GodPhilosophy

This is a joke, right? Saw the link to this forum after John W. Loftus linked to it in his facebook site (https://www.facebook.com/jwloftus/posts/10154984229306975), accusing William Lane Craig of plagiarism. This accusation that Craig plagiarized off of Stewart C. Easton has been dealt with before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0yhSoFfqJ8. But let's deal with this so-called plagiarism in this forum: William Lane Craig Is a Plagiarist? Give Me a Break! I'm amazed at the desperate lengths that atheists would go to to attacking Craig. Now, it's plagiarism. But seeing how this is coming from John W. Loftus (actually, this accusation first came from an internet troll named Theo Warner; more on him later), it's no surprise. Let's examine both quotes. First, William Lane Craig: Now Stewart C. Easton: Notice: 1. William Lane Craig cited Stewart C. Easton. Meaning, he's telling his readers where the quote came from. In fact, Craig cited the name of the book, the publisher, the page number and the year of publication (which is not shown in this forum, but was in the .pdf provided... if it was still available - gee, I wonder why it was taken down). I mean, it would be strange to tell people who you're quoting from, if you want to get away of plagiarizing their work. 2. William Lane Craig is paraphrasing Easton. Meaning, Craig is paraphrasing a cited quote. Which is to say: this is not plagiarism, stupid. Look at the following quote: This above quote paraphrased a cited quote. According to John W. Loftus (and people of this forum), I just plagiarized Shakespeare above! LOL! Seriously, are you guys really this obtuse? But just to give you some background: the person who first accused Craig of plagiarism was not John W. Loftus, but a young youtube user by the name of "theowarner." Theo actually had a reputation for stalking William Lane Craig, even going so far as to constantly stalk Craig's wikipedia page while entering biased information against Craig in the wiki page (more information here: https://web.archive.org/web/20111211230030/http://theowarner.blogspot.com/2011/11/theo-warner-accused-of-being-stalker.html). Indeed, Theo is quite a character. Going so far as to deliberately lying about people in Youtube videos, he was once accused of making racist remarks against Asian people, and then he claimed the logic isn't good because it leads to hate! Which brings us to... The Peculiar World of Theo Warner 1. Theo has no sense of reality or rationality. He once suggested that square-circles existed. In May 8, 2010, he made this argument for the existence of square-circles: 2. Theo ended his youtube channel in disgrace as more people found out that he's only there to troll and deliberately lie about people. As of this day (March 31, 2018), the videos in his youtube channel are all taken down: https://www.youtube.com/user/theowarner 3. Theo has no graduate degree. He's just a kid with a BA in English. But his command in English Literature sucks. Giving us poems like so: https://web.archive.org/web/20111211230058/http://theowarner.blogspot.com/2011/07/theo-warner-gives-us-another-bad-poem.html 4. Surprise! Theo Warner is a plagiarist! Isn't it ironic that Theo would accuse Craig of plagiarism when Theo is actually a plagiarist? Here's a video of his plagiarism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcXSfzM7rc But here's a shortcut of Theo's plagiarism: Theo actually plagiarized the words and arguments of Douglas Gasking without ever citing Gasking at all. Here's what Gasking said: Now, here's Theo: Notice the similarities: When asked about this plagiarism of Gasking, Theo claimed he never heard of Gasking: LOL! This Theo guy is only hurting himself here. But here's more on theowarner: https://web.archive.org/web/20111211230021/http://theowarner.blogspot.com/ As for you, John W. Loftus Give it a rest. William Lane Craig saw you for who you are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecRLURYrzu4) and no rational person thinks you're worth debating Craig (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437). You're a child who needs to grow up. But seeing how you're this gullible in getting duped by an Internet troll, how much more gullible are you when it comes to the truth of atheism? Your research and studies on religious matters and people suck, bro.