Some Thoughts on Richard Dawkins Recent Refusal to Debate William Lane Craig

[rpottage]

He's made is reason clear many times. The fact that Craig and his followers do not understand that he is constantly providing examples of his overall meaning... well that's just further evidence that he's right. It would be useless. Craig is a nutjob crackpot with no interest in truth who's sole purpose in debating is to debate, and uses child tricks like constantly changing the subject without addressing it in a blatant attemt to keep his opponent off balance; & uses Kalam Argment fails.

[epicdeed]

Craig is an articulate debater, but still can provide no evidence for his " beliefs". He's still just another superstitious faith-er

[crispy380]

@Shazoolo Actually you are wrong, I was one of the first people to start saying that he was hiding behind his vocab, and I made my conclusion by listening to what he has to say. As for qualifications, you can be a Harvard graduate and still have nothing but babble come out of your mouth. So either he's unintelligent or he's trolling.

[Shazoolo]

@crispy380 You were one of the first people to begin saying this? This is surely a difficult thing to prove. How do you know? Craig has been doing the rounds for years. How old are you? Your example of a Harvard Graduate would not be one of intelligence but rather incoherence. Different thing (and Craig can't be accused of the latter as even Christopher Hitchens stated Craig was very formidable and articulate). As for a troll? lol! Be real. Seriously though, listen to the mp3s.

[imconfusednow]

Do you have a source that says Daniel Came is an atheist, I don't think he is.

Craig is a good debater but that does not mean his arguments are valid, Dawkins probably thinks he will lose because it is a format that suits Craig. It would result in the audience being convinced if Craigs arguments, which are wrong.

[Shazoolo]

@imconfusednow Hi. Came is most definately an atheist. Here is the quote and source which identifies him as such: 'Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.' (See full article: Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Telegraph, Saturday 12 November 2011)

[netokor]

RD is afraid to debate. He and his fanatics hide behind the delusion that Craig is unworthy of RD's time. You hit the nail. Their pride has destroyed their common sense and no matter how logical your arguments in this video are, they will not stop worshipping Dawkins. Only God can change a bigot's heart, and in spite of their vulgarity, insolence and hatred for us, they need our prayers. The Son of God would still have died for Dawkins's soul even if it had been the only soul at stake.

[felderup]

anti-intellectualist? let's ask if the person he's refusing to debate -is- an intellectual.

[TheMrgoku1985]

watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

[BeatleEDs]

He's a pussy. What did you expect.

[bkeay100]

Dawkins is no Coward....

He is Smart....

Craig would annihilate him in a Debate..

[pete26785]

Respond to this video... yeah, thats obvious. dawkins agreeing to debate craig would be kind of like me agreeing to fight mike tyson in the car park

[GodofScripture]

You say they were not aware of God teachings so they were predetermined to hell , Not true , man has always known God way before the 10 commandment was giving, Cain murdered his brother try to cover it up, and God spoke to him about it. God moral law was wrote into man heart. Our own conscious bears witness to the moral law giver. So all is without excuse on judgment day

[GodofScripture]

So why would God come down and leave heaven take on human flesh lower himself to come here and be wiped, spite on , beat , speared , nailed to a cross etc. For humans beings who hate him. Why would God do that when clearly he didn't have to. So my question is why did he do that

[bkeay100]

@GodofScripture

What an excellent question...

"For greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend"

[GodofScripture]

I can love my child with ALL OF MY HEART , but still spank him or chastise him, keep this in mind as well, it's mercy that God in the first place would die for the sinner, give him the gospel etc. What if he never did nothing and decided to leave man to his sinful nature and give them no savior , no hope, no cross. God doesn't owe man nothing , why does no one complain about Jesus being sent here to die for us?.

[GodofScripture]

Also God declares hell was not created for man but the devil, note: God does not make or send people to hell who didn't choose the life of sin. A judge only passes sentence because his just, he didn't tell the person to break the law. Nor did God, and yes all people know god law. 10 commandments , people as you claim are not morally perfect actually the opposite , if you never stole or murdered we are still guilty of perverted thoughts, hate, greed etc. All sin againts a holy maker

[GodofScripture]

Benjami66, it's a good valid question, but a couple things to help you get a better understanding would be, you always have to not forget that God is Holy and just, yes he is loving, but you must also understand his ways are higher than ours, after all he is all loving but yet sent his son to die a horrible death, a death that was not deserved by no means because he was sinless , how are we to fully understand that, could you or I send your son to die for people who hate him and would hate him

[newbirth35]

What I would like to see is Dr. Craig debating James White. That's a challenge that Craig refuses to take up, saying "I don't debate Christians." Seems to me that's a rather lame excuse if you really think you have the truth and want to show it.

[newbirth35]

@TruthWatch Truth. Craig's constant drumming on free will doesn't stand up to debate and he knows it.

[TruthWatch]

@newbirth35 How so? I'm sure that you can briefly outline the weakness, if there is one, in that area.

[newbirth35]

@newbirth35 I could, but I don't debate on YouTube videos.

[TruthWatch]

@newbirth35 I'm not looking for a debate just an explanation. I would reserve the right to disagree but with what I do not know since you are not willing to share. I do see Craig's point in not debating other Christians though. There are endless, fruitless debates to be had over subjects like calvinism vs arminianism.

[johnnyp76]

@TruthWatch Craig needs to be debated on issues like free will, with a proper philosopher. all he can do is appeal to 'dualism did it'. With all evidence of science and neurology, as well as philosophy, he'd lose.Do you know one of the best pieces of evidence for determinism? Jedward. On Craig's free will, they should be greatly different people. Same genes, almost identical environment, just about identical outcome. Jedward are a great philosophical tool!!!

[TruthWatch]

@johnnyp76 Oh I think he would do better than that. If all you have to offer is an irish twin pop act, you must be really desperate. I know they must be big news there in the UK., but please.

[johnnyp76]

@TruthWatch Deal with the point. On free will, they should be different by outcome. They are not. Explain that. And that is just one minor point out of hundreds - an evidential one. I have written a book on free will, so I know a little about which I talk! Only some 14% of philosophers adhere to libertarian free will. That HAS to tell you something, Most philosophers believe it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't.

[TruthWatch]

@johnnyp76 Ok. Just how different would you expect them to be? If two brothers choose to work together they have exercised that freewill not abrogated it. One anecdotal case of a pair that is alike does not serve to prove your contention.

A logical defense of freewill is more interesting than polls that shed no light on the truth of the proposition.

A recent poll indicated that 70% of professional philosophers are atheists, that explains the 14% . So it is scrutiny or presupposition?

[johnnyp76]

@TruthWatch Of course, on its own its not worth much but serves to illustrate. Twins studies, however, are HUGELY supportive of determinism. Plus you smuggle in 'choosing' to work together. I would say free will is a more accurate presupposition, and that atheism should follow. determinism is backed empirically, atheism is more flatly about philosophy. There really isn't a logical defense of freeill - it is internally incoherent. ie the term makes no sense (reasoned or random).

[TruthWatch]

@johnnyp76 Sounds like you will be arguing next that there is no true moral accountabilty.

The ability to do otherwise is the foundation of law and morality. denying this is at odds with our foundational principles of jurisprudence. If this what you are arguing for i suggest you provide a logical defense of this premise.

If not, you still need to explain why not.

[johnnyp76]

@TruthWatch An argument from desire is no way to find truth. You'll find your justice system already takes on deterministic mitigation.

274 pages is difficult to fit into 400 characters.

Simply put, the idea that there is an originator to a freely willed decision is synonymous to an uncaused cause. Either random, or simply not possible (as in unreasoned). That's a very simple criticism right there.

[TruthWatch]

@johnnyp76 Interesting. "deterministic mitigation" is it? That is what we use to adjust level of punishment, but not to deny the idea of accountability altogether. Unless competency is in doubt, then moral accountability is still based on the premise that individuals are at least in the narrow legal sense able to choose otherwise.

How this is equated with an "argument from desire" is in need of explanation on your part.

i realize that character limits are an annoyance, but they also provide us

[johnnyp76]

@TruthWatch Absolutely. We need to have the idea of moral accountability in our justice system. This is why the illusion of free will exists - social creatures like us need it. Doesn't mean it's true tho. For mitigations examples, there have been hundreds recently based on genetic determinism - see Abdelmalek Bayout etc. You espouse interactionism, no doubt, which has many issues. Also, i have just written a paper on how the belief in a soul as originator of free will gets you nowhere...

[TruthWatch]

@johnnyp76 You assert that free will is an illusion, I am interested in a logical defense of that position. Can you provide one?

I ask in the knowledge that having asked previously for an explanation of your comment about "an argument from desire" which you have so far avoided. I suggest that you abandon the generalities and get specific if you want to logically defend your position. Simple assertion will not do.

[TruthWatch]

with the opportunity to be concise.

An uncaused cause is no doubt a problem for those completely committed to the presupposition of a materialist worldview. But it is not when sentient creatures are considered moral agents, and not just groupings of molecules set in motion by the various applications of physical law and electrochemical

interaction.

[newbirth35]

@TruthWatch I don't see Calvinism vs. Arminianism (or any other topic) as fruitless. I enjoy listening to debates and understanding where the other side is coming from, even if I don't agree with them.

In short, I don't think Craig can debate free will because I have yet to see anyone on that side be able to answer the hard questions. They can't walk through John 6 or Romans 9 am remain consistent. Believe me, I looked for answers. Running out of chars, so let's just say, I didn't find answers.

[TruthWatch]

@newbirth35 Perhaps you will define what you mean by "that side"?

It is very possible that there is no clear cut answer to the question. God is bigger than all the simple answers to complex questions. There is plenty of room for mystery. The only ones who can't abide any apparent contradiction are the materialists. They cannot stand anything that can have multiple meanings. The sovereignty of God and free will in humans are not mutually exclusive things. Sometimes the truth hides in the middle.

[GodofScripture]

Benjami66, you ask the Question how could a A perfect Good righteous entity send people to hell ?, You ask that question but at the same time answered it for your self, Key words you used was Perfect righteous and Good. By those standards he would have to punish the guilty in order to be Perfectly holy and righteous for breaking the Law , if he didn't he wouldnt be perfectly righteous but rather flawed like us who don't up hold justice and are crooked.

[benjami66]

@GodofScripture yes but he is meant to be all loving, yet still sends that person to hell. Is that not a contradiction, he cannot be all loving and perfectly righteous. Also how exactly is someone breaking the law if the live a perfectly moral life, never harming and supporting humanity from the day they were born to the day they die. Yet because they were not aware of the teachings of Christ they are predetermined and sent to hell. How is that perfectly righteous and how is that justice?

[benjami66]

@GodofScripture also I have just noticed you missed the point I have made in previous comments I am not asking how a perfectly good righteous entity sends people to hell. My argument is why did God choose to create the guilty person when he already knew that he would live a sinful life and be sent to hell. See my previous comments for more details.

[villeppi]

Anyone with a half a brain knows that debating William Lane Craig is a huge waste of time. The man is a professional bull-shitter and a mental gymnast. Craig's victory would have absolutely no bearing on the issues being debated. The only reason christians want to see Craig destroy Dawkins is their desperate need to validate their belief in iron age fairytales.

[Venefica82]

I like your video and I agree with allot of it. However I do not agree that you need a religion to have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. My grandfather where an Atheist and he was a kind, moral man who definitely knew what is right and what is wrong. He was a good grandfather, a good father and a good husband, and during WW2 he risked his own life to get Jews away from the Germans and over the borders to Sweden where they could be safe.

[Shazoolo]

@Venefica82 Thanks. We Christians do not say that people of other faiths, or no faith (such as atheists) cannot be good & moral without being Christian or religious.This is a misconception some people have of Christianity. We believe that God has written a basic moral code on ALL our hearts and all feel it to various extents (whether we accept God or not): 'God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.' Rom 2:15

[torontoBluejays87]

@Shazoolo What if God really doesn't care? What if there is a God who started the cosmological processes of creating galaxies, stars, planets and finally life, who has not a care in the world about what happens? This is the principle that Einstein in some ways supported and I think a more plausible explanation than the loving God/divine intervention explanation. We make our own morals and Gods in my opinion.

[HannoverFisk]

@Shazoolo bs

[VeryImagesozo]

Richard Dawkins has moral sensibilities? Surely, you jest sir.

[noelplum99]

At 4:20 you make the same slimy argument Craig always makes which is make the statement 'if you dont believe in objective morals you cannot say anything is wrong' when what you REALLY mean is 'if you dont believe in objective morals you cannot say anything is objectively wrong'. For some reason no-one ever picks Craig up on this so i apologise for not letting you get away with it. If something being subjective truly means, as you and Craig assert, that you can 'say nothing about it' .....

[noelplum99]

@noelplum

.... then 90% of the things we readily comment on and have opinions on must likewise be meaningless mush. Shall I give you some examples? Skyscrapers are very tall; rotten meat tastes foul; Bill Gates is a rich man; antarctica is a cold place; Cameron Diaz is a beautiful woman; sliding tax scales are fair. So all of these statements we have to hold to be utterly meaningless on the grounds they are not objective...or is there a reason to single out morality seperate to everything else?

[noelplum99]

@noelplum99

PS: I agree with you that it is disappointing that Dawkins will not debate Craig. Craig is a superb debator but Dawkins should rise to the challenge and schedule a debate for next summer (you can't go in to a debate with Craig cold)

[noelplum99]

In response to 3:45 in.

You claim that this was an event which happened in the dim and distant past. In fact it is an event which never happened, it is a much later legend to describe the cultural isolation of one Canaanite group (the israelites) from the rest of Canaanite culture. There are so many archaeological, historical and even biblical reasons supporting this I just cannot understand how you can ignore them (unless you are unaware of the scope of the evidence)?

[JustB3NJI]

Dawkins debates with the greater majority of people, and has put himself in the pit with people far more intimidating and challeneging than someone I assume is basically a nobody.

[blackoutninja]

I'm sick of dawkin's excuses, I used to have a degree of respect for him before I realised what a coward he was, He's blatantly ignoring so much while simply throwing insults at Craig; and why has he not responded specifically when people have pointed out things like the fact that he HAS debated creationists and non-clergy in the past. this is ridiculous! man up dawkins!

[RationalConclusion]

Why is it so important that Dawkins debates Craig?

You don't need a god to know whether an action harms or helps.

[markderosa]

Well said

[Rockguitarnow]

Good points Shaz :)

Also wondered Shaz, if you've done research into Solomon's time period? Now with Google.com allowing us to do mega searches on various topics, there is evidence that Solomon packed up his treasure and actually left Israel, to build his tomb far away from Egyptian tomb robbers.

[TruthWatch]

Thanks for reminding us that the real focus of dialog with unbelievers is to bring them to the truth of the gospel in Jesus Christ not to win debates.

Well done.

[MPaulHolmes]

@TruthWatch Very well said.

[voyagersystem]

The bus logo 'stop worrying and enjoy your life' is the same old satanic alistair crowley motto of 'do as thou wilt' differently worded to suit todays mentality. Only demons and other God-haters have to 'worry' about God, because they know what they are doing, and where they are headed as a result of their actions. I love God and I stop worrying only when I place my faith in Jesus.

[jtimmis]

no matter whos side u r on, a real man shows up for work because that is what he is or has become. the fact is is that dawkins wont show up to defend his work! hes scared! those who disagree...ask yourself why is he willing to debate lesser educated opponents but not craig?

[walkingphilosopher]

VERY ARTICULATE, AND WELL-PUT MY FRIEND!!!!!!! I CANNOT LIKE THIS VIDEO ENOUGH! 

[drcraigvideos]

Good stuff! Thanks.

[voyagersystem]

Sadly, Richard Dawkins has been demonised. What most people are attracted to are 1. His facial expressions when he gets upset 2. his ability to abuse people and 3. his apparent emotional vulnerability. Eg; Dawkins cannot conceal his glee when people applaud him. This is why he appeals to brats who are angry with God, rather than genuine seekers of the truth. There is rarely a mention of his intelligence, because, in this case, it doesn't matter.

[BadLilNinja]

Dawkins may have read Numbers 31:17-19, and may fear Craig may start killing and raping his children

[Shazoolo]

@BadLilNinja Well, Dawkins supports people like fellow evolutionist Peter Singer (who believes that children can be killed up to 28 days after birth) and has struggled with saying why he thinks rape is wrong. If you don't believe me Google it.

[giska1000]

@Shazoolo Awesome video brother,the only problem for me here is,i dont get it,how people made such a big deal out of this,because its well known that atheists and evolutionists run from a debate with both christians and scientists who reject darwinism ...its well known fact,which i am familiar with especially eversince me myself became theist and rejected darwinism ...so..this is nothing new...its dishonest to blame dawkins for this,when there are worse people like eugenie scott and others....

[giska1000]

@Shazoolo ...who constantly refusing to debate Creationist and ID proponents,and of course educated academics,scientists and professors who wre christians,or became christians(ex atheists,evolutionists etc.) but no,they all rather run like cowards,and then,like 5 yrs old children,they throwing rocks at adults,and then run away...so..they attacking creationists,theists and IDs behind their back,while they at the same time refusing to engage in a serious debate with them ...

[BadLilNinja]

@Shazoolo Im not Dawkins or atheist, I could care less what atheist, jews, christians, or muslims believe...all have innocent blood on their hands, and christians dont get a free pass, neither does a fake mid eastern god that accepts a human sacrifice, Im pro life to the fullest....and proud of it!

[Shazoolo]

@BadLilNinja By the way, Craig is a Christian, not an Old Testament Israelite.

[BadLilNinja]

@Shazoolo same god

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@Shazoolo no, Craig is a genocide and an infanticide apologists nutbag. Dawkins right not to debate that idiot, who on top of that has admitted that no ammount of evidence could convince him that he's wrong bc the Holy Spirit in his heart! So he's also a shameless hack.

fucking disgrace

[FillTheirVoid]

@BadLilNinja

That was a specific instance in which God personally commanded the conquering of a people. If dawkins, or yourself, were to study biblical Christianity ... this would be a non issue. Unfortunately many such as dawkins, and yourself, choose to ignore the answers to your inquiries.

[BadLilNinja]

@FillTheirVoid In spite of ur mid eastern religion, the killing of children is an issue

[FillTheirVoid]

@BadLilNinja

Why would that be "an issue" for an atheist? There's no objective value difference between a human child and a head of lettuce. 

[BadLilNinja]

@FillTheirVoid Im not an atheist, but I do think there are many atheist that see the value in all life....many want to see humanity go forward, explore the stars, and be all that man kind can be

[MPaulHolmes]

@BadLilNinja I think that the many atheists that see value in all life grew up imbued with christian culture and values. They don't even notice it. Everyone is of equal value? Really? Not from the moral perspective of survival of the fittest.

[benjami66]

@MPaulHolmes that is just wrong. I grew up in a secular background and had no idea there was such a thing as objective morality till later in life. Societies that have not heard of the bible or Christianity have created their own morals? Explain that? Christian morals are essentially sick, you guys have just selected what you want to take from the bible and what not to take.

[stephjh2006]

@benjami66 Christian morality is not pick and choose, at least not as far as I know, can you give specifics?

[benjami66]

@stephjh2006 well that is too easy really isn't it :P It is difficult for me not to be reduced to the ridiculous as Dawkins vs WLC and bring up Canaanites, Spanish inquisition baptising Muslim babies then smashing their heads against trees or the crusades. Which as wrong by Dawkins and is not a valid defence to use to not debate someone. So what to use that is more relevant today? Raping alter boys and then the pope essentially defending it? Condoms in Africa? Do you follow all 10 commandments?

[benjami66]

@MPaulHolmes if God is omniscient and outside of time then he knows all and if we are going to hell or heaven. Therefore all life is determined. Which means Jesus when he was talking about fire and evil he knew some of us were going to hell. God knew most of us were going to hell and yet he still created us. He still choose to make us even though he knew where we were going to end up. All loving? And of course there is the fact he is punishing a finite crime with an infinite punishment lol

[mrarcher857]

@benjami66 Blah blah blah... read some theology. :)

[benjami66]

@mrarcher857 done that :P It's funny the riots in the UK a few months back. I wouldn't have been a part of them not for fear of retribution by the police or a non-existent super being. But because morally it would be damaging someone else's property and that is wrong. If there is a God, then am I not morally better than someone who has not committed a crime for fear of God?

[mrarcher857]

@benjami66 Sure I actually agree with that, it is more praiseworthy to do good just for its own sake - but this is a straw man, the religious don't do good 'for fear of God'; generally they also do it for its own sake. But the religious framework and, yes, the fear of God *helps* them to do so when they wouldn't otherwise, or when they'd just rather be selfish.

[stephjh2006]

@benjami66 No, I think your logic is slightly off. in no way does knowing impede free will. So God knowing what I will do next doesn't impede on my choice, it gets very complicated, but I managed to demonstrate this to another youtuber recently. Second, the infinite punishment for a finite crime is a poor illustration. Question, if I lie once a week, in my life time I will lie a finite amount, if I had infinite amount of time to lie how many lies would I tell?

[benjami66]

@stephjh2006 nope you have attacked an argument I wasn't presenting though we could go down that route if you want. I am saying why has an all-loving God chosen to create us when he knows we will end up in hell? Whether we have free will or not is not something I am trying to debate now. I am a compatibilist anyway :P

[MPaulHolmes]

@benjami66 Dennett believes the same thing. Just minus the God part. I think it's also true. He already knows what everyone's choices will be. This is all true. And yet we still do the choosing.

[MPaulHolmes]

@benjami66 It's the famous hitchens "It's not how I would do it, therefore God doesn't exist".

[benjami66]

@MPaulHolmes you have missed the point. We may do the choosing, but your God still chooses to create us with the knowledge that we will go to hell. He is an accessory before the fact. How can you take morality from a being that creates us anyway?

[MPaulHolmes]

@benjami66 All he does is allow us to choose. I'm cool with that. If the only people that he created were the ones that choose him, how many options would everyone have? They would only have one. 1 option isn't a choice.

[benjami66]

@MPaulHolmes so you are admitting that God has knowingly created people who will choose "not to choose him" in the full knowledge he will then send them to hell? How can an entity who is perfectly good, all-loving and righteous do this? Nice by the way :P I think I will stick with my moral framework :)

[MPaulHolmes]

@benjami66 Sure I freely admit that. I'm also having a child with my wife knowing that he's going to make mistakes.

[FillTheirVoid]

@BadLilNinja

They can't "see" what they deny is there to begin with. Atheism results in meaninglessness, and amorality. There is nothing to "go forward" to, there is no reason to "explore the stars" and it doesn't matter what mankind "can be".

[BadLilNinja]

@FillTheirVoid sad that u feel that way

[TheIconodule]

Dr Craig's reasoning is quite sound, if God is all good and the source of good flows from God, Therefore he cannot commit evil as the christian claim is. If God is the creator and all powerful, it seems God is perfectly able to command others to take the lives of people, that is God can take life and give life. Dr craig isn't going to go around with a gun shooting non believers, because God has not commanded Christians to do so. the ultimate irony is that Dawkins admits there is no morality.