Craig is wrong. If a sentient supreme being can give meaning human beings, then human beings, being the creators that they are, can give meaning to themselves. Objectively, there is no more value to the meaning given by God to human beings, than the meaning human beings give to themselves.
This pretty much sums it up nicely. Craig doesn't do much besides play the christian dogma as fact. He doesn't really stick to any kind of science, going with faith arguments instead.
So... he is not beneath using someone with a position which validates him, but will not debate with someone who universities want to see him debate, because he can do nothing but hurt himself. That sounds like intellectual honesty to me. He WILL debate creationists. A cardinal, bishop or pope. He will not debate someone who is well known for religious debate. He DID agree to debate Kirk Cameron. He is only FIRM in his conviction that he will not debate anyone with a chance of winning. Where I come from we call that yellow.
Unless of course you believe in God or the bible. So you guys have difficulty debating when your opponent builds an argument on false presumptions? Seriously?
Because "The Selfish Gene" has no philosophical or moral implications. Understood. Carrying on. That book isn't why I know him.
Bachmann and Dawkins are not the same individual. (You know. . . the fact that I actually have to type sentences like the above almost make me ashamed to be here) *sigh*
If the debate was on a philosophical issue, that would be fine. The Theory of Evolution is NOT a "philosophical" issue, it is SCIENCE. Creationism is NOT a "scientific" issue, it is philosophy. What is the point of arguing about whether or not "supernatural forces" created life? That is a matter of FAITH, and is not subject to debate, simply belief. Personally, believe anything you want! But society as a whole has to be based on sharable and demonstrable evidence.
I am certainly not... I was just explaining my position, why I felt that his groundbreaking book, which I was aware of but hadn't read, considered along side the full body of his work, was in line with it... Care to guess the number of copies of The God Delusion vs the other one with 40 years of circulation? Naaaaaaaahhhh... we don't wanna do that.
So if the two figures are not comparable, why did you seek to compare them in your original post? The fact that I have to ask this question makes me feel the same way.
Ctrl covered it. It shouldn't have even required clarification to begin with. On a side note, I agree with Dasein's second point, he absolutely should be ashamed for having typed that sentence stating that Bachmann and Dawkins are not the same person. Only a moron would genuinely think that I was trying to say that they were.
Just so. He's a basic media whore and this smells of pre-defeat avoidance. Dawkins only comes off as clever to the just barely schooled and the militantly anti-Christian. It's no a matter of theology. He can sell only to the weak of mind.
Laughable. Dawkins owns the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of anyone he debates against, it's just that some people are too stupid to understand the difference between that which has evidence (Dawkins) and that which is faerie tale (religious nuts).
He's stated over and over that debating religious people simply gives credibility to their views. He's right. Religious people should be ignored.
He has stated over and over that he wants to debate with religious people. He just doesn't want to debate THIS guy. His entire career is built on stabbing Abrahamic God in the eye. There are MULTIPLE people on the panels. He is SHOWING UP to panels with creationists on them... he, according to another poster, is fielding random arguments from students and teachers. You can't throw a rock and not hit a creationist. He takes them all on. Just not THIS guy. This ludicrous notion has been debunked. Quit hurling it as if it is new. He debates creationists all the time. He won't debate a GOOD one.
Wouldn't that first require you to have the ability to recognize one? There are only so many hours in a day. We all pick and choose who deserves our time and attention. Rarely is our "courage" called into question because of it... unless of course you are a propagandist trying to salvage some sort of score out of a non-event.
This is simply true for most people. I myself would be abysmal in politics. I note just in passing that Richard Dawkins is also not a politician.
Yes, it would, and I do. It would not be a non-event. It would be a huge event, of worldwide attention. An event everyone wants to see. An event, had it simply transpired, you might have posted when the highlights hit youtube. It is an event most every notable atheist and biblical scholar want to happen. It is, rather a big deal. When Nobel laureates and Oxford professors take to calling you a coward publicly... on the Atheist side, you no longer need to rely on my ability to recognize it.
Only a fool debates with true believers whether they're religious or atheist. Or liberals or socialists or communists. True believers can't debate and trying to debate with them is a waste of time.
Richard Dawkins is a biased disingenuous douch, regardless of whether or not he can beat that guy in a debate.
I am a biased (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who is disingenuous when playing devils advocate in a debate. I don't necessarily hold that against him. Not showing up because you might get beaten is cowardice. "I am not going to debate a professional debater if that is all that is on your resume." There is a lot more on this guys resume, including a Ph.D... and more books on the subject than Mr. Dawkins. He is, however, good at debating. So well versed, well tooled, well educated, internationally recognized, and brought to the same podiums as he is... isn't worth his time. The same circuits are booking him. By his logic he isn't worth his time. I am still waiting for a rational, consistent alternative explanation.
That was not the non-event I was referring to. I was referring to the non-event of his telling Craig to go pound sand. As to a debate...Who cares if it would be a non-event or not? Dawkins apparently feels he has better things to do. And along the same line he is unlikely to be concerned that somebody on an obscure Internet forum is calling him names. I promise you, it is unlikely to inspire him to change his mind.
