Would you take the time to argue with someone who was convinced that invisible pink unicorns occupied Grey Hound buses and Domino's Pizza ovens? I doubt you would. It is a waste of time. Dawkins has already explained multiple times why he doesn't bother, none of which is some repressed fear that one particular man possesses a theology argument to end all arguments based on reason. Dawkins views it as a waste of time.
There must be thousands of scientists who are every bit as atheistic as Dawkins. What separates them all from Dawkins is the way he (Richard Dawkins) so fervently accepted the role of public defender of naturalism and applied himself in the role. He embraced the spotlight! Now, all of a sudden you claim this.... He suddenly doesn't consider debates to be of any importance at all. Well this Richard Dawkins now is totally at odds with this Richard Dawkins then... "I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.” (Dr. Daniel Came in a letter to Dawkins trying to shame him into debating Craig). Because obviously you sympathize with Dawkins' views or else why come up with transparent excuses, like Dawkin's values his "time" too much to debate (something he has not even claimed)?
And if you change persons when you are editing something for content accuracy, then you are doing it wrong. You were suggesting that I was asserting something that I was only agreeing with. I found this to be an inaccurate characterization. Do you find that weird? There is nothing cheap about it. Not when I do it, not when academia does it. It is a fair question. I have stated what I believe, as have many others. The defense is laughable... and were the shoe on the other foot... you would. It's called intellectual honesty. Try it. It's free. Your assumption was wrong and now you are just backpedaling. I have nothing at all against Dawkins, except that I dislike people who make atheists look bad. He misquotes the bible, and refuses to debate anyone scholarly on the subject. Its weak. It weakens my position. I have never discussed Dawkins before, save to borrow some quotes from him directed at theists. I do. Quite often. So do you, in the religious section. We both spend a lot of time there arguing with theists. So does Dawkins (spend a lot of time arguing with theists that is... probably not here lol). Why turn this one guy down at the risk of losing face, or do it for an easy defeat, for the same reasons you do it every other time, money and publicity? Especially when your colleagues are all calling you a coward. It is a fair question. He will debate with Bill O'reily, but not a Ph.D. He didn't do well in that debate btw. How you don't fare very well against "the tide goes in" guy is beyond me... but leads me to believe he is afraid of losing a debate with this guy. Again... what happened to that guy?
Dawkins has debated a lot of people. I read the god delusion and he explains why he stopped debating them there. btw Dawkins is a biology teacher in one of the worlds's top universities, im sure creationists have more skills to argue on evolution.
The God Delusion was a best seller in 2006. He has debated countless creationists since then... including Bill O'Reilly twice.
I never compared Bachmann to Dawkin's. You may want to read your own thread before you comment on it. Tom took a false premise and hung his entire argument on it. You should choose your friends better. *sigh*
Got it. So the entire Bachmann thing that you threw out was just an attempt at derailing this thread. Note that I wasn't really making "an argument" per se but was merely asking what your intentions were in reference to your assertions. Here, read it again. My entire post consisted of three questions. So, if you weren't comparing Bachmann declining a debate with Dawkins declining a debate, then exactly what was the point of bringing it up in the first place? Here are your comments again to refresh your memory,
What defeat can come? One man using a single religious book and somehow proving that god does exist? Laughable. I have listened to Craig's arguments, they are nothing special. Instead of arguing in favor of some sort of intelligent designer, he predictability falls back to Christianity. Some how x, y, and z point towards Jesus and not the thousands of other earthly religions. Craig is an exceptionable public speaker, I will give him that much. Dawkins has the integrity not to bend under his colleagues pressure to enter into yet another debate yet another theist. He already explained why he refuses these debates. There is not a vast conspiracy to be had. His appearance with Bill O'Rielly was amusing. Bill O'Rielly is unable to discuss things that he himself is uncomfortable with. Very one sided with a heavy lean towards Dawkins. I suggest you read his books.
So what? That's a complete red herring. Whether he accepted the role or it was foisted upon him... he is still under no obligation to spend his time and effort on anything that he does not feel is worth his attention. And he has been explicit... he does not consider Craig to be worth his attention. Nope. Never claimed that. Never hinted at it. We are not talking about 'debates" generically. And that's not what this thread has ever been about. It has been about debating Craig. No one else.
Dawkins. Dawkin's would be showing possession of something by someone named Dawkin. To show possession by Dawkins it would be Dawkins'. Ummm... So... you did not answer the question, but instead wondered "what gives" about someone else refusing to take a debate... but were not relating them? You were not equating the two situations? Then I have to ask... what was your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing point about Dawkins?
Whenever you refer to yourself in the third person, you are doing it wrong. Well, there's your problem. You appear to have had no idea what I was doing. So what you were correcting was in no need of correction in the first place. Sadly, no. That I find typical. Nonsense. If you have something substantive to say about a person's position, reasoning or evidence then there is nothing cheap about it. When you're just name calling, even behind the beard of somebody else having started it, it is cheap. And in this thread (which you started) the high point of your "substantive" comment was to call him a coward. Thus the purpose of the thread is made apparent. Why you felt that a worthwhile exercise for creating a thread is, as I already said, entirely uninteresting to me. Actually, no. I don't spend a lot of time there at all. In fact I avoid that section for weeks if not months at a time. And for which you have received a fair answer. That it doesn't conform with your desire to smear the man's personal valor may not satisfy you, but heck... life is just filled with little disappointments. 1. Being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly is not a debate. 2. He has debated many Ph.D.s. So that comment is a tad puzzling. Here... let me give you some room so you can call him a "coward" several more times. He's busy.
We will never know. That is where the interest lies. I would find it all very entertaining, and possibly even learn something. I would think the reasoning would be self evident, considering our past times. Would you watch it? Or would you think it beneath both Dawkins and you? Would it be a waste of your time? Cahmaaaaaaan He has not explained why he continues to have these debates, but only with rubes. Nor will anyone acknowledge this. I really do not believe we can move forward if you kids keep saying the same thing, and when given refutation of this "ideal", repeat it. I wasn't suggesting anything complicated at all... or even a conspiracy. It just smacks of intellectual cowardice. There are a few. A few appearances with Bill O'Reilly (a creationist with whom he debates after his explanation as to why he does not... do... that). I will find the one I saw. It was not a heavy lean towards Dawkins. I have. Sticking to this ridiculous assertion would make it difficult for him to do what he does (outside of teaching). The fact remains, that this copout is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because he only debates with morons. "I will not play baseball with people beneath me, unless I am kicking the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of some little league team publicly."
Ha ha! It's funny because it's so absurd It makes me wonder then why Dawkins has already wasted so much of his time, including taking on televangelist Ted Haggard? He already has bothered! Many times! Find a better excuse. This won't do.
Well then you probably believe O.J. that the glove did not fit...because that was his claim. And if someone says something, despite all evidence to the contrary, you seem to always go with the rationale no matter how weak, or how much it strains the credulity of the average brain. So you believe televangelist Ted Haggard was considered worth the time of super atheist Richard Dawkins (because they did clash), but not the academically elite William Lane Craig? Interesting... Oh, I see. Dawkins will make the time to debate bum of the month lightweight theologians and intelligent design teachers. He just won't accept a challenge (issued four separate times) to debate William Craig. Got it. In boxing this is called "ducking" a challenger (just so you know).
Its about as believable as saying that god sent his son down from the sky, to live a life as a human, to relieve he is actually the son of god, heal a couple people, then sacrifice himself for the sins of man, past, present, and future, die from minor wounds, then rise from the dead like a zombie. Ridiculous. So because he has done so in the past he must in the future?
The other thing Dawkins has learnt is that you have to be careful who you debate because they can use your own ignorance against you. As Dawkins FREELY admits, he is ignorant of many things, espcially other things in other areas of science, which screws up debates when the person you're debating wants to shy away from biology to ask Dawkins cosmological questions knowing that Dawkins has no more understanding of that than you and I.
He was even able to make a loud mouth like Bill make himself look like an ignorant fool without raising his voice. Richard can eat most for breakfast with ease, including this guy.
The sad thing is that O'Reilly has used that argument multiple times on his show and yet many idiots still think that O'Reilly knows what he's talking about when it comes to science.
Interesting, yes. However Dawkins is not going to raise any points that I have not heard in other debates by other atheists. There is not a magic bull that Craig possesses, he makes the same argument as other theists. Um, you are suggesting something (without proof) beyond Dawkins explanation. Dawkins says that to invest great amounts of time into these debates is pointless, akin to argueing with someone over whether or not the Roman Empire existed. That is the explanation. That is the reason. There are other debates that Dawkins has had with intellectual heavy weights, and it leans towards the secular when it comes to the issue of the existence of a higher power, let alone a single god of thousands. The debate with Alistair McGrath is interesting, but does not bring up any new points or ideas to the debate which I hadn't already heard from the theists or from Dawkins himself. If Hitchens were in better health and turned down Craig would that mean indicate fear? No. What about Harris? No. A single god from a single man made religion is a loss by default. It has no basis nor is it based on reason. It doesn't take and intellectual to ask for proof. To spend hours preparing and then hours watching someone avoid the issue and use the same old tired arguments is probably a waste of time.
Nope, I don't. Despite all what evidence? Your speculation and slander? Please. Dawkins and Haggard never debated. Haggard (who was quite the big deal in those pre-scandal days) was interviewed by Dawkins for a documentary. And yes, the BBC documentary was worth Dawkin's time. It was a really great program. Your affection and admiration for Craig is no more wisely placed than your dislike of Dawkins. But it has nothing to do with the simple fact that Dawkins does not consider him worth the effort. And it is frankly only Dawkins' opinion on that issue that is likely to influence events. Oh I know what it's called. because (probably unlike you) I have actually boxed. And even then, calling the other guy a coward was always more about puffery than anything else. I've seen more than one boxer accused of cowardice lay his opponent on the mat in the second round.
I did not refer to myself in the third person. You did. I corrected your post. Do I need to pull out the fat crayons for you? "I think WongKimArk is attempting to be coy and failing miserably at it." Now if you were to correct that statement, even though it is about you, it stays in third person, because you are correcting the CONTENT of a QUOTE. It is absolutely correct. Grammar may be a goto for you when you are sparse on content... it is generally a bad decision to attempt to correct mine, especially incorrectly. I generally leave other poster's grammar alone, but mine is usually pretty spot on... save overuse of ellipses to bring pause to my stream of consciousness run-on sentences . What you did, was promote the substance of the articles as if I were the author. It required correction, whether or not you were aware of it. It was not just for your benefit, but those that might make the mistake you may or may not have made. Frankly we should probably abandon the pissing contest over our grasp of the language. It seems pointless. You are just babbling off topic about being wrong and not realizing it... it isn't helping your argument at all. It is my belief, that the beards are correct, and he does not hold true to his cop-out when he does not care to have a debate, and yet debates creationists all the time. He only chooses rubes for the easy win. I believe that this idea was both clear, and a current event. If you found it unworthy, commenting was a bit of a silly move. I have some things, though not much, to say about his reasoning and evidence... but that was not the current event. These articles and claims by his peers was. The purpose of creating the thread was the same as every single other one in current events, to bring awareness to a topic, and state an opinion. Way to go Einstein. Let's reexamine the exchange, as you will not suffer an ounce of intellectual honesty yourself, and are attempting to obfuscate the context of your statement with adversarial banter. I snidely asked you to please enlighten me as to why I started the thread, to which you replied, more or less "to say what you said". Well... no... that takes little wonder. But it leads to more questions. What are "threads like this"? Is this an anti-Dawkins thread? Because I have never engaged in one before... haven't seen one that I can remember. Is this an "anti-Atheist" thread? Cause that is kind of funny... but I am doubting you read past the first couple of posts. Is this a "put your money where your mouth is" thread? Because that was my intent. I have this thing about intellectual honesty. It is kind of a hangup really, almost a tick. I was reading some Christian sites, musing over the end is neigh predictions, and ran across that first link. After confirming it and reading much more on the topic, I decided it was worthy of a thread, as I had not seen one... and not being a theist, I liked that I would be its creator, just for the very purpose of removing a motivation of bias with regards to Mr. Dawkins. It is that tick thing I have about calling out my own. I believe you believed that there was no wonder why "threads like this" come to be due to a biased agenda. I think you read a few more posts and realized why I asked you so snidely what my motivation was. I think you are saran wrap. I think you cling to things of substance, but are completely transparent. You serve only to separate things. I said intellectual honesty was free. I would actually pay you for some. Legs tired yet? From this point forward, you should note that I was quoting another poster... and no longer speaking to you. Though the fact that you made them first person in your head is kind of funny.
I'm not here to defend Christian dogma (there are others much better than I at this) but everything you post regarding religion (that is, Christianity) is absurd. Especially calling crucifixion, an actual Roman means of execution, a "minor" wound and then saying Jesus rose like a "zombie" (a George Romero style zombie, I guess). It's absolutely dishonest and shameless and if you have to resort to such asinine hyperbole to sell your story, perhaps you don't have much to add. So because your excuses for Dawkins not debating Craig were all non factors for him in the past, it's likely that's all they are now...excuses.
Jesus died, a physical death, and rose from the dead. Zombie Jesus. To claim that as a legitimate argument is ridiculous. I have simply passed on what Dawkins himself have said. There is no conspiracy to be had, no secret fear of being owned by a zombie Jesus follower. It is just as it seems.
