Can you name a specific rube? I would like to look up a debate between Dawkins and one of these rubes just to see how it went.
Can anyone from Ctrl's side of this discussion name one of these rubes that Dawkins has debated? I would like to see how the rube's argument differs from Craig's. Thank you.
Rube? Do you mean debating opponents? I think it would be interesting to look up videos of Dawkin's debate at St. Catherines in Oxford against Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. By vote of the audience at the end of the debate, more people had moved to the view of Boteach than Dawkins (after which Richard Dawkins claimed not to remember being in the debate at all, until a video of it showed up on Boteach's web site...ooops). Too bad Dawkin's number one defender seems to have buggered off. I would like to get his impression of that debate. I mean, Boteach is no Ted Haggard but he seems to have bested the Great Godless Hope, Dawkins. So he must be doing something right (like standing up to smug atheists).
I assume you mean me? No still here, but spending my time on more interesting threads. This thread has been a one hit wonder... merely a mechanism to call Dawkins a coward at every opportunity. How is it that you have not grow bored with it even faster than I have?
For an alternative view of what actually happened, here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2591-richard-dawkins-responds-to-rabbi-shmuley-boteach
I've had a change of heart about this. Maybe Craig really is on to something. The Flintstones did show us how humans and dinosaurs could feasibly live together.
No, I mean rube. If you look a couple posts back, Ctrl said that Dawkins will not debate Craig because he is only interested in debating defenseless rubes. Thank you for providing an example.
I suppose it's been more entertaining for me watching you struggle to extricate yourself from the box you put yourself in. It is a one note thread, mostly, but so are many of the threads here.
Yes, I posted earlier on this. What's remarkable is how Dawkins completely glosses over the debate Boteach won (claiming he barely remembers it and that Boteach misstated where the debate was held, as if that matters more than his defeat) and how utterly childish he is in calling Boteach a "cry baby" who preaches like Hitler (an utterly odious thing to say considering he is discussing a rabbi). And for some reason, Dawkins also insults and belittles Dinesh D'Souza too though he has nothing to do with this Boteach dust up. It's sort of bizarre.
What is "remarkable" over not recalling a single debate out of scores that had occurred more than a decade earlier? I know that I would have a hard time recalling the details of every debate against creationists that I held in the 80s and 90s. This would be even more true had the person reminding be been as inaccurate in their account as Boteach was. In short, welcome to the human condition. As to who "won" I only have access to the first ten minutes of the thing. So I will withhold judgement on who actually won. I fully admit that I too winced over Dawkin's choice to compare Boteach's shrieking to Hitler, even though the comparison was apt. This is not just because Boteach is a Rabbi... I have a strong aversion to any application of Godwin's law period. But I cannot avoid asking: Who is more childish, the "cry baby" or the person who calls them on it? I still have no idea what this has to do with Craig's desperate pursuit of Dawkin's attention. Only if you've never heard D'Souza speak.
You had the chance to address that issue (or issues) in post #137 when I responded to a whole host of points you raised, and you passed.
How many Orthodox Rabbis has Dawkins debated? So many that Shmuley Boteach fails to stand out? More to the point, how many Rabbis, that defeated Dawkins in open debate, did Dawkins take on? The list must be very very short. Perhaps Dawkins chooses not to remember. Apparently no matter what Dawkins claims, and no matter how incredulous it seems, you will back him up. "What's too painful to remember we simply choose to forget" ...The Way We Were. I'm not sure how Boteach was "inaccurate" but I suppose it's easier to contend something than document it. The students in attendance thought Boteach did. Doesn't this assume that Boteach is indeed a cry baby? When did this become a hard fact to you? It's incredibly sophomoric, especially for someone in Dawkin's position, to call a debate opponent a cry baby. You might read it here, where any yahoo with a key board can say anything they like but I've never heard this charge thrown about in academic circles before. Perhaps I'm just sheltered but I have to think part of the bitterness on Dawkins' behalf may be because of the way his debate went. Boteach is a controversial Orthodox Rabbi more known for his mentoring relationship to Michael Jackson and his sex manual than as an academic leading light. It demonstrates how Dawkins chooses the "low hanging fruit" he is confident he can defeat when he agrees to debate and how it's odd Dawkins will not "dignify" Craig with a debate but he will give credence (to use Dawkins' own rationale) to a pop culture Rabbi when he debates Boteach. I've seen him on PBS many times and wonder where the "shrieking" charge comes from. Frankly, it's inexplicable.
Response to post #137 Personal insult. No substantive argument. Yawn, Personal insult. No substantive argument. Yawn. First off, all three have better and more rigorous arguments for their positions than Craig does. And this is for the simple reason that theirs do not contradict their premises in order to reach a desired (but unreasonable) conclusion. I myself would be very entertained to see Craig debate one of them. If you somehow imagined that I would consider them somehow "less than" or "inferior to" Dawkins that would be simply projection on your part. I am not quite the elitist you are proving to be. Personal insult. No substantive argument. Yawn. Haggard's belief in a young earth is no less absurd or idiotic than Craig's belief in the divine Jesus or inspiration of the Bible. They are intellectually identical, arising as they do from the credulous acceptance of dogma in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence. That they believe in different details of the same absurdity does not make one smarter than the other. It just makes them different. I am not as impressed as you are with the prolific production of bad arguments. After the first two or three of Craig's books, reading the rest becomes the functional equivalent of being stoned to death with popcorn. And your discomfort with Haggard's extracurricular activities reflects far more on your frantic effort to discredit him as stupid than any effort on my part to defend him. You're the one who picked him as an example of an "intellectual lightweight," not me. And he certainly would not be the first homosexual substance abuser who was a profound genius. Leonardo DaVinci liked both his wine and his young boys. I see no corner. I'm very content with where I've painted myself. In fact, I'm considering wall paper too. Perhaps I have been too subtle. Craig is no better than a meth snorting literalist bible thumper. Their arguments for the existence of God are identical. Then you haven't paid attention. I've shredded the Cosmological Argument several times in this forum in other threads. If you want me to do so again, be my guest. Start the thread. I take responsibility for no one else's debates than my own.And I still withhold judgment on Rabbi Boteach's claims of winning the "debate." He has never been shy about exaggerating his actual accomplishments. You missed the point. He did not prohibit the teaching of Christianity at his university. He prohibited the teaching of theology. He understood (as you do not) that it is a pointless exercise... a total waste of intellectual effort. It is the equivalent of a department of unicornology or time travel. All of the time, effort, ink and paper put into the study of theology is a monumental and pointless waste. This is why I can hardly be impressed by Craig's "contribution to Western philosophy." It is a massive corpus of accidental fiction... and the fact that he does not know this, that he actually believes (and that you believe) his monumental output of pointlessness is a great accomplishment... this is what puts the finest possible point on his intellectual mediocrity. He would have contributed more to humanity had he been a plumber. And so far, we are both right. He appears to be quite the coward.... at least by your standards. But I will again take the opportunity to paraphrase: Dawkins continues to ignore Craig because he has read his work and is familiar with his embarrassing performances elsewhere. My, my, my... you are easily dazzled by celebrity. What an elitist. So you can't name two? I didn't think you could. And you end as you began.... with personal insults and no substantive argument. Yeah... I'm kinda liking this corner I painted myself into. All the best people end up here. As an elitist, you should appreciate that.
Dawkins remembers. He has said so. I think the word you were reaching for here was "incredible." Well there you go. Another source of great contributions to Western Philosophy along with William Craig; Barbara Streisand movies. /sarcasm As usual, you seem fuzzy on the details. 1. Boteach claimed (as you have claimed) the wrong location. The debate did not take place at St. Catherine's College. 2. Boteach portrayed it (and continues to portray it) as a one on one debate. In fact, it was panel of four. Maybe. Maybe not. I have only Boteach's word on that. When I read Boteach's open letter. The truth is never sophomoric. And if this is the first time you've ever "heard this charge (or one like it) thrown about in academic circles" then you have led a very sheltered life. This ignores, of course, the fact that the exchange you seem so offended by did not take place in "academic circles." Rabbi Boteach is not, and never has been, an academic. There you go. See? But it is fascinating that now you're turning on the Rabbi too? It seems you think everybody is an idiot except for William Craig. Why might that be? Have you ever actually even read any of Craig's books? If you have such a low opinion of Dawkins, then why are you lusting for this debate? I've seen him speak in person. I do not have to wonder. And yet, explanations abound.
Really? They have intellectualized their rejection of God? Or do they just think that the idea of a white bearded super spook on a throne in the clouds is ridiculous? Because that's the "rigorous argument" I see from 99% of atheists and I've not seen where these guys are any different. In fact Dawkins himself is no different, basically. Yes. Entertaining is what it would be. As I said before, if really was as simple and clear cut as you like to pretend (as you wish it were) Boteach could never have defeated Dawkins in debate and Craig would never dispatch with regularity opponents in debate. Your personal belief system is not suspended entirely on your unquestioning acceptance of it. Well that was not the point in me bringing them up and you should know that. But if you think Ted Haggard is somehow equal to William Lane Craig (on an intellectual level) because he's beloved (or was beloved) by his church members then you have a serious intellectual problem yourself. Of course it is. We know how old the earth is approximately. We can say through carbon dating how old the earth is. But despite your personal prejudices and feelings it is infinitely more difficult and complex to even discuss the nature of the divinity of Jesus. For starters, what we know of the man has been filtered through many many commentators and sources and then there is Jesus himself who spoke obliquely and non literally about so many things. And that is why atheists like Dawkins, and probably yourself, who have a self acknowledged zero expertise in theology ("You don't need a degree in leprauchanlogy"...as Dawkins says) are ill equipped to pass judgment on things they know little to nothing of. And I'm not impressed with disingenuous dismissals and faux knowledge. First of all, I've never called him "stupid" and you cannot claim otherwise. I've only dismissed your claims that he is the intellectual equal of William Lane Craig. And my "frantic" effort to discredit him is only necessary when you disingenuously claim Haggard is "beloved' by the members of his church. Perhaps that was true at one time, but not any more. Yes...when compared to Craig! So now Ted Haggard is a "profound genius"? Give me an example of this so called genius. Their belief in God is certainly identical. Anything other than that is pure invention on your part. And it's cynical dishonest invention too. You have no problem acknowledging that Haggard is indeed a meth snorting literalist bible thumper...but only because he becomes like a tar baby that you can attach onto Craig. The lengths you will go to to discredit Craig just so Dawkins will look like a hero when he refuses to debate him. It's sick. Please cite some of this "shredding" so I can see for myself exactly the form your brilliance takes. Oh, and now you expertly know about Boteach and his alleged claims? In this case, it was a student vote of attendants at the Dawkins debate that make your claim rather humorous. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2152 Where is there any practical difference at all in teaching Christianity but NOT theology? Do you know what theology is, by any chance? That's like prohibiting medical studies in your college but not the study of the circulatory system. Thank God most of the rest of the world is not as "open minded" as you are. You are a one man Taliban of the mind when it comes to questions of God and religion. Ironic considering your contributions to philosophy and thought. Let me tell you again that you misrepresent my standards and you've already been told about this. There is nothing about you that warrants attention (and your posts prove this). And you keep seeming to mistake a dismissive, knee jerk, reflexive rejection of God for any sort of reasoned intellectual rationale that supports a position of thought on the subject. That isn't the basis for a debate. This is why no one in his right mind would waste time debating you. We've already disposed of that ignorant blather by providing the words of another prominent defender of atheism, Sam Harris, who was quite complimentary of Craig's debating skills. Craig's debates have NOT been embarrassing, quite the contrary, unless you mean for his opponents. And observers less transparently biased than you all agree that Craig is a wonderfully skilled debater, and I've already provided evidence by an atheist blogger testifying to just that. This is just like the Haggard straw man that you keep resurrecting after it gets knocked down over and over again. I'm impressed by excellence. Does that make me an elitist? Then so be it. Disingenuous and misleading. But I knew you'd try and capitalize on this. That's what people on shaky ground do. But that's why I cited a petition organized by atheists calling on Dawkins to debate Craig. Your whole so called argument seems to be based on cowardly twisting of facts and pure unthinking denial. Not a great base from which to work.
Then why claim, to begin with, that Dawkins has no reason to remember Shmuley Boteach and then state this? It's absolutely bizarre. No. Incredulous..unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true . Dawkins' claims are incredulous, i.e. not believable, yet you accept anything he says (no matter how thinly tenuous the claim is) as true. Well that's what Dawkins says. I think it's too inconsequential to bother over. Has Boteach ever definitively said "I alone debated Richard Dawkins"? He has claimed to have debated Dawkins...period. If you can prove differently let's see it. Well Dawkins was sufficiently angry at Boteach to specifically try and set the record straight. I've never seen Dawkins dispute the outcome of the debate, therefore, I accept it's as Boteach says. Funny. When I read Dawkins' reply it's Dawkins who comes off as incredibly thin skinned and all this "shrieking" business (and pulling D'Souza into the fight) only confirms this. So you consider Dawkins' charge to be an undeniable truth? Well, that's in character for you. Dawkins is and Dawkins played the "cry baby" card. Not Boteach. The premise is b.s. Why would you claim that? Who said Boteach is an "idiot"? Certainly not me! I've only stated facts of Boteach's life and how Dawkins will dismiss some people (who are brilliant academics and debaters) and refuse to debate them while accepting others with nowhere near their credentials. Odd, isn't it? It seems like an interesting sliding scale of acceptability and it seems to hinge entirely on who Dawkins thinks may give him a real fight and who won't. Yes. Vast tracts of many of his books, anyway. Have you? Oh, that's right. You've read every book and I should know after arguing with you over NDE's that there isn't a book (that Google carries, anyway) that you aren't an encyclopedic font of knowledge on. The bottom line is, I don't have a thing to prove to you but since you claimed to have "smashed" (no, shredded) the Cosmological Argument (with apologies to Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas and William Lane Craig) I would love to see proof of that. Another straw man. I'm not lusting for the debate though I'd like to see it and my low opinion of Dawkins is with regard to his ethics, or lack of same. Oh, please!!! (is there a vomit from disgust smiley?) So on panel discussions or interviews on PBS Dinesh D'Souza manages to suppress his tendency to shriek? But not in person, when you see him speak? Incredible.
Of course they have. The fraction of people "born into atheism" is tiny. It is overwhelmingly an intellectual choice made by people who have consciously rejected an otherwise ordinary religious upbringing. Now we can continue going back and forth on this all day. But we have begun to do little more than repeat ourselves. So lets break the log jam and do something more interesting. You think Craig is brilliant. I think he is a mediocre intelligence. Let's test that together. Start your threatened thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God and let's you and me go at it. You have full access to Craig's material on the internet, so you should feel fully up to the challenge. And I'll just use my own arguments that I've used for the last couple years or so. Let me know when you've started the thread.
See you in the religion section. Hopefully the thread will not get sidelined or hijacked. I will be arguing the Kalam argument not because I idolize Craig, I don't, but because it resonates on an intellectual level with me and seems so obviously right (though I fully expect it to degenerate to an is not...is too level fairly quickly).
