Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Alex K]

Yes, I agree completely. But for believers it works. They are convinced he is this towering intellect that has atheists peeing their pants, and they draw a sense of security in their world view from that.

[Homeless Nutter]

Personally - I lost interest in debates since Hitchens died. Harris, Dawkins, Shermer and others can be entertaining sometimes, but no one can touch Hitch's no-nonsense delivery and crushing wit.

Damn it. I miss Hitch so much...

[Pizza]

Yeah, Hitchens was an entertaining public debater at least.

[Esquilax]

Craig is a boring and repetitive debater. He reads from the same script in each debate. All you need to do is get him off script to get him stammering. I've heard a few atheists say Craig wins debates. I don't see how. Most public debates don't have any winning conditions. There are no judges giving points or anything close to that. Craig just declares himself the winner because his opponents don't refute every argument he makes like that is how public debates work. That's silly.

The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.

WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.

[AFTT47]

I agree with it absolutely. Evolution vs. Creationism was settled long ago. Debates give the false impression that there is anything to debate. There isn't. It's settled.

Instead of debating anyone on this subject, educate those who are willing to be educated. Don't argue with someone who insists 1 + 1 = 3.

I'm not a fan of formal debates at all as it is. The tactic Boru mentioned up-thread and related ones are standard procedure for debaters looking to mislead the audience. The format plays right into it.

[Whateverist]

As most of you know, Professor Richard Dawkins refuses to have any debates with creationists. This is because he feels that it will give them the status of a real scientist. He compared it to a geographer having a debate with a flat-earther and a reproductive scientist debating a person who believed in stork theory.

I wanted to know what you guys thought of this stance. I know it has received heavy criticisms from atheists and theists alike.

Personally, I think he is right. Debates should be discussions between two people about real world problems. Arguing whether or not evolution is a better model than creationism is not a topic that would affect the world. That being said, the discussion of what should be taught in our schools is a topic that would and is affecting our world.

Yeah, I've thought so for quite a while.  Look what happened with that last Hamm vs Science Guy 'debate'.  The debate is supposedly based on science, but the pseudo-science guy (Hamm) just picks and chooses the science that serves him while redefining or ignoring what doesn't.  That isn't really a science based debate.

[Minimalist]

Dawkins understands.

[Pyrrho]

... This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. ...

Yes, debating is a skill, so that who appears to "win" a debate is not necessarily the one who is most reasonable or is speaking the truth. Indeed, bold lying can be an effective strategy in a debate. I would never do a formal public debate with anyone about anything.

Anyone who is serious about a topic should research it rather than just listen to a debate about it. Who "wins" a debate is more about the debaters than about the subject under discussion.

[Pizza]

The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.

WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.

Kalam is Craig's baby. He wouldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of that.

More on Craig, his cumulative case for Christian theism is moot, since he never really puts forward a clear idea of what a personal god is. Like a person how? Given the vastness, complexity, and mysteriousness of the universe, the cause of everything likely can't be anything like a human mind or that can be honestly called "a personal mind (Craig's words)."

[Minimalist]

Craig is a con man.  He makes money telling ignorant fools about some silly fucking god.

The whole basis of all religion, really.