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

[brewer]

Sorry, didn't watch. I'm not into battling the knuckleheads as some of the rest of our forum are.

Not into having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent?

It's just so dull and repetative, plus my wits aint what they used to be.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. That’s an idiotic comparison (about what I expected).

2. The same way you ‘know’ that he does.

3. Of COURSE everyone is qualified to criticize atheism. Where do you get the nutty notions?

Boru

1. Answer my question and don't run away. Would you let me fiddle with your brain without having any degree in medicine or neuroscience ? Is it enough for me to have debates about the brain to start fiddling with people's skulls ?

2. Again, answer my question and stop running away

3. No, some people think atheism = No God 100%, but this is not what atheism means generally. These people aren't qualified to criticize atheism.

1. It’s an idiotic comparison because brain surgery isn’t the same as criticizing religion.

2. I did answer it. Once you understand why you don’t believe in other people’s gods, you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yours.

3. Having a misunderstanding about atheism doesn’t mean they aren’t qualified to criticize it, you gormless clod.

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

What we observe is exactly what one would expect to observe if there were no god. 

I think ntelligent life isn't expected if there were no god

There is not one example of it's intervention.
When and if it ever saves some children from a suicide bomber, maybe it might cause a re-look. No one will hold their breath.

This life isn't the whole story and God knows this. Everyone will get what they deserve in end times

Ooooooh. Look, the best you have is trying to scare people. Get lost. Troll. 
Intelligent life evolved, and there's no sign of any gods. 
Your opinions are of no import or interest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Craig was pronounced brain dead in 2001.

[Bucky Ball]

Craig was pronounced brain dead in 2001.

His title is (or was) "research professor" of something or other. 
*As if* these Christians are going to actually *discover* something they don't already pre-suppose. 
He's a Presuppositionalist. The only think he may discover by research is how to bilk believers out of more money.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

All it takes is a working bullshit detector.

Me, I don't do religious debate because I'm not in the habit of discussing nonsense with the gullible.

[Bucky Ball]

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

Atheism is not a religion. 
The dismissal of belief in the gods is the absence of something not a belief in something. 
Is the absence of faith a "religion" ? Are you idiots "converting" nonbelievers from a religion ? 

But ... good to know you people have such utter disregard for your faith that you equate your faith to atheism.

[no one]

Nishy has a hard on for Mr. Lame Craig, no wonder its "arguments" are so poor.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a weird obsession for a catholic, what with how craig thinks they're pagan backsliders and that he couldn't ever be a catholic.

[GrandizerII]

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.