More on Craig v Harris

I've heard more of it now. Craig repeats his assertion that he is not arguing for the existence of God, but then goes on to assert that moral rectitude comes from God because the difference between moral good and bad cannot come about without a lawgiver. If he's not arguing for the existence of God, then he must be simply assuming the existence of God, or whence his lawgiver? To try to divorce the debate from the issue of God's existence is a slippery act of intellectual dishonesty.

Craig attacks Harris for irrelevancy, yet he (Craig) holds forth at length on the distinction between ontology and semantics, an issue with little relevance to the question under discussion, and a blatant attempt to impress by obfuscation, blinding his audience with philosophical pseudo-intellectual rot. As it happens, Harris's argument was sharply relevant to the debate, since he was demonstrating how morality can arise without God.

Craig's assertions are baseless, and go largely unchallenged in public only because they are about Christianity and religion in general, a topic which still unfortunately carries its own free gate pass. If he were making similar baseless assertions on another subject, such as crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories, he would be laughed off the stage or required to produce evidence.

Harris is right to label Yahweh a psychopath, and to imply that his followers and promoters are psychopathic sympathisers. Yes, that includes all the paragons of virtue among the august assemblage of dignitaries at Notre Dame, and all who defend such a perverse, archaic world view as that propounded by Craig and his kind. Craig can play the 'insulted' card if he wants but he has asked for all the insults he gets.