A "Good creationist" is an oxymoron. Dawkins entire career was in academia as a professor of Biology. He happens to be a noted atheist. Why should he give some moron the oxygen of public recognition?
Dawkins has made a career of being the atheist darling of the left that takes on all deluded Christian bible thumper comers and ties them in knots (intellectually speaking). It's very telling he has decided NOT to debate Craig. He doesn't have "better things to do"...this IS what he does!
Ummmm....because he's done it so many times before? And if William Lane Craig is a "moron" what does that say about his anonymous internet detractors? If you had a fraction of his intellectual accomplishments, you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing with other similarly non accomplished losers.
I take it you didn't read the op or first couple of pages... or my entire reply which you quoted. I am not calling Dawkins a coward. Atheist academia is. I am just agreeing. I wasn't expecting my little forum post would change his mind.
Wrong. He has made a career of being an evolutionary biologist. He has made a second career of being an author. His vocal atheism is at best a hobby. Everybody must make choices. Most are made out of convenience, not cowardice. You are misinformed.
I don't...and I have. You have to wonder why a man who has a reputation for making mince meat out of people that he has characterized as having mental defects, won't take on someone who could arguably be considered to have the greatest defects of all. It seems like pure intellectual cowardice.
No. You don't have to wonder that at all. Most human behavior is simply being parsimonious with what we value. Like time. You also don't have to wonder at the reason people start threads like this. Oh, you must be one of those atheist academics Ctrl was talking about.
The articles and video were talking about that Ctrl posted... Oh I am quite curious what you think my reason for starting this thread was. Please do tell.
Dawkins has finally learned this important lesson: Never get into intellectual fights with stupid people, they have nothing to lose.
You are much too literal and you know Dawkin's reputation and prestige have come from his public battles against intelligent design opponents. His vocal atheism is much more than a "hobby" as it boosts his merit as an author and public speaker, therefore, it effects him professionally. No one has held a gun to Dawkin's head to assume such a public profile. It's all part and parcel of the same person. The Brights Movement is a well publicized and organized campaign to promote the "naturalistic" worldview. The movement gained notoriety through the publicity given to it in many publications and speeches by Richard Dawkins. He put himself in the forefront of public atheism. What are you claiming? That Dawkin's can't possibly find anywhere to schedule into his busy life one evening for a debate. That's very absurd. You are simply engaging in wishful thinking.
So we are to assume that based on your innermost knowledge of Dawkin's motivations, he simply and suddenly values his time so much he refuses to debate one of theism's most capable defenders? Did you laugh while writing this? I laughed while reading it. Why must I be?
If you find accuracy weird I guess. You could tell it was a correction because it was the same verbiage save the addition... well you should have been able to. I will be more clear in the future so as not to disturb your tender grammatic expectations. So you would have to wonder. That was easy. Unless of course by "you don't have to wonder at the reason" was your way of saying you don't care... because to me it implies that the reason is obvious why I started this thread. Must be that accuracy thing you find so weird.
I am hardly being literal. I am being simply accurate. Dawkin's "reputation and prestige" precedes any public battles with theists by decades. Without his scientific credentials his atheism would get no attention whatsoever. No. I'm saying that he doesn't consider a debate with Craig important enough to bother with. Why would It matter to me one way or the other that I should engage in wishful thinking?
Speaking of yourself in the 3rd person is never "accurate." We actually have grammatical "persons" for a reason. Actually, I still can't figure out exactly what you thought you were correcting. Like Dawkins, I don't "have" to do anything I do not choose to do. Confident that your intention was to take cheap shots at Dawkins, the reason why is completely uninteresting to me. Beyond a certain level, you are correct. I don't care.
This debate has been done to death over and over already. Why are you people so eager to watch the same thing again? There are probably enough Atheism vs. Religion debates online to last you the rest of your life already! Jesus Christ....
