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:

Quote

 

"The twentieth century, writes Stuart C Easton, at the conclusion of The Western Heritage, is an age of paradox. The achievements of this century, and indeed, the modern period as a whole have made it possible for the majority of Western men and women to liberate themselves from the numerous restrictions that shackled persons living in past centuries. The individualism that sprang from the Renaissance, but which could be the possession of only an elite few in that age, has now become possible for the majority. Throughout the course of his whole life, Western man makes thousands of decisions that were not available to him earlier. In contrast to previous ages, he now chooses his career and spouse freely. He may determine the quality and extent of his education. Neither his state nor his society constrains him to believe in a particular creed or to worship in a specified manner; religious pluralism is the order of the day, and he may even choose to be an atheist or an agnostic if he so desires. Available to him is a dazzling array of entertainments and escapisms to assuage his mind. No longer forced to labour for long hours, he may pursue hobbies of interest to him in his spare time; he can choose where he wishes to call home, either in the place of his birth or abroad. All that is demanded of him in return is that his behavior is such that it does not curtail the liberty of others or outrage too blatantly the standards of his society. He is expected to obey the laws of his government and to make enough money for himself and his family by his work(or to inherit it from a wealthy ancestor who has earned more than enough for his needs) to enable him to meet what he believes to be his needs."

-The Nature of History, William Lane Craig

 

Now Stewart C. Easton:

Quote

 

"The twentieth century is an age of paradox. The achievements of this century and its predecessors in the modern period have made it possible for the majority of Western men to emancipate themselves from the numerous restrictions that afflicted men in past centuries. The individualism that we notice as early as the Renaissance, but which could be in the possession of only a few in that age, has now become possible for the majority. Throughout his life, Western man makes decisions not available to him earlier. He can choose his career and spouse freely; he can educate himself or not according to his bent; he can choose from myriad forms of entertainment; he can cultivate a hobby in his spare time; he can live wherever he feels inclined, either in the country of his birth or in a foreign land. All that is required of him in return is to behave in such a way as not to infringe too outrageously on the freedom of others, to obey such laws as his society imposes on him, and to make enough money for himself by his work(or to inherit it from an ancestor who made more than enough to meet his needs) to enable him to satisfy what he conceives to be his requirements. Truly an enviable lot, one would think, in comparison with what was demanded of a medieval serf."

-The Western Tradition, 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:

Quote

"In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, Scene I, Hamlet was contemplating suicide, not knowing whether he wanted to be or not to be.  He was questioning his life and existence.  That's a good question."

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: 

Quote

"I would say that the probability that these four traits coexist is 1: [squareness, circularity, existence, immateriality.]" 

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:

Quote

 

"Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.... Ergo: God does not exist." 

- Quoted from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Paperback edition, 2008, p. 108

 

Now, here's Theo:

Quote

 

"... because the God that created the universe and does not exist is greater than the God that created the universe and does exist, God does not exist."

- Theo Warner in www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRFNHO4bQOE [Theo Warner took this video of his down after being exposed as a plagiarist]

 

Notice the similarities:

Quote

 

Douglas Gasking: "Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.... Ergo: God does not exist." 

Theo Warner: "... because the God that created the universe and does not exist is greater than the God that created the universe and does exist, God does not exist."

 

When asked about this plagiarism of Gasking, Theo claimed he never heard of Gasking:

Quote

 

"I don't know who Gasking is."

- Theo Warner's tweet on September 27, 2010

 

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.