Dawkins has no peers. Craig is desperate to be recognised by anyone but his fellow fruitloops. While we are on the subject, the claim "Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." is ubiquitous on Christianist sites but any reference to the original statement is strangely missing. Where and when did Harris say this, or is it simply another cherrypick or even a straight invention?
Then he has no peers and should debate nobody because everybody is beneath him. Yet he does. All the time. That is one of the things he is "busy" doing. He won't debate this guy, despite the encouragement and ridicule from his own merry band of disbelievers, who while beneath him, are above you. Logic. Not tough.
If Craig is a young earth creationist, then the answer is simple. Dawkins has refused to debate various young earth creationists for the fact that he's a world renowned physicist, and these are random religious leaders with far less clout. There's no reason to give creationists free publicity, which is exactly what a debate with Dawkins would do. It's kind of like how big party candidates don't like debating third party candidates. Even if the big party candidates end up "beating" the third party candidates in a debate, it's ultimately a win for the third party candidates, because they get more attention from the public than they otherwise would. Granted, the difference with third party candidates is that they usually have valid points and address issues that are typically ignored by the big two parties. With creationists, you have utter nonsense being used to debate scientific facts and evidence. To even put the two on the same playing field is illogical. So basically, Dawkins doesn't want to help mislead people into thinking creationism is a valid alternative view, because it isn't. Even after Dawkins inevitably slaughters a creationist in a debate, it doesn't matter. The creationists don't base their views on logic or evidence, so they won't convert to reason, and a few of the less bright viewers of a debate like this would probably make the mistake of choosing creationism.
Those are two possibilities. They do not comprise an exhaustive list. Actually... yes. They are absolute equals to me. As a matter of fact, were I asked which of the two was actually the most influential, Haggard would have it over Craig hands down. Just in name recognition, the community who even knows of Craig's existence is tiny in comparison to Haggard's, for reasons both good and bad. Haggard actually changed people's lives. There was a vast community of people who cared for and about him. He made a difference in ways that Craig will never be able to aspire to. But when it comes to the accuracy and quality of their arguments, they are indistinguishable. For example, I find it droll that Craig's biography touts his use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument... an argument that is self refuting, internally contradictory, and so pathetically incompetent that no rational debater would come within a mile of trying to defend it. I can only attribute your slavish affection for Craig as being symptomatic of the fact that you do not understand him. You are mistaking opacity for actual intelligence. And honest to god... I have no idea why this pointless point is so important to you. Too bad that in the case of Craig you are only half right. Craig has an awesome resume on paper. But outside of the tiny group of fellow travelers that imagine him some sort of rhetorical Conan (mostly because they don't understand him) he is irrelevant. His arguments are "unreasonable" as they contradict their own premises. His conclusions depend upon him fully admitting that he cannot reason to the concept of god from his stated premises, and so the reasonable conclusions must be rejected because they do not reach the conclusion he desires. To call that reasonable is to call the world flat. I am not a philosopher. My contributions are elsewhere... and markedly more pragmatic and utilitarian than Craig's. Craig makes arguments in the rarefied world of theological academia to defend the existence of an imaginary deity. I save lives. Did you know that when Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, he banned the teaching of theology altogether? If you're looking for great contributions to Western Philosophy... there's one right there. So do you want to take that wager or not? BINGO!!! You almost got it. Now let me paraphrase that: Given who Dawkins is and who Craig is, why do you feel Craig is owed a debate? "Some?" LOL Name two! So then by your standards he must really, really, really be a coward if he declines to debate me.
Never noticed that... but you are correct. The quotation delivers 1,620 responses on Google. With the single exception of your post, 100% of them are quotations by Christian apologists, and not a single one of them provides a source for the comment. Fascinating.
Welcome to page 13. Dawkins debates creationists all the time. Just stupid ones. He won't go up against anyone with any knowledge or skill in debate. He fights chumps... and doesn't always come out unscathed.
Because I am curious how it would go. I find it cowardly to deny THIS one, based largely on the opinions of people smarter than myself who actually know him.
I kinda fall on both sides of this debate. On the one hand.. I think Dawkins is an arrogant jack(****). Can't stand the man. I think he is a coward,, just a personal opinion. On the other hand, being Atheist myself.. I can understand not wanting to debate with creationists. It's pointless. I don't care that he used to do it. I used to do it as well. I stopped because it's like watching ***** play football. They kick the thing around all day but no one truly gets the reason behind the game.. so no one ever makes a point. You can't use debate.. a skill of logic and reason.. to take on the illogical and unreasonable.. and one must be just that.. illogical and unreasonable... to believe in divine creation. To truly believe in their heart of hearts, the same way you believe the reflection in the mirror is your own face... THAT'S THE KIND OF BELIEF THEY CLAIM.. to have that kind of belief that a magical man-being poofed everything in the universe into existence one must first let go of all forms of intelligence and reasoning. One must willfully give up the power of deductive reasoning. People like that are honestly not capable of real debate. Debate requires the willingness and ability to accept that it is POSSIBLE you may be wrong... that there could possibly be such a thing as evidence of your opponents stance. There is absolutely NOTHING a creationist is willing to accept as evidence that a god did not create the universe. That must be accepted before the debate even begins... and once that is accepted.. why bother debating?
They do comprise the most likely reasons however. Doubling down on stupidity? Great strategy! And likewise Woody Allen, David Cross and Janeane Garofalo (to name three atheists) are all infinitely more well known and beloved than Richard Dawkins. There is a vast community of people who have all been touched by their work and who care deeply about them.....and so what? The more you jabber on foolishly the more your claims of being a debate master sink slowly out of view. Whether Haggard is just loved to death by the people in his Colorado church or not, this says absolutely nothing about his intellectual weight (which he destroys by claiming the earth is about six thousand years old and Noah saved the aardvarks from the Great Flood). I can't help but note that when I put out a list of Craig's more than 30 scholarly books which he had either authored or edited (taking on subjects like Big Bang Cosmology and Time and Eternity) you come back and tell me how loved Ted Haggard is (is that because of, or in spite of, his crystal meth binges with a gay masseuse friend of his). Just so you know I know, you have painted yourself in a corner trying to make William Lane Craig seem no better than a meth snorting literalist bible thumper (all so you can "win" when you claim Richard Dawkins doesn't need to lower himself and intellectually slum around by debating Craig). It's been funny seeing you try, but it's been sad and painful too. Again...Oh, Really? I didn't realize Ted Haggard also debated well known atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Please list for me the debates Haggard has taken part in and how his arguments have been similar and reminiscent of William Lane Craig. I want to see how you reached this conclusion. Really (again)? Let's start a thread on the Kalam argument. I'd love to see you tear it up and defend your views against some of our fellow posters here. It would be interesting to hear you defend and expand on this theme in a new Kalam thread. You can assert an imaginary deity (I'm shocked you didn't invoke the famous Flying Spaghetti Monster) with the smug assuredness that almost all atheists exhibit. But if it were that easy, Richard Dawkins would never have lost that debate to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. And Craig would not have won all of these http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392. What does this man know that you don't (besides everything about Craig, I mean)? Jefferson was a deist and not fond of Christianity. So what? When every other university in the world (with a theology department, of course) follows suit come back and we'll discuss it then. And if Craig is irrelevant, what does that make Dawkins? What? That Craig will ignore your challenge? He probably will. Especially if he reads this thread and your embarrassing performance here. There you go again trying in vain to make some sort of equivalence between yourself and William Lane Craig. It's an asinine claim to make, even in jest. Dr. Daniel Came is one and all the people (atheists all) behind this petition are some others. Sorry I don't know their names individually but the notion you try to ridicule is that other atheists are not urging Dawkins to show some balls and debate Craig. Like almost all of your assertions, this one is false too. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dawkinscraigdebate/ No. Not at all and I've already been over this. Being repeatedly stupid does not improve your argument. Quite the contrary.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lIEhLwONgw"]Putting The Fear of God Into Atheists - YouTube[/ame] Why not see for yourself? About 1:06 of the video. No invention here...except on the part of Sam Harris who invented the line.
I found it with little trouble. What is your problem? Oh, that's right...it undercuts the claim of Richard Dawkins that debating William Lane Craig is beneath him (despite the fact that nearly everyone he has debated in clearly not in Craig's league...but I'm sure that is not lost on Dawkins, hence his transparent claim).
Welcome to post 9. http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/209464-richard-dawkins-afraid-craig.html#post4513390 It helps if you actually... (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Nevermind.
And presumably his decomposing corpse left him with an appetite for human flesh, and brains in particular, as he wandered about in a zombie stupor...right? Not as ridiculous as comparing Resurrection to zombie-ism. If you have a hard time with Resurrection, then fine. But to compare Jesus to a zombie is the sort of smug, snarky stupidity that characterizes atheists and atheism. Yes. You seem to have made his excuses your own. Look at who Dawkins has declared he would not debate versus who he actually took on. The discrepancies are glaring and telling.
But,,,,that's what most of the scientist are left with after they find out their theories are just that,,,,They just back up their assumptions with bad Math...or,,bad Math leads them to their [as it turns out] poor educated assumptions. They assume they are correct....Dark matter anybody?
But if Craig want's to debate Dawkins, then we have to assume they are going to debate the existence of god. Like I said in an earlier post, if Craig is only coming to the table with biblical knowledge, then Dawkins would be wasting his time talking to him. If Dawkins debates Craig, then he has to start doing Comic Cons and debating people on which Kryptonite is best for defeating Superman, lest people start calling him a coward. In the videos I've seen so far, Craig brings ZERO scientific evidence to the table. He's just a very well educated village shaman.
Harris does actually say this before he debates Craig in one of the videos floating around on google.
He is coming to the table with biblical knowledge and the logical fallacies of Dawkins book on the subject. What you think he will bring to a debate is also inconsequential.
But I think Craig is going to come with biblical knowledge and what he supposes are logical fallacies. What you and I think Craig will bring to the debate are the same thing. The question is, why would an eminent scientist (he is, whether one likes his attitude or not) debate a man that equates wish thinking with science? It would be no different than Dawkins debating Tom Cruise on the existence of Xenu. I'm sure Tom Cruise has encyclopedic knowledge of Dianetics and an explanation for why we are here that differs greatly from Dawkins and the scientific community. Using your yardstick to measure a good debate, Dawkins would be a coward for not debating Tom Cruise. Yes?
If there is no reason then he wouldn't do it all the time with rubes. Why does this not sink in no matter how many times it is said? There is no point debating the existence of Xenu because there is nothing to argue. Creationism at least focuses on the result of it... everything. Everything does exist, and since energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed yet exists, there is a foothold. If in fact the mans book on the other mans book demonstrates a flaw of LOGIC, it is debatable, and I want to see it.
