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

[HappySkeptic]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Indeed being good at debate does not mean the positionis true

[Astreja]

So, for instance, some Agnostic or Atheist may be 80% convinced there is no God, but leaves open as a possibility or a 20% probability that there might be. Would you disagree with characterizing it that way?

In my case it's an assumed probability of 0.999... of no gods, with an infinitesimal probability assigned to gods.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way - I do not believe that gods exist, and hold a position of strong agnosticism.  I believe that it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty if any given candidate is a god, because it's beyond the capability of humans to fully assess the being's credentials.  The furthest I'm prepared to go is "Oh.  This appears to be a god-like being of some sort."

[Mister Agenda]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not only on public policy matters, but that's how academic debates, even on other subjects, generally proceed, right? So not sure why the invitation to debate these ideas fairly and freely should be controversial. If Dawkins thinks this or that statement of Craig's or Christ's the Bible's is allegedly so blatantly incorrect or wrong that everybody would recognize it, then he should have leapt at the opportunity to prove that before a large debate audience at Oxford imo

Dawkins gains nothing from a debate with Craig as even if he won his followers would not acknowledge it and if he lost Craig would have bragging rights. Either way Craig gets the prestige. So what's in it for Dawkins when he can simply criticise him without debating him? There is nothing to be gained for winning against Craig there is nothing to be lost from not debating Craig.

[brewer]

I wonder if NX's catholic handlers know about his activity here?

[Simon Moon]

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). Dr. Craig used the Five Pronged Argument he almost always uses, so Atheists have had plenty of time to prepare for it by now. First (1) from Cosmology, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (2) Second, from Design. (3) Third, the Moral Argument. (4) Fourth, the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, from certain facts like the Empty Tomb, Death and Burial of Jesus Christ etc acknowledged by secular historians to be true, (5) the Fifth, I think, if memory serves, was from internal religious experience, which allows the sincere seeker of God to be sure of His existence; will have to re-check that one to be sure. Debate has some 7 MN views on You Tube.

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. Not a good look for one of the world's most famous Atheists, and reminiscent of what Arians, who denied the Divinity of Christ, used to do; they'd try to confuse simple Christians that Christ was not God, yet, when St. Athanasius, or another Christian who knew his Faith and could defend it, showed up, they'd run away. So why did Dawkins run away? What does that say about either the Truth of Atheism or the courage and confidence one of the world's leading Atheist Apologists has in his own beliefs or non-beliefs?

3. And, in Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, himself a former Atheist, who later became a Christian after a life-long search for Truth, relates this: "As moderator of a debate between Craig and an atheist selected by the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc., I [Lee Strobel] marveled as [Bill] Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism. From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered - many for the first time-that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny. In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Craig's arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist." ~ Lee Strobel, Case for Christ. 

So much for the false Atheistic idea that Christianity is afraid of rational analysis or scrutiny. It looks more like Atheists are afraid of it!

Thoughts?

God Bless.

Thoughts?

As others have said, being a charismatic debater does not make one's positions and arguments true.

Craig is famous for his version of Kalam cosmological argument, which is demonstrably fallacious. Not to mention, even if valid and sound, it does not even prove what Craig claims it does. He even has to tack on a bunch of drivel about a 'space less, timeless, bla, bla' to the end of the argument in a failed attempt to claim the conclusion of his version of the cosmological argument proves his god. So, in an effort to try to make the cosmological argument stronger, he adds a circular argument to the end of it, making it even more fallacious.

Matt Dillahunty, a pretty well known atheist debater (an ex Evangelical Christian turned atheist) has been trying to get Craig to debate him for years. But since Dillahunty does not have an advanced degrees, Craig will not debate him. Which says a lot about Craig being more interested in fame, than debating someone who is a strong debater.

Sean Carroll, a well known physicist debated Craig, and called him out for lying about what other physicists have said. And yet, even though he was proven wrong, Craig continued to use the same quote mining lies in subsequent debates.

[Deesse23]

Sean Carroll, a well known physicist debated Craig, and called him out for lying about what other physicists have said. And yet, even though he was proven wrong, Craig continued to use the same quote mining lies in subsequent debates.

Afaik Crain lied about the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem. Carrol then contacted one of the three (think it was Guth) and they made a short video where Gut clearly said how Craig misrepresents him. Craig, being the liar he is, was not impressed, and didnt chance his script a bit. To this day he keeps lying about this.

[Bucky Ball]

[Bucky Ball]