http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9901617876.html For a less biased but equally critical article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html What gives?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4"]William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens (HQ) - YouTube[/ame] Dawkins shouldn't waste his time with him. In the video above, way too ASSUMPTIONS of what might happen to The Universe by Craig.
I guess the question is why does anyone care? I'm Christian. If everyone else on the planet was an atheist it wouldn't change my faith. Some of these Christian leaders are really insecure. Its a free country. Let the atheists say what they want. It doesn't change my faith.
I asked the same thing about this. http://jezebel.com/5801582/awesome-teen-challenges-bachmann-to-constitutional-debate Guess Bachmann was too scared to debate a teenager. Probably cost her the GOP nomination.
You can't win that debate. A kid is unbeatable. If you lay it down hard to have a clear victory, you are bullying a teenager. If you lose a single point, you got your ass handed to you by a kid. No way I would take that debate. I am agnostic. I am pretty much an atheist, but do not presume I could even answer such a question. It is a debate, not a "you can't say that" fight. I would think people on this board specifically would question the unwillingness to debate the most universal question, when the man has made a career in the typically arrogant pursuit of it. I find it weird. Pssst. His career is a dog and pony show. He debates with evangelists. He debates with media talking heads with prepared questions. He does so for publicity. It sells books. What atheist WOULDN'T post a youtube of Dawkins owning the best they got... I would.
.... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes[/ame]
Yeah... I don't much care for cop outs. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg[/ame] Where did that guy go? Don't give me holier than thou... especially on this subject. You make that sort of claim, and then meh... why would I talk about the only subject I am recognized for? Why would I have a philosophical discussion with anyone who did not share my beliefs, that, again, are what I am internationally recognized for? I am too good to debate people with similar credentials, you have to be a pope or a bishop? (*)(*)(*)(*) that. Coward.
Nah, she could have simply had a sense of humor about it and invited the girl to come up and ask her some questions about the Constitution. It would have been great publicity and it would have endeared Bachmann as a "good sport". (of course, that's assuming Bachmann would get the questions right. If she didn't, it would be utterly embarrassing. Which is probably why she didn't do it.)
I don't think you would do very well in politics. Presume every news station in the country is an iteration of fox, and all you have left is MSNBC. No matter how it went, the press, and people like you, would murder the internet with upload attacks. Considering your willingness to twist things sometimes, I am surprised you don't get this.
He has already explained why and it has nothing to do with being afraid. He does not want to level science and religion right next to each other. He feels they should not be equated in a debate forum. At first I wondered why he would do that, because he usually destroys scientific debates, even religious ones. But his reasoning makes sense.
You are being disingenuous, Richard Dawkings has participated in many forms of discussions. Just recently he was on one with regard to the teaching of religion in private schools in Britain. And it wasn't "media" heads, it was an open discussion with teachers, school representatives, students, and parents. And in this debate he had equal footing as everyone else because he was not the centerpiece of the discussion. You sound like you outright don't like the guy.
I take it you didn't read the OP articles or watch the rebuke of the copout video posted on the first page. Every single one of the debate invitations came from Universities with multiple participants. Oxford atheists have called him a coward. The claims are coming from his esteemed colleagues, on HIS side of the debate. You don't get to just ignore this crap. He wont debate THIS guy... who is the best of the other side... and his
I have often quoted him. He is a brilliant guy. I am disappointed in his cowardice. His motivation should be truth. He is willing to whore it out to push a book, and he was willing to debate Kirk Cameron ffs. I guess you missed that. I don't dislike him, I expect more from him. Man up. "I'll debate a pope" Seriously.
But a Creationist debating is NOT a scientific debate! It is a THEOLOGICAL debate based on the Creationist Authority, the Bible, NOT science! The man needs a Biblical scholar to debate him, not Dawkins! That Oxford atheist should go debate the Creationist.
So you're saying that both Bachmann and Dawkins were too scared to enter into their respective debates? That Dawkins is afraid of being utterly embarrassed and that is why he declines? Or is that just an effort to derail this thread?
Dawkins did not become famous for scientific debate. He exists in your world only because of his books on theology. Attempting to use science to disprove God. There is no better opponent. Are you suggesting he should only debate with people who agree with him? Utter nonsense.
I hate to break it to you dave, but a debate concerning the existence/non-existence of super natural beings is necessarily a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. Metaphysics is not science, no matter how much people on either side of the debate try to treat it as such.
He was willing to debate Kirk but not anymore. He has publicly stated in his latest 2 books he will not participate in a creationism vs evolution debate or participate in any debate forums dealing with that topic. And I have read the article, it seems Richard does not like the fact he (Craig) is using his(Dawkins) book to sell his book. Both debaters are doing a pony show. Not just Richard.
This thread got me interested in what Craig has to say, so I watched the Craig vs Hitchens debate, and I don't believe it's a matter of cowardice. Craig seems like the typical religious hack with no compelling or fresh arguments for the existence of god, just wish thinking. If he has any good arguments, I would like to hear them.
As Dawkins has said in the past, only those debating him can win because they get legitimacy by debating a scientists whereas he gets dragged down to their level because he's a scientists arguing against them.