Funny, you seem disposed to believing thinly veiled excuses. Despite claims that Dawkins just can't seem to make the time for Craig, for example. A very thin transparent pretext, undoubtedly. I'm very certain they did not sit down and chat amiably over matters of religion. The point is Dawkins can make time for Haggard (because he is such an easy target, no doubt) but he cannot make time for Craig (who is not). William Lane Craig has already debated other atheist luminaries such as Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris. He is hardly an intellectual lightweight and as other atheist colleagues have pointed out, this refusal to defend his point of view will surely be seen as cowardice on Dawkins' part, no matter how it gets spun by defenders. I would hardly expect Dawkins to come out and admit he is unwilling to debate such a bright defender of theism and he surely knows how well Craig acquitted himself against Harris, for example. Oh my! You must be the only guy in the world who can say that. Really? What a real coincidence, considering your position here.
Zombies? You apparently are incapable of making any argument that does not rely on absurd inappropriate comparisons. I'll take that as a sign of your intellectual mettle. Well it seems like Dawkins is taking a powder and ducking out because Craig has debated many atheist luminaries and acquitted himself very well. The notion that Dawkins has put out, that Craig just isn't up to Dawkins' standards, is absurd and not accepted by Dawkin's fellow atheists even.
You corrected nothing. Your "correction" didn't even make sense. That's because you did not even understand what you thought you were correcting. Wrong. See, I told you. I wasn't even referring to the articles. I was mocking Yosh with a reference to what you asserted in your posts. And no, if you wrote something like "I think WongKimArk is attempting to be coy and failing miserably at it," and I wanted to correct it, I would write: "No. I'm not." See how that works? First person, singular. Not even the royal "We." We know your beliefs. What we don't know is why you denied them before, and are embracing them again now. First you called him a coward, then you denied that you called him a coward, and now you're calling him a coward again. My god, any more flip-flopping and you'll be mistaken for a landed trout. And you have made you opinion clear, in spite of denying it at least once. It is that Dawkins is a coward. We are now almost 100 posts into the thread, and you have yet to make an additional contribution to the discussion. How hard is it to actually quote me as opposed to an inaccurate and pointless paraphrase? Really? My reply was not "more or less" anything. It was exactly something. It was (and I quote), "You felt like calling Dawkins a coward." Like a three year old caught in an infinite causal regression you then asked, "Why?" And like an adult, I chose not to play. Based on this thread I cannot credit that claim. The thread was designed and delivered as a container for a personal slur against Richard Dawkins. You expected offense, and instead got bemusement. Sorry it did not work put as you planned.
It must be difficult for you, constantly confronted by a world that its different than it seems. So... you admit to never having even seen it? Why then do you even try to characterize something about which you admit you have no insight? I mean, seriously? The video is even available on YouTube. Yes. In 2006 while he was making a BBC documentary, Dawkins made time for an interview with the pastor of one of the largest Christian mega-churches in the world, and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals...an organization encompassing 40 denominations representing approximately 45,000 churches. I know that after his drug-laced adventures with homosexual prostitutes you might want to pretend that Haggard was some sort of irrelevant lightweight. But sorry Yosh... in 2006 he was one of your best and brightest. However, in 2011, Dawkins is not making a BBC documentary. So he has no reason to make time for Craig at all. Actually, my judgment of Craig as an intellectual lightweight is my own, reached after reading a bunch of Craig's work. I am pretty sure that even I could beat him in a debate on at least the subjects of evolution and the cosmological arguments for god. Of course, I'm pretty sure that Craig would not take the time of day to debate me. But whatever his reason for avoiding the encounter, I would probably not attribute it to cowardice. I don't have to be the only guy. I only have to be able to say it when you can't.
The devil is in the details. Mutual mental masturbation is a spectator sport. What Craig does possess is a profound study of the bible. Dawkins does not have this. This is the part I find interesting. You possess a much better understanding of the book... as do I. Surely you were aware, reading "The God Delusion" that things he said were in the bible, were not. They instead came from, for instance, Charlston Heston. To have not even read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing was the first annoyance I had with Dawkins. This is the second. Lucky for me, I am not required to have proof when coming to a belief, though it is nice... What I have is evidence. Now... Dawkins ascribes things to the bible (Volcano means God angry), that are not in there. This is evidence to me that he has not read it, because it is not in there. Dawkins was born in an atheist household, and was raised atheist. He is the number 1 God sniper. To presume understanding of a thing you have a cursory knowledge of that which you claim to be debunking... finds me casting an odd eye at the mans ethics. Now, he also seems to not really be so much anti-God as anti-Catholic... which is interesting. He will "only" debate a cardinal, a bishop, or a pope... according to him. Now... this sort of flies in the face of his original explanation as to why he will not debate creationists. Either it is not worth it, or it is. This is logic... no? So... he is an unread anti-Catholic who was raised atheist, and uses is brilliant understanding of biology to support his assertions. So... now does it make a little more sense why I think he might be afraid of a Ph.D with an encyclopedic recall of the Bible? It is his weakest area... and his biggest area of contention. So no, sir, I have no "proof" to make my beliefs facts... but I have logic and evidence which suggest, at least to me, that I am probably right. Oh, yeah... and all those beards who actually know him. Again, I don't like holier than thou arguments. I would address that statement, but this thread is hard enough to keep from derailing. Socrates said something about wisdom once... The same waste of time we engage in every week for sport. It is stimulating, and why the humanists and Christians, and universities want it. And so do I.
God you are grinding. I fully comprehend what you do not. Ask someone for more help. I was very clear. If you still don't get it, I can't help you. I agreed that he was a coward... with the beards in the articles. I know you didn't read the articles. It was very clear. That was why I corrected you. Then you are replying to a statement, not correcting the content of a quote. Insert expletive here. I never said that I didn't believe he was a coward. Please post where I did not agree with the conclusions of the subjects of the articles? I did not. What I denied, was that it was my assertion... I am simply in agreement. If you cannot follow this, it is due to that accuracy problem you have. Again, I have never denied my opinion. I again challenge you to demonstrate this. Nobody asked for more. I have simply been refuting what I see as limp dick hero worship adherence to a cop-out made in a book so he did not have to defend himself. You are a grind. A time vampire. I will allot the time I feel you deserve. Call me parsimonious with it. How hard would it have been to quote the exchange? If your assertion was that I created the thread because I wanted to call Dawkins a coward, you were wrong. I explained why I created the thread. No... I think he is acting cowardly. I come from an unbiased position. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you credit. You are not the arbiter of reality or truth. I told you why I created the thread. You can find my work against the spaghetti monster in the religion section. You presumed I have an axe to grind. You were wrong. Get used to it.
No, I find the world is pretty much as it seems. I don't have to have seen it to know that it's a dodge to claim Criag isn't someone that Dawkins can take seriously. William Lane Craig is in another intellectual universe than Ted Haggard. And yet Dawkins will travel to Colorado to demonstrate what a fool he is. Craig is coming to Dawkins' back yard and yet you claim he hasn't time to meet him. He held tremendous sway over other evangelicals. But a debate king and sophisticated thinker he was not. Dawkins will meet with Haggard (to make Christians seem more absurd than they are) but he doesn't seem to have it in his heart to show up Craig and give him any credence (as if he doesn't already have a glowing reputation due to his other debates with atheist philosophers). It's as patently phony as rubber doggie doo. He was a tv preacher and pal of George Bush, for God's sake! How far will you go to build up Haggard and simultaneously tear down Craig? Thomas Aquinas he was not! Except that Craig is coming to London, and four separate times has offered to debate Dawkins! As the public face of atheism and the self anointed leader of a new movement, if for no other reason, Dawkins owes it to his own self promoted crusade (pardon the term) to debate Craig. It's no wonder people question his guts. Sam Harris and the other intellectual atheists that have debated Craig don't seem to share your view. I don't know how to break this to you, but it's so and somehow I'm not surprised that, once again, you do all you can to minimize William Lane Craig. Well many have, including philosophical allies. I haven't seen another reason that makes real sense. Well you fail there too, in that case.
That's what it looks like to me. He's put himself in the forefront of a self created movement but will not bother to debate a guy who holds his own against atheists. He sees himself as king of the atheist philosophers but doesn't want to appear foolish. It's a real problem for him, it seems.
Charlton Heston To presume understanding of a thing you have a cursory knowledge of... that which you claim to be debunking... and uses his brilliant understanding of biology to support his assertions.
You were, and remain, incoherent. I did not say you didn't. I said you denied calling him a coward, when in fact you had already (in your own words and without reference to the OP) explicitly called him a coward. It is particularly odd when a person can not seem to follow his own posts.
Then this thread must be an exception to that rule. There is no need for you to persist in demonstrating your great skill at comparing apples to antelope. An interview for a BBC documentary is not a debate. But I will tell you this... I can find no significant difference in the intellectual universes of Haggard and Craig. What do you have against "television preachers?" Do you consider them "stupid?" How odd. I build up and tear down nether of them. I dismiss them both on essentially the same basis. I have to chuckle every time somebody in an Internet forum tries to tell somebody else what they "owe" and who the "owe" it to. Look... I am fully aware that Craig is desperate for Dawkins' attention. And we can all surmise why. But Dawkins is not interested. He has said so. It is really time for Craig and his sycophants to stop behaving like jilted school girls. What possible concern would I have whether or not Sam Harris shares my view? Here, let me fix that for you. You haven't seen another reason that fits your agenda. (Note to Ctrl: Did you see what I did there with grammatical "person?") Sure.
It makes sense if you have a theory of Dawkins being a coward, and you cherry pick evidence to support it. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Dawkins will not debate him because he believes it is a waste of time, which is quite plausible if all Craig has is "encyclopedic recall of the Bible." I watched some of the debate between Sam Harris and Bill Craig, and Craig did make some astute observations, but none of them were a compelling case for the existence of god. From what I saw his argument is that there can be no objective morality without god, and human existence is absurd because it has no purpose in a godless universe, therefore god exists. If you disagree with his theory, then you believe the Holocaust was not a bad thing. Craig argues for the existence of god the way that a lot of our childish liberals argue for tax increases. "If you don't want tax increases, then you want people to die." I can understand why Dawkins wont waste his time debating him.
No, it mustn't. I truly believe you when you say this...and that is very very sad. Check out the academic resume of William Lane Craig sometime. And then Haggard's. If you are trying to make some intellectual equivalency between the two because of their belief system then that says more about you than them. I don't think Haggard is the sharpest knife in the drawer and I'm sure you would agree with me 99 times out of 100 if you weren't trying in vain to puff up the estimation of Haggard's brain power in order to make Dawkins look like some all time debate king. I'm sure Haggard has something on the ball in order to have risen so far in his career path but when he argues with Dawkins and says the earth is about 6,000 years old (or however old he said it was) he shows a stunning lack of common sense (which Dawkins then disingenuously reports to the BBC as proof of the idiocy of Christians). You fancy yourself a boxer? This is like Mike Tyson taking on a fourteen year old girl. When you claim that YOU could take on William Lane Craig in debate and that Ted Haggard is a very bright guy there is nothing to do but snicker at your claim. Dawkins doesn't owe it to Craig to debate him. That's for sure, but his public character will necessarily suffer and people will judge him a phony and a coward when the self appointed messiah of a new philosophical movement offers weak excuses for ducking a debate. He's eager to put Dawkins' arguments to the test. That's for sure. This thread has been all about Dawkins and the fall out (from his own cohorts, among others) from his sudden reticence to take on a challenger of substance. It strikes people as oddly out of character. You wouldn't. But if you were at all honest you would admit that Sam Harris, who has debated Craig and praised him highly, has a greater insight into Craig's intellectual power than you ever possibly could...despite your claim you could beat him in a debate. And you have a great stake in denying the views of Harris or else you'd be forced to admit it looks like Dawkins is indeed ducking Craig. Let's just say my belief in your self claimed boxing exploits draws about the same response. Anyone can be anything they want on the internet. So believe me or not. It makes little difference.
You can keep repeating the same thing over and over, it doesn't make it any more true. The comment, was about the subject of the thread that I created, in the articles I referenced. The articles were a prerequisite to engage the subject of the thread. The opinion stated over and over in the articles was that cowardice was the reason. My restating this charge is not my assertion, but my agreement with the opinions in the prerequisite material. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time vampire. It was not my original idea. I had no idea about the circumstance to form an opinion outside of the articles. MY OPINION is that THEIR OPINION is correct. I am now calling you a coward because you erased all of the substance of the post to desperately try to cling to an argument you haven't figured out yet that you have lost. That is really the saddest part about the time of mine you are wasting, you are so slow, you think THIS off topic rant (without the ability to quote the assertion you are making) is your best argument. Get back on topic. Quit humping my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing leg.
I made up the encyclopedic thing. Totally pulled that out of my ass. I expect he knows it pretty well. I don't want them to debate because I am looking to be compelled. I just want to see what will happen, how it will go. I agree he thinks it is a waste of time. Fighting Mike Tyson would be a waste of my time. He would hurt me and I would fall down. Complete waste of time. I would not agree to fight Mike Tyson because I am afraid of getting hurt... not because it would be a waste of time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I am not evaluating them based on their academic resume's. I am evaluating them on the basis of the quality of their arguments. In short, their arguments are equally incompetent. In many cases, their arguments are virtually indistinguishable. So I judge them as equals. If you are dazzled by diplomas rather than reason, right back at you. Snicker all you want. I have debated several of the Creationist "greats" from Duane Gish to the late A.E. Wilder-Smith. Craig is a complete intellectual lightweight compared to Professor Wilder-Smith... (and Dawkins also debated him. No apparent cowardice there). He was genuinely a fine intellect.... and not just because he had three doctorates. I apparently made a big enough impression in that debate that I am mentioned by name in a number of books, and even in Professor Wilder-Smith's Wikipedia article. This last was something I only pleasantly discovered about five minutes ago. So you should know, last night I sent a challenge to Craig for a debate. I suspect I will not even get as much as a peep back. By your standards, that would make him a coward. Want to take a wager on his response? Craig's adolescent fit at being ignored (and those of his sycophants) will not matter a whit to Dawkin's "public character." The desperation of you guys is already a full concession to Dawkin's status and reputation. I would make no such admission since I do not believe it to be true. You really have a nasty habit of pretending some delusional insight into the minds of other people on the forum. It does you no credit. Nonsense. I have no dog in this hunt at all. I'm just a guy on the Internet... what "stake" could I possibly have? But you have set the standard. If Craig does not agree to debate me... then I expect that you and Ctrl will demonstrate your integrity by starting a thread in which you declare him to be a coward.
Wrong. It was my comment. I know what it was about. And it was about what you said in your posts, not the articles you linked to in the OP. And I am yawning in response.
Truly? You are either a terrible liar then or about as bright as gravel. This is a brief look at Craig's accomplishments: "William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher and theologian. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and defense of Christian theism.[1] He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (co-authored with Quentin Smith) (1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith) (2007)" And now, Haggard's accomplishments: "Ted Arthur Haggard (born June 27, 1956) is an American evangelical pastor. Known as Pastor Ted to the congregation he served, he was the founder and former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado; a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches; and was leader of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 until November 2006." Period! End of achievements! These men are "equals" to you? You seriously expect people to believe there is no difference between the intellectual capacity and reasoning of William Lane Craig and a guy that thinks the earth is about 6,000 years old and Noah saved all the animals by herding them on his ark? Incredible! Just flabbergasting! You have to be the biggest shoveler of B.S. I've ever run across and you may have no respect for any argument that contends God must exist but it would be a cold day in hell before I would disingenuously try to claim there is no difference between Richard Dawkins and Jeanine Garafolo (for instance) just because they both reject religion. Your claim is pathetically transparent and if you think Craig and Haggard have "equally incompetent" arguments then you aren't intellectually honest enough to count for anything. I am dazzled when both reason and academic achievement work together in one mind. That is Craig. "My standards" require men of great intellect and accomplishment to publicly engage each other on important philosophical matters but the quality of your posts demonstrates you can't hold your end of the bargain up. Just wondering what your great contribution to Western Philosophy is exactly? Care to clue us all in? My standards also require a greater level of proof that Craig won't even bother to contact you than merely what you suspect Craig might do. Be serious, please. Given who he is and who you are why do you feel you are owed a response? Some of his fellow atheists find his dodging to be deplorable also, if you are trying to make the case this won't touch Dawkins' bright shining public perception. Lie harder. "Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have both flatly refused to debate with Craig, who was recently described by Sam Harris as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists". This quote from Harris does not constitute a "delusional insight" of mine, in case you were confused. You are an anonymous internet nobody with a mysterious and inappropriately large ego (considering your product) . William Lane Craig is a renowned philosopher and author who has already debated many leading atheists and, as I pointed out, greatly impressed thinkers like Sam Harris. It is not only specious but it is absurd to try and put yourself in a debate equation where ignoring a no one like you is the same as Dawkins ignoring Craig. The attempt to compare the two is ridiculous. Let me further say that Dawkins has a reputation for maligning those he fears and has not done well against, like Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who defeated Dawkins in a debate (by student vote) at St. Catherine's College, Oxford in 1996. Dawkins at first tried to deny a debate had ever taken place (videotape of the event nullified that excuse...Dawkins said it just "slipped" his mind) and then claimed that Rabbi Boteach "screamed like Hitler" and was a "cry baby" (and said the same of Dinesh D'Souza, for good measure). So for Dawkins to claim that Craig is not sharp enough to warrant a debate, we should judge that rhetoric based on what he has said of others (and how they fared against Dawkins). http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2152
You have it all backwards. Mike Tyson would not fight you because it would be a waste of his time. Just like it would be a waste of Dawkin's time to debate Craig.
His peers don't think so. Craig doesn't think so. I don't really care if you think so. And he is not Mike Tyson in this scenario. Discussing the supposed accuracy of the bible, Craig is Tyson. I am unsure that Dawkins ever read it. That is why he only fights chumps yous see.
