Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig

[smax]

William Craig is definitely a strong debater, no doubt about that, but he has met his match a time or two. In my opinion, Sam Harris thoroughly defeated him in their debate, and he did so by refusing to allow Craig to establish his bogus premise as a point of mutual acceptance. Craig typically begins every debate with ridiculous generalizations that he expects everyone to accept. Like, for example, "If there is no god then there can be no objective morality."

Too many debaters have fallen into the trap of accepting Craig's premise in some fashion or another and then trying to pick their way around that premise.

Sam Harris simply never gave credence to the premise or the generalizations and made his own argument. In some sense this is not unlike the argument that Dawkins is making that it is ridiculous to argue with believers, but I see Dawkins view as a contradiction of his motivations and pursuits. He has debated believers and is often in discussion/debate with believers all around the world.

Richard, there is nothing to be afraid of, buddy. Craig is a sound debater, to be sure, but he's also very predictable and argues from the weaker point of view. If you are even mildly prepared, you will hold your own. Know the focus of the debate, establish a sound and relevant point of view, and do not deviate from your debate plan. And don't allow applause for Craig to rattle you. They are applauding what they want to believe, not what they've been reasonably convinced of.

[The Grand Nudger]

You son of a bitch......your necro made me think Tristo was back......

Die in a fire.

[The Valkyrie]

Because Craig is an idiot who has no intelligent thoughts and no real comebacks in debates.

In other words, a typical creationist.

[Alex K]

Holy zombie thread, this is such old news, I remember reading about this controversy on my steam powered browser back in the day.

[Minimalist]

[Chad32]

I have heard people defend killing the Canaanites because they performed human sacrifice. As if Yahweh never killed people, or ordered the killing of people, or told his followers that every first born should be sacrificed to him. The only problem I can see with the Canaanites is that they just didn't happen to worship Yahweh. So after writing down for Moses that his followers shouldn't kill or steal, he ordered them all to kill people and steal their land.

[Cephus]

I would never debate Craig for the same reason I'd never debate Ken Ham. He's already said that there is absolutely nothing that anyone could ever say, no amount of evidence that anyone could provide, that could ever convince him that he was wrong. That makes the whole idea of a debate pointless.

[Dystopia]

From an opportunity cost economic perspective Dawkins' decision is wise, unless he were to receive so much money that the debate would compensate - But that depends on how much he values money.

[Anomalocaris]

Holy zombie thread, this is such old news, I remember reading about this controversy on my steam powered browser back in the day.

Your computer still has a decent chance of being steam powered.  Think steam turbine.

[Whateverist]

I would never debate Craig for the same reason I'd never debate Ken Ham.  He's already said that there is absolutely nothing that anyone could ever say, no amount of evidence that anyone could provide, that could ever convince him that he was wrong.  That makes the whole idea of a debate pointless.

That is the exact same reason I would never climb up on a stage in front of hundreds, facing my fear of public speaking in order to try to dumb down a point so far that even an imbecile can understand.