Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 8:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
#1
Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
If you know about the recent refusal by Richard Dawkins to a challenge to a debate William Lane Craig gave him. Dawkins decided to publish an article in the Guardian newspaper explaining why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. I have read it and find Dawkins to be quite reasonable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...NTCMP=SRCH
undefined
Reply
#2
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
And all this time I thought that Craig was just a garden variety asshole instead of a blood-thirsty scumbag.

Who knew?
Reply
#3
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
(October 24, 2011 at 12:38 am)Minimalist Wrote: And all this time I thought that Craig was just a garden variety asshole instead of a blood-thirsty scumbag.

Who knew?

I've never met a Christian apologist, either online, onstage or in person, who wasn't either an idiot (see Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron) or a sleazy amoral lying pompous charlatan (most of the others). Having read the Bible, you pretty much have to be one or the other to defend it.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#4
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
This bit of that article is hilarious, reminds me of the sort of thing Mark Twain would say:

Quote:But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

I guess I don't mind Dawkins' argument here, except in the fact that pretty much anyone he's likely to debate believes equally appalling things. He talks about looking forward to a pleasant conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has hardly been free of controversy himself.
Reply
#5
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/com...lane-craig
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timsta...ane-craig/

My friend on FB sent me these... They read like they were written by childish morons... Hmm, perhaps they are.
Cunt
Reply
#6
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
Replying to Tim Stanley's Article

Quote:Craig is an excellent speaker
No one disputes this. Craig is an excellent showman, as most con artists are. His "philosophy" doesn't bear any close examination, as many YouTube videos demonstrate.

First video in that series:




Craig, like most successful apologists, is an expert in... razzle dazzle.

Quote:Dawkins writes that he is so disgusted with Craig's thesis that he cannot possibly agree to meet him in person.
That and it shows Craig to be so logically inept on even the basic no brainer moral issues and therefore is an unworthy opponent.

Quote:Actually, the context is called “Christian apologetics”, and it’s been around for centuries. It's the attempt by scholars to present a rational basis for belief in God.
Translation: You're looking for evidence or, failing that, any rationalization at all to arrive at a desired conclusion. This is fallacious reasoning from the get-go.

Add in that the said desired pre-conceived conclusion that you're attempting to work your way toward is admitted to be a matter of faith by the very adherents and we can see that the entire field of apologetics is more snake-oil salesmanship than scholarship.

Quote:Part of that process is running difficult bits of the Bible past the tests of reason and ethics.
There is no "test". The conclusion is already arrived at. What you mean to say is to twist reason and ethics in such a manner that the Bible can still be believed.

Quote:our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.
More of this "borrowing from Christianity" drivel. Philosophers have been debating the value of human beings long before Christianity arrived on the scene and many non-Christian societies do and have contained these same values without the teachings of Jesus.

And what Bible did you read that punishments should fit the crime. The very fine print of the Ten Commandments speaks of punishing children unto the 10th generation for the crimes of the parents. Even some of the most basic principles of justice are violated by fundamental teachings of Christianity (see the claim that Jesus took our place on the cross for our sins, a claim that an innocent can be punished in place of the guilty).

Quote:these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written

1. Is the Bible the Word of God or not? If it is, it should be written clearly that we might understand it.
2. Are moral values absolute or are they relative to the time? Make up your mind.

Quote:That’s because Christian society has been shaped by the rules of life outlined in the New Testament, not in the section of The Bible in which this massacre occurs.
Is the OT part of the Word of God or not?

Quote:New Atheism... approaches metaphor and mysticism as if they were statements of fact to be tested in the laboratory.
The passages in question allegedly regard historical events. They are not parables.

Quote:That most Christians living in the 21st century don’t know who the Canaanites were...
...is an indication that most Christians have never read the Bible, a book they oddly regard as "God's Word" but not important enough to read.

Quote:...and only go to church because it brings them an intangible inner peace
The point here escapes me. The validity of Christianity as a true understanding of how the universe works shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it makes people feel good. One can have a comforting delusion and the delusion is still wrong.

They are still welcome to their comforting delusion if they choose that over reality but not if they seek to impose it on others, change laws to suit their delusion, use tax dollars to fund their delusion or teach their delusion in science classrooms. That distinction seems lost on apologists.

Quote:In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy.
On that point I agree.

Leave it to us Americans to perfect the razzle dazzle in religion. No wonder we are such an anomaly of faith, bigotry and ignorance among other modern nations.

Another great video explaining the futility of debating apologists or Creationists (different people but same principle applies):


Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#7
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig is a major hypocrite, as if that is any surprise.

To engage in a debate, both sides need to be willing to change their mind, if shown that evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic do not support their position. If one side is not willing to change their position, then the debate is useless.

Craig fails this requirement, he has said numerous times that faith is more important than evidence:

"it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith"

Not only does this statement above invalidate his ability to engage in a formal debate, it also seems pretty hypocritical to even take part in debates based on evidence and logic, as he admits they are unimportant to his beliefs.

Not only that, he refuses to debate John Loftus (a former student of Graig's), author of such books as: 'Why I became an Atheist' and 'The Christian Delusion', for idiotic reasons.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#8
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
Arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a flat-earther. Utterly pointless. Just leave'em to argue with themselves....in a very empty hall. They don't deserve any kind of attention, too stupid. Just put them in the "FAIL" book and walk away.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.

Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.

You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Reply
#9
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
I've never really understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. Not because of the content, but because of the pointlessness of it.
Men of different faiths use this argument in support of their own deity. If arguments such as these prove the existence of a God, then imagine a Christian and a Muslim shaking hands in great jubilation, knowing all along that Space Daddy WAS indeed up there, and that the atheists were fools for ever doubting his/her/he-shes presence. Isn't there a glaring contradiction right there?
For all I know, that argument could support an ancient five-legged lizard as being the creator; if I believe in it, then it HAS to be the thing up there, right?
Reply
#10
RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
(October 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm)JollyForr Wrote: I've never really understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. Not because of the content, but because of the pointlessness of it.
Men of different faiths use this argument in support of their own deity. If arguments such as these prove the existence of a God, then imagine a Christian and a Muslim shaking hands in great jubilation, knowing all along that Space Daddy WAS indeed up there, and that the atheists were fools for ever doubting his/her/he-shes presence. Isn't there a glaring contradiction right there?
For all I know, that argument could support an ancient five-legged lizard as being the creator; if I believe in it, then it HAS to be the thing up there, right?


Very true.

Even if the CA was logically valid, all it could possibly do would be to is to some sort of creator deity. But there is no possible way to discern what sort of creator it would be.

But that is a moot point, since the CA contains a huge equivocation fallacy that invalidates it. I laugh at WLC's version of the CA, since all he's doing trying to polish a turd.



You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him? Nishant Xavier 123 6443 August 6, 2023 at 4:22 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Dawkins, Rowling, Sunak et al on Trans Issue and Women's Rights. Nishant Xavier 63 2829 July 15, 2023 at 12:50 am
Last Post: Paleophyte
  Dawkins loses humanist title Foxaèr 165 5821 June 6, 2021 at 1:45 am
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
  Richard Dawkins interviews Saudi Arabian atheist Rana Ahmad AniKoferBo 2 787 July 22, 2020 at 12:40 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Ricky Gervais won Dawkins award this year Fake Messiah 13 2246 September 6, 2019 at 8:25 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Dawkins writing kid's version of "The God Delusion" - you mad bro? Foxaèr 35 5486 August 2, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Geoff Robson has a hardon for Dawkins Foxaèr 7 1667 May 10, 2018 at 5:55 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins? NuclearEnergy 96 12706 December 6, 2017 at 3:06 am
Last Post: Bow Before Zeus
  Where to Debate Theists? Cephus 27 5758 April 13, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: Nanny
  Hitchens, Dawkins, Hawking, Ehrman, Coin, Sagan: Where are the Woman? Rhondazvous 44 4069 January 14, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Last Post: Mr Greene



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)