Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[Fake Messiah]

But unfortunately, many arrogant fools opted to go against him, thinking that if they have the "truth" on their side, and they're good at science, they could "outdebate" him and win, only to end up being embarrassed instead.

William Lane Craig is the typical theist fool who is talking nonsense and then assuredly uses logical fallacies.

Here is Craig using ad hominem to "debunk" atheists

[GrandizerII]

But unfortunately, many arrogant fools opted to go against him, thinking that if they have the "truth" on their side, and they're good at science, they could "outdebate" him and win, only to end up being embarrassed instead.

William Lane Craig is the typical theist fool who is talking nonsense and then assuredly uses logical fallacies.

Here is Craig using ad hominem to "debunk" atheists

Yeah, he'll make fallacious arguments, but so will his debate opponents. WLC can make as many as what you may consider to be logical fallacies, and he'll still often end up sounding more intellectual and logical than his opponents. Because he's that good at giving such an impression, and because he comes to these debates always prepared with decades of training in logic and specific areas of philosophy (unlike many of his opponents), even if he will say some bullshit here and there.

[Bucky Ball]

1. Christopher Hitchens is alleged to have written supposedly un-answerable arguments against Christian Theism. And yet, when he actually debated Atheism vs Christianity in fair discussion and cross-examination with Dr. Craig, even an Atheist site remarked he lost and lost badly: "The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." ("Common Sense Atheism" atheist review).

Well, yes, Hitchens was out of his league here. And I don't say this as someone who disliked him. I actually loved Hitchens and found him to be quite humorous. He was generally very good at jabs and making snide comments about his debate opponents in a way that made people laugh and love him for it. But when you pit him against a serious and intimidating debater like WLC (as Hitchens himself implied about him), he is not going to be able to do his usual magic with him. Keep in mind Hitchens was never an amazing philosopher, but he was a great and entertaining speaker and interviewee. And I will forever like how he humiliated Sean Hannity on his own show with quick wits and charm.

2. And Richard Dawkins, another of the so-called "four horsemen of the apocalypse" ran away from debating Dr. Craig at Oxford University, though happily debating with some lesser known or less qualified Christians or Christian speakers.

I don't blame him one bit. He may have been more of an intellectual than Hitchens but he still wouldn't have fared well in a debate with WLC. I think he did the smart thing here. If you're not the best at debate tactics, rhetoric, and not exactly an expert on metaphysics and philosophy of religion, and not well-trained in logic, you have no business debating these topics with someone like WLC in the first place. You have to be really good at all these to be on equal grounds with him in terms of impression and logic. But unfortunately, many arrogant fools opted to go against him, thinking that if they have the "truth" on their side, and they're good at science, they could "outdebate" him and win, only to end up being embarrassed instead.

Some people who debated Craig did quite well, mind you. But too many did shit against him and were quite embarrassing.

That's all very true. 
Hitchens always needed to assemble a "team" which included someone who was familiar with Craig's MO, a real academic "liberal/historical" Biblical expert, 
and someone familiar with Logic and it's corruptions. A lot of them were their own worst enemies. Even Ehrman's field of expertise is the New Testament. He still routinely 
embarrasses himself talking about ancient Jewish (Hebrew) culture. Hitchen's was way out of his depth in a sense. While I may have agreed with many things he said, his presentations were vastly lacking in countering what his debaters presented.

[Fake Messiah]

A lot of them were their own worst enemies. Even Ehrman's field of expertise is the New Testament. He still routinely 
embarrasses himself talking about ancient Jewish (Hebrew) culture. 

Actually, Ehrman recently had an overview of the debate with Craig, and he expressed how disappointed he was with Craig and the nonsense he was spouting.

[Bucky Ball]

A lot of them were their own worst enemies. Even Ehrman's field of expertise is the New Testament. He still routinely 
embarrasses himself talking about ancient Jewish (Hebrew) culture. 

Actually, Ehrman recently had an overview of the debate with Craig, and he expressed how disappointed he was with Craig and the nonsense he was spouting.

I'm not talking about those, or even that subject. Ehrman is a recognized expert on that 'era" and it's literature. I'm OK with that. 
I'm talking about the new forays he is recently taking into further back, ... into what is known about Hebrew culture back in Old Testament times. 
That's not his field. If you have read "How Jesus Became a god, Or The "Exaltation" of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee". 
I found a lot that needed to be clarified there.

Jewish heroes were "exalted" (as the sons of Hannah were) NEVER EVER "brought back to life. That's not what *exaltation* was.
There never was EVER in the apocalyptic traditions, that of any exalted hero being "raised from the dead". No Jew in the OT was ever "raised from the dead".
Saul had the Witch of Endor "conjure up" the shade of Samuel, (which was forbidden), ... but he was not "brought back to life".

[Deesse23]

Craig is a quack, and he has admitted to this. See the vid Bucky posted  a while ago: If he is confronted with science contradicting the "self evident holy spirit" (paraphrasing) then it must be science which is wrong and he expects "better science to turn up soon. Then he turns around and bastardizes science in order to fool the gullible to think that science, logic and reason is on their (believers) side.
 
I dont care how well he is sellig his snake oil. He is selling snake oil. He is misleadig people, intentionally so. He is giving them resons to belive (and to defend their belief) which are in NO way reasons why Craig believes himself. 

Do as i say, dont do as i do.

He is a quack and not worth anyones time, other than to expose his quackery, as if that was still necessary.

[no one]

Mr. Lame Craig is only impressive and persuasive to dimwitted dolts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Pishant still trying to be clever?

[Mister Agenda]

1. Give all his debates, books, articles, and speeches on the subject, I think it’s fair to say that religion was a speciality of his.

2. Theology means ‘god talk’. Since gods don’t exist, theology is just so much empty air.

3. Why?

Boru

1. He doesn't have a degree in theology or any religion-related field which is dubious, that's it we can dismiss his works on religion. If I tell you I had a lot of debates, books, articles about neuroscience and the brain (as a neuroscience enthusiast for example), but never went to medical school, would you allow me to perform a surgery on your brain or you child's brain ?

2. How do you know god doesn't exist

3. Not all people are qualified to criticize religion, this is obvious. You'll probably agree that not all people are qualified to criticize atheism, as some people get the meaning of atheism wrong. It's the same thing with any religion, people get it wrong

If you don't have a Ph.D in theology, how are you qualified to defend it?

[Loaded dice]

If you don't have a Ph.D in theology, how are you qualified to defend it?

I am not the one accepting public debates and publishing books about topics I have no qualification to talk about.