to not respond to our charges against your website - and instead you tried to "condescend" us with "why is Mark linking to a site that hopes to prove Mark is full of crap. Good question. I do so so that all may see the weakness of the Christian arguments. I do so so that all may realize that 'Hey, if THIS is the best they can come up with to refute what Mark has written, maybe what Mark has written is true after all.'" {this is question begging really - we're only to deduce that you have no real reply. Ah, but you had this to say, which isn't much: "Unfortunately, the college students that put up ContraSmith do NOT have any strong arguments, just more philosophical hot air that basically says that if Craig CLAIMS to have had a religious experience, that's all the evidence these college boys need, yessireebob." You said, "I've changed things in this site before due to what some have pointed out to me, and I can change them again." For our sake, Marky, please don't change anything. We like the way the website is. Especially, the part where you "criticize" Dr. Craig's book. We want you stay as your arrogant self :) You asked, "Where's the beef?" We have it for you, Marky. Do you want it well done? Because we pretty much cooked your arguments. Anyway, now you're asking for miracles. Personally, we don't think that's the subject of Chapter 1 in Dr. Craig's book. Thanks for enjoying our website. Personally, we find yours more amusing. Yours in Christ, Frank Walton and Friends Uh-Oh, Mark Smith revises his "Response to my ContraCraig Website" without us knowing, but we have a response right here and here: Corey sent this e-mail, but in true Mark Smith form he refused to put this on his website let alone respond to us. Aug 10, 2004 Hey Blondie, Uh, can you please quote me where I claimed that I served in "Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia AND the Persian Gulf War!" ?? Wow, and you accuse Bush of being a liar! Anyway, I'll await a response to see if you can back up your claim. Then you accuse us of this: "They are good fundy right-wingers, and will most likely vote for Bush no matter how many soldiers die from his lies." Gee, you talk about cheapshots! THIS is a cheapshot! Yours, Corey
Mark Smith still has not given us any evidence where Corey claimed to serve in Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia AND the Persian Gulf War. We're still waiting you liar!
As I recall, Corey sent you the reason (which you wouldn’t honestly investigate) why ContraSmith went out of commission. Briefly, it was because we authored a website where we critiqued an atheist’s incomprehension of philosophical terms. We now call him "Todangstupid" as a pseudonym for his real identity (and a way from having yahoo close our website). The cowardly atheist, Todangstupid, started lies about us and did everything he could to close our website. Unfortunately, he succeeded. Not once, did he try to engage in a civil conversation let alone offer a philosophical reply. Oh, and, geocities is set up so you can start a website for free, blondie.
I, personally, am not a full right-wing conservative, like Corey; but, I do listen to Rush Limbaugh. Though I disagree with him sometimes (to read a good book on Rush Limbaugh check out: Rush Limbaugh and the Bible by Daniel J. Evearitt). Yes, we will vote for Bush, but it’s a totally disingenuous and outright misrepresentative of you to think we support Bush at the expense of soldier’s dying. *Sigh* How many fascist liberal left-wing loonies have been spouting off this propaganda?! Look, if Bush lied about the pretenses of the war, then John Kerry, Bill Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the United Nations, and Saddam Hussein and his sons have lied about WMDs, too! Here’s some great videos, on these lies: Pin the Tale on the Donkeys and Bill O'Reilly vs Michael Moore. Another Blonde Moment... (Notice the striking similarities in looks and logic)
Notice Mark Smith emphasizes the word LONG to describe our website. Yup, still a moron. Are website is long only because your website is long, blondie! In case you forgot ContraSmith looks almost exactly like ContraCraig .
"The website" that Blondie is refering to is this one: www.oocities.org/uponthisrock247365/contrasmith.htm. Hey no-brain, you can't just go back on the same url address after having it shut !
It's quite pathetic if you ask me; maybe he's trying to look like Fabio...
Responses to ContraSmith Home |