I half agreed with Dawkins. Why should he waste his time (if he's as busy as he claims he is) of debating cardinals, archbishops, and other lunatics like that? Debate about what? Testable falsifiable scientific theories and laws? Or untestable imaginary things like gods? Either type of debate is a colossal waste of time. Either the subject is untestable, in which case all the philosophizing in the world won't make it testable, or it is testable, and then only 1 side is right.
It's too bad he's too busy. From what he's saying, he's obviously good enough to beat Mr. Craig in a debate, and his followers would love to see him take care of business, but he's too busy to reward their hope :(. Oh well, his worshippers will probly continue to follow him.
If you don't want to though, remember that Jesus has said "him who comes to me I will in no wise cast out." Dawkins and Hitchens won't have thrones to sit at on judgement day. Come to/back to Jesus!
He's had plenty of debates with people who were less recognized and less qualified, he's clearly scared.
And its funny he was once asked if the opposition ever put a good point across he said no, we'll if u avoid good opposition then they can't put their point across now can they?
@AlexiusMoore lol yeah lol what an idiot lol, he's clearly scared lol. Oh wait no he just thought Craig was some randomer and did actually debate him in the end.
That's a great video title! I didn't even need to click on the video, but I did anyway to post this lol. :) Very straight forward video title, it's much nicer then the videos with titles doing nothing whatsoever with anything in the video.
But he debated John Lennox, not in any of the above categories? He's debated Christian and Muslim fundamentalists in a documentary I saw him in; none of them had any claim to fame other than their absurd beliefs. Richard Dawkins isn't avoiding the strongest possible argument? Bullshit.
@emailpobox666 Then if his arguments are "failed" as you claim, it should be easy for Dawkins to beat him in a debate, right?? Dawkins is a scoffer, he outright denies the Most High, and thinks he knows it all, doesn't listen to anyone's logical explanations.
@Loudmouf84 It would appear that you have never been in a debate, The wining of the debate gas nothing to do with the strength of an argument rather the skills of the wordsmith
@Loudmouf84 Do not use the word logical, you do not know what it means. He would also 'scoff' at someone who claimed they could fly if they provided no proof and an incoherent explanation. As said when someone lies and twists facts to fit their argument they forgo the right to debate. William Lane Craig brings no argument to the table that hasn't been discredited already. Again there is no logic in believing something without evidence or believing a theory that contradicts itself multiple times.
Bullshit reply. I am not a believer but Graig has one of the best arguments for a creator that I have ever heard. Certainly worthy of consideration. For Dawkins to refuse a debate with him is just a cop out. Surely he is not that busy that he has no time for one of the worlds leading christian apologists. It's a debate that the world would like to see.
"I am not a believer but Graig has one of the best arguments for a creator that I have ever heard"
Which argument would that be?
What people want to see another Dawkins vs. Craig debate? Why? It's true that their first debate was limited (3 on 3) and rather lame, but what person who saw that could possibly think that further debate can yield anything productive? We already know exactly what these 2 have to say.
This is about publicity & entertainment. Nothing more.
@shimwah It is not about the literal workload that he has that keeps him from debating, if we were watching sports and you were trying to tell me that the lions were the best team ever and I disagreed and provided evidence to invalidate your argument, then you waited a year, came back and gave the exact same argument should I bother with my evidence? Should I bother when it is clear the other side is unwilling to see reason and not only change their views but their defeated 'arguments.'
Dawkins debated Craig as part of 3 on 3 debate in 2010.
I doubt anyone who watched that debate would conclude that anything productive could possibly come from further debate between those two. Everyone knows exactly what these two think on this subject.
The rest is all about publicity and entertainment. Not actual argument much less understanding.
@emailpobox666 Show me this article or video where he said his own argument is incoherent. Also, it is not proof of God, but it is a good argument for the existence of God. You would call that persona lier.
@bobcatallstar7 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories
@SuperMrAtheist so your basically saying that creationist are stupid and not worth anybodies time just because of their beliefs? The Bible is right when it describes people like you. Mean fools who wont accept truth.
Indeed Mr, Atheist--Dawkins was made of fool of when he debated Lennox and again during a simple exchange with Ben Stein--so why would he knowingly make a fool of himself yet again--too busy?????????
@pulp7theman These things are not true. If you wish to believe clearly doctored videos then....O wait you're a Christian you can't tell what is real and what isn't
@SuperMrAtheist Craig is more than qualified to debate Dawkins. Two masters degrees, one in philosophy and one in Christian history. Another Ph.D in philosophy, and a Th.D in theology.
Dawkins has debated other opponents that had far less qualification than he does. Therefore, he has no excuse other than he is just too full of himself to do it.
@NickoliLion Craig is just a debater. That's it. Nothing more. A masters in Christian history? First off that is worth crap and second, Why does he give so much misinformation about the history of Christ?
I also notice that you refused to talk about Dawkins degrees.lol
There is no way Craig even comes close to Dawkins.
@SuperMrAtheist First off, why do you discredit one of his degrees and make no mention of the other three?
Second, I didn't talk about Dawkin's degrees because I was not talking about his qualifications, I was talking about Craig's. I'm fully aware of his qualifictions.
Thrid, Dawkins has debated far less qualified people before, so why refuse Craig when he is more than qualified?
@NickoliLion Craig is a dishonest debater. Concerning His cosmological argument Craig admitted it to be incoherent yet still uses it. How do you debate with someone who has no problem lying and twists facts to prove his invisible friend. the guy admitted that evidence against god should be ignored
@emailpobox666 I listened to Craig's rebuttal to Quentin and I couldn't find him saying that. all I saw him doing was pointing out that Quentin committed the fallacy of composition. Could you please tell me what I missed?
@emailpobox666 Still don't quite see it. Is it the part where he says that the second premise of Quentin's argument doesn't work because there isn't a definition of material causation yet in the Philosophical community?
@SuperMrAtheist If that is true ^ Why is Dawkins so afraid? Hmm... surely, if Dawkins was out of Graigs league he would have no problem with a simple debate that he would "surely win" correct?
@bammc19 you are assuming Dawkins is scared when in fact he is not afraid at all. Craig is an ant compared to Dawkins. Craig is the car salesmen. And he just sold you his car.lol
@SuperMrAtheist Speaking of misinformation, I'm really not sure where this assumption that Craig is "just a debater" (whatever that might mean) comes from. He studied for his PhD under John Hick and also has a ThD. He's made several important contributions to the philosophical literature outside of the philosophy of religion, particularly in the area of paradoxes. I'm an atheist, a philosopher and I'm very quick to point out that you can't refute anyone by false ad hominem.
@MarksMindBox My goodness....an actual logical AND rational statement from an atheist! JK...givin you a hard time. But, you must admit that they are rare nowadays from either camp. God bless
@MarksMindBox I think it's pretty clear Dawkins didn't realise that Craig had a PhD and had written several books on the subject, because he did actually debate Craig in the end...
@Pirate44444 That wasn't a one on one debate, Dawkins was asked to come to Mexico to debate as a panel, Craig was askin for a one on one, and even after Mexico he asked again but Dawkins said no again
don't make excuse for this guy, u thnk Dawkins is so dumb that he would know who Craig is but not realize his qualifications.
Ive seen Dawkins argue with guys with no qualifications at all,
@Pirate44444 He didnt debate him tho did he?, they both had teams and were debating a fixed subject about meaning in the universe. Craig asked for a all out debate one on one with no fixed subjects, before and after the panel debate both times Dawkins said no. 1st time u can say he was unaware of his qualifications, but the second time, he was aware so what was his excuse?
Teams and fixed subjects vs one on one and no fixed subject are comletely different things
@AlexiusMoore As I said, if Dawkins was scared he would not have debated Craig, even if there was a fixed subject and there were two teams.
Perhaps Dawkins doesn't like Craig, he does suggest Craig has too much interest in self-promotion. Also he might think one debate is enough, Dawkins does come across to me as a kind of "I think I've said enough" person.
I also don't really care that much. If Dawkins is scared I don't blame him, but I don't think he is.
@Pirate44444 That isn't a debate against each other, Dawkins had no threat of being embarace as Craig was not allowed to stray from the fixed subject, its not even a debate, all it was basically 2 groups of guy talking about a single subject
Self promotion, this is Dawkins were talkin about. the guy who talks abou the "Sneaky Fucker Gene" haha.
Dawkins comes a across as the i avoid all interesting questions with the " what the hell u talkin about" line
Dawkins and Craig both adressed points on one fixed subject. thats like 2 guys fighting, but there only allowed to use their right toe. the result will be incunclusive, just like their debate was.
Oh and u havn't heard?? Dawkins failed to explain how his theory of the Gay gene being passed down worked, so he decided to come up with a new theory called "The Sneaky Fucker Gene" haha it still makes me laugh everytime
@AlexiusMoore sorry that was a typo, I meant to say "just because it's NOT one on one does not mean it's not a debate."
Actually that's not Dawkins theory. The hypothesis Dawkins likes one where there is a gene which had some survival advantage, but manifests itself as a gay gene under some modern phenomena. For more detail: watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
These are just possible explanations we have at the moment.
@Pirate44444 Its possible to explain everything away, so making up theories for the sake of explanation is a waste.
Dawkins Talks about The Sneaky Fucker Gene as if it was a fact.
And the Idea of the Gay Uncle crap is just all balls seriously, he makes one theory to support another, and when that theory is questioned he will make another , its a never ending cycle,
Have you read Dawkin's book?? barely any of his theories are his own, he just basically recycled other peoples theories
@AlexiusMoore sorry, he talks about the sneaky fucker gene as if it was a fact?? You mean by stating two alternatives at the same time?? And it's not a waste of time, that's how you generate new theories in sciences, you start with possible explanations (hypotheses) and then you test them until you have a properly established theory.
He says, these are some possible explanations: 1, 2, 3. You're manipulating that into "he keeps making up random crap when he finds out his old idea is wrong."
@Pirate44444 my point is he really doesn't know and is just making these theories up, making explanations and then acting like its a fact and they teach like this to kids who grow up thinking that all theories are facts that "a gay uncle would give more food to his nephew therefore his gay gene would survive" theory is is less likely then the "the gay ancestor survived because he was pimpin himself out to women for food" theory wich i just this second made up.
@AlexiusMoore Again, he is not talking as though they are fact, if he was, he wouldn't be mentioning three different possibilities! Plus you keep focusing on the two theories that Dawkins actually thinks are the least likely, and totally ignoring the one he think is the most likely.
He would happily admit he doesn't know, that's why, and I stress this again, he gives THREE different possibilites.
Also I'm afraid you seem to have a drastic misunderstanding of what theory means in science.
@AlexiusMoore Theories are above facts in the hierarchy of science. A theory is an explanation of a fact.
For the last time, the theory Dawkins thinks is the most likely is the one where some other gene manifests itself as a "gay gene" under some modern phenomena. If you fail to address this again, you are either dishonest or an idiot, so please don't ignore it.
@AlexiusMoore Yes I have read one of Dawkin's books, and I have another one to read soon. There is nothing wrong with writing about a theory put forward by another scientist. Theories are very big and there's plenty of room for that, in fact it needs to be done. After all, you won't find just one book on The Big Bang theory, by one single author.
@AlexiusMoore And you talk as though scientists should be spouting out theories all over the place in order to be credible. Nonsense. Most scientists won't produce a single theory in the whole career, for one thing it usually takes several scientists. It takes years of research and testing to produce a theory.
Criticising Dawkins because "barely any of his theories are his own" is like criticising a politician for not inventing an entirely new revolutionary government system, eg. democracy.
@Pirate44444 writing a book about it and promoting it like it has all the answers never heard before is. So apart from being a loudmouth there is no real reasons to buys his books is there as its the same old info all over again.
@AlexiusMoore The Selfish Gene: "The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[6] and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages."
@AlexiusMoore "The Extended Phenotype is a biological concept introduced by Richard Dawkins in a 1982 book with the same title."
Climbing Mount Improbable and The Greatest Show on Earth are about debunking creationist arguments. There are still creationists, so how is this irrelevant?
@AlexiusMoore Unweaving the Rainbow: "Driven by the responses to his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker wherein readers resented his naturalistic world view, seeing it as depriving life of meaning, Dawkins felt the need to explain that, as a scientist, he saw the world as full of wonders and a source of pleasure."
@AlexiusMoore Who cares? If you think his work was irrelevant, why did it earn him the highest honours for literature AND science? Why was he made professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford university? The latter should tell you that the work which mostly describes the work of other scientists is aimed at explaining it to the general public, which he does well.
@AlexiusMoore Seeing an opportunity to make millions selling books, really? No one ever sees an opportunity to make millions selling books. Seriously, even if your book is really good, most of the time it won't sell enough to earn you millions. If Dawkins did want to make more money selling books he would have written another one about religion by now, since that was his best seller by far...
@AlexiusMoore Are you going to address the fact that you made a fundamental misunderstanding on Dawkin's explanation of the gay gene or just pretend that never happened?
@AlexiusMoore The Ancestor's Tale "follows the path of humans backwards through evolutionary history, meeting humanity's cousins as they converge on common ancestors."
Magic of Reality (aimed at children and young adults): "Neville Hawcock for the Financial Times praises Dawkins' clarity in explanation: "He really is very good at this. The chapter on rainbows has the clearest explanation of how they appear that I’ve ever seen.""
@AlexiusMoore Dawkin's books often introduce new concepts and new and better ways of explaining things than before. This has earned him the honours of both FRS and FRSL, two of the most prestigious honours in the world.
To say that your opinion is humble would be an overstatement.
@AlexiusMoore Again you cherry pick. You ignore all the other books and just focus on that one, which you ridicule, and one other. Also I bet you wouldn't have made that comment if the reporter had used the word "refraction" instead.
Once again, there is no basis for saying his books are there to make money. How the fuck do you know? Maybe he genuinely cares? Again, he would have written a sequel to The God Delusion, his best seller.
@AlexiusMoore and what are you talking about? The selfish gene had brilliant reception. Do I have to point out again that he's a member of the FRS? Do you think if his books were poorly received by scientists he would still be in the FRS?
@Pirate44444 being a Member of the FRS, doesn't mean everysingle scientists agrees with him and that Dawkins knows everything. u really so ignorant???
@Pirate44444 Your defending Dawkins so ferociously u don't even allow the possibility of Dawkins having his own motive of being Rich and Famous.
Your completely deluded and bought in by him.
The selfish gene had many misconceptions and false statements, ask a real scientist to read it and he will know. being in the FRS just means that the FRS decided it would benefit them to have hime. that is all,
@AlexiusMoore Yeah ask a real scientist, not one of those fake scientists they have in the FRS. Only an idiot would write books to get rich, since it almost never works. If you do write a book to get rich, it's usually to promote something else you do (eg. selling health foods). That's how I know, not because I am deluded and bought in by Dawkins. I like his science books but I have no intention of reading the God Delusion since friends have told me it's mostly a big rant.
@AlexiusMoore You on the other hand are bitter, you cherry-pick, your beliefs about Dawkins's ulterior motives are baseless and irrational. I'm saying that because it's what I think, not because I worship Dawkins. When you realised you were wrong about the gay gene thing you ignored it instead of admitting you were wrong. That is pathetic.
@AlexiusMoore One more fucking time. If you watch the video where Dawkins talks about the gay gene, he gives THREE explanations. The first two you ridicule. The third one, the one Dawkins prefers, the one he thinks is most likely, the one that he suggests you totally ignore. Lame, pathetic, pointless, useless, ignorant, waste of time.
Being a member of FRS means you're not an idiot, not that you know everything.
@NickoliLion In other words, Craig has degrees in worthless bullshit. No different than having a degree in Star Trek. What would Craig want to debate with anyone?
Hey - here's a clue - how about something OTHER than just christard philosophy!
So and so ancient person said/believed this. Some other ancient person said or believe that about the first person. Yeah, you're right: Craig could sure beat me in THAT worthless debate.
I don't understand why people are still clamoring for a debate between Craig and Dawkins.
Didn't anybody see their debate last year? Admittedly, it was a lame format (3 on 3) with limited time contraints, but how could anybody who watched that debate, think that further exchange between these 2 could provide anything remotely useful?
We know exactly what Craig's view is and what Dawkins view is - and the strengths & weaknesses of each.
@skuterixas91 Before I got a nook i was running out of space form my books had to donate 225 to charity didn't have the room . So unless Craig wrote over 2000 books you are wrong
I completey agree that Dawkins is no philosopher. . But unlike Craig,he doesn't pretend to be.
At the same time, Craig is no scientist - yet that doesn't stop Craig from pretending his arguments (cosmological and fine-tuning) are rooted in science..
WLC is very literate and well-read so why shouldn't he use the knowledge gained by reading various science works ? It's the Dawkins who is out of his league here because philosophy is main think about these discussions
The answer is obvious - for Craig to debate someone of Dawkin's calibre and reputation would look good on his CV. For Dawkins to debate someone of Craig's calibre and reputation would not look too impressive on HIS CV.
LOL, Dawkins is a lousy scientist. His PhD was in the pecking order of baby chicks and his Professorship was invented for him by a rich man who liked his style of POPULAR book writing! He's not actually contributed anything of legacy to scientific academia. Craig, by contrast, actually publishes regularly in peer-reviewed philosophy journals and his work has been on Oxford's faculty reading list since 1980! Dawkins is a celebrity!
@Birdieupon Craig admits that evidence against Christianity should be ignored in favor of faith. As far as reputation where was Dawkins a professor and where was 2 citation Craig
@Birdieupon WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
@Birdieupon WLC Continued " i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
also I have watched a few debates that Craig has been in, and I think it's safe to say that Craig brings up the same arguments every time because the atheists that he has debated can't refute them in any way.
Dawkins just contradicted his own words he said "I am free to debate a bishop or a pope" but then he goes on saying "I don't debate creationist because I don't have time" that is just a excuse the true reason why he doesn't debate craig is because he doesn't want to lose and get embarrassed
@bobcatallstar7 he is not interested in creationism, he is interested in people who believe they have a magical attunement or something interesting. just being a creationist means nothing to him.
craigs arguments are typically the transcendental, ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments, all of which date back many decades, and were discredited decades ago. these arguments are covered in first year philosophy
@TheBluePianist he maybe not into creationism, but for him to refuse to debate craig is just making dawkins look like a coward, Craig even went to dawkins how town during the reasonable faith tour and they left a spot open for dawkins and he didn't show. Also, if all of craigs arguments have been discredited then dawkins shouldn't have any problem refuting them during the debate. But once again i have watched a few debates craig has been involved with and no atheist refutes them.
tbh i don't bother refuting these basic arguments when i see them. they are all formed from fallacious presuppositions; they are too keen to reason in their favour. a quick internet search would be enough for direct disproof
from what ive seen, the atheist in each debate refutes each claim by disproof through counterexample. this is not as satisfying as direct disproof, but requires little effort and allows more time for comedy :).
@bobcatallstar7 since we are talking about this particular man, its also difficult to keep track of dr craig, he can make several errors in a sentence, refute himself in the following sentence etc.. it would take a long time to actually point out the number of errors he accumulates in just a minute of speech.
@bobcatallstar7 Nope. There is a difference between a creationist and a bishop or a pope. Even the pope believes in evolution while creationists don't. Creationists are stupid and not worth the time to debate or even take seriously.
ridiculous he's a flat out coward! Calls William a "professional debater" ...he's an apologist as is Richard & he just won't debate him!! That's what you call a cowardly Atheist!
@BenMuseShaman Why would you debate someone who has nothing to add?
All he would do is give Craig more promotions to give into his debate, I'v watched several of Craigs debates now and he brings the same arguments to every debate, and as I understand it is also the 6 basic arguments presented in his book.
All the 6 arguments are not prof, as craig says himself: Best explinations.
Why would you want to debate that explinations, when your dealing in evidence.
@BenMuseShaman It's because he is a moron, you can't get through to someone like him, he just parrots the same things over and over, and as he said himself, Lane would get benifits for his CV or whatever for having debated dawkins, dawkins has nothing to gain.
William Lane Craig is not a "young earth creationist" and every single Christian, Jew and Muslim is a "creationist" in the wider meaning. So he could've said as well that he doesn't want to debate religious people any more.
@gebor83 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
"Fine tuning begs the question..." It does? How? And don't just repeat the wikki definition please. I know what the term means.
"Moral objective argument circular reasoning." I think you mean objective morality. HOW is it circular?
"The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it." Even if He did that doesn't necessarily mean that it does. But where and when did he do so?..... Proof.
"Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose"
LOL! Lame. Fine tuning eliminates chance and necessity, leaving only design remaining. That's not circular. You need to counter the evidence against those eliminations.
Moral is not circular (you don't even give an argument). Are you not aware it takes the form of 1. ~P --> ~Q 2. Q C. P which is by definition a valid argument?
You gave no explanation of incoherence in OA, cosmo is metaphyics. FAIL.
@Birdieupon Fine tuning ASSUMES that the universe has a purpose . The purpose to produce life. . You can not assert objective morals without invoking god and then use objective morals to prove god. Cosmo has been refute by one of it's main proponents William Lane Craig. Incoherence of the OA between the three Omni's
"Fine tuning ASSUMES that the universe has a purpose." How so?
"You can not assert objective morals without invoking god and then use objective morals to prove god." Sorry. i don't see how this answers my question.Your thus far baseless assertions still leave either a how or why or both.
"provide evidence of Objective morals.." Do you believe that "It's wrong to rape children for fun" is just a matter of personal taste or that it's objectively wrong?
@Birdieupon WLC ":If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@Birdieupon WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
"then so much the worse for those theories!." You forgot the next few lines.
"That only shows that those definitions need to be revised. Indeed the standard procedure in terms of which proposed definitions of causality are assessed is to postulate counter-examples of intuitively obvious cases of causation and then show how the definition fails to accommodate these examples!" Did you have an appointment you had to run out for or where you leaving that part out?
Yup. The moral argument is indeed a valid argument - it's also perfectly circular.
(Circular arguments are by definition valid arguments - they are also useless arguments)
As such, the moral argument easily the weakest of Craig's arguments (other than the historical Jesus argument).
His fine-tuning argument has problems and several baseless assumptions but it's at least got a sedutively intuitive appeal. By contrast, the morality argument is a bit of a joke.
Creationists, by definition, do not deserve to be debated with as they believe things against what has been repeatedly proven by scientific evidence, and therefore, is factual. This makes them unreliable candidates who believe things even when it is beyond reason to. This of course, also makes them extremely dangerous and volatile individuals who should have no say in how any country is run.
"…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is… unmistakable… for him who has it; …that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…" ~Billy Craig, "professional philopher." Who in their right mind would want to debate a dishonest twat like Craig who is not interested in any evidence whatsoever?
Richard Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual and fucking inspiration to dark and edgy 16 year olds. WLC would slaughter him with ease. Dawkins debates close-minded religious bigots, and hten pats himself on the back...and you guys suck on him. The Hitch [was] much better. R.I.P. to the greatest atheist of all time.
@Crobat87 WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@Crobat87 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! "
I half agreed with Dawkins. Why should he waste his time (if he's as busy as he claims he is) of debating cardinals, archbishops, and other lunatics like that? Debate about what? Testable falsifiable scientific theories and laws? Or untestable imaginary things like gods? Either type of debate is a colossal waste of time. Either the subject is untestable, in which case all the philosophizing in the world won't make it testable, or it is testable, and then only 1 side is right.
mphello 1 hour ago
It's too bad he's too busy. From what he's saying, he's obviously good enough to beat Mr. Craig in a debate, and his followers would love to see him take care of business, but he's too busy to reward their hope :(. Oh well, his worshippers will probly continue to follow him.
If you don't want to though, remember that Jesus has said "him who comes to me I will in no wise cast out." Dawkins and Hitchens won't have thrones to sit at on judgement day. Come to/back to Jesus!
mastergrove1 22 hours ago
Lol he's busy
He's had plenty of debates with people who were less recognized and less qualified, he's clearly scared.
And its funny he was once asked if the opposition ever put a good point across he said no, we'll if u avoid good opposition then they can't put their point across now can they?
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore lol yeah lol what an idiot lol, he's clearly scared lol. Oh wait no he just thought Craig was some randomer and did actually debate him in the end.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8
Pirate44444 1 week ago
That's a great video title! I didn't even need to click on the video, but I did anyway to post this lol. :) Very straight forward video title, it's much nicer then the videos with titles doing nothing whatsoever with anything in the video.
neoman121 1 week ago
If today was your last day
And tomorrow was too late
Could you say goodbye to yesterday?
Would you live each moment like your last?
Leave old pictures in the past
Donate every dime you have?
BarbieBoy1997 1 week ago
Well, it seems to be a coward you need to just give a smart aleck answer and try to sound funny. I think we know who wins just by his reply.
AmosofTekoa 1 week ago
he will debate anyone he thinks he can win against and make look silly
Communist2012 2 weeks ago
But he debated John Lennox, not in any of the above categories? He's debated Christian and Muslim fundamentalists in a documentary I saw him in; none of them had any claim to fame other than their absurd beliefs. Richard Dawkins isn't avoiding the strongest possible argument? Bullshit.
1995aidans 2 weeks ago
Chickennnnnn.
bammc19 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is scarred, simple as that.
Loudmouf84 2 weeks ago
@Loudmouf84 Scared of what ? Craig uses the same 5 failed arguments in every debate
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Then if his arguments are "failed" as you claim, it should be easy for Dawkins to beat him in a debate, right?? Dawkins is a scoffer, he outright denies the Most High, and thinks he knows it all, doesn't listen to anyone's logical explanations.
Loudmouf84 2 weeks ago
@Loudmouf84 It would appear that you have never been in a debate, The wining of the debate gas nothing to do with the strength of an argument rather the skills of the wordsmith
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 hah I've been in plenty of debates in my life and what you are saying is absolutely ridiculous.
Loudmouf84 2 weeks ago
@Loudmouf84 Read the debate for yourself
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@Loudmouf84 Do not use the word logical, you do not know what it means. He would also 'scoff' at someone who claimed they could fly if they provided no proof and an incoherent explanation. As said when someone lies and twists facts to fit their argument they forgo the right to debate. William Lane Craig brings no argument to the table that hasn't been discredited already. Again there is no logic in believing something without evidence or believing a theory that contradicts itself multiple times.
peteymandem 1 week ago
What's the point? Craig has already been in a bunch of debates, and says the same things every time.
trippygraffiti 2 weeks ago
Bullshit reply. I am not a believer but Graig has one of the best arguments for a creator that I have ever heard. Certainly worthy of consideration. For Dawkins to refuse a debate with him is just a cop out. Surely he is not that busy that he has no time for one of the worlds leading christian apologists. It's a debate that the world would like to see.
shimwah 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shimwah
"I am not a believer but Graig has one of the best arguments for a creator that I have ever heard"
Which argument would that be?
What people want to see another Dawkins vs. Craig debate? Why? It's true that their first debate was limited (3 on 3) and rather lame, but what person who saw that could possibly think that further debate can yield anything productive? We already know exactly what these 2 have to say.
This is about publicity & entertainment. Nothing more.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@shimwah It is not about the literal workload that he has that keeps him from debating, if we were watching sports and you were trying to tell me that the lions were the best team ever and I disagreed and provided evidence to invalidate your argument, then you waited a year, came back and gave the exact same argument should I bother with my evidence? Should I bother when it is clear the other side is unwilling to see reason and not only change their views but their defeated 'arguments.'
peteymandem 1 week ago
@peteymandem Yes I accept your point. Its pointless to debate or engage those that are willfully ignorant.
Although from my understanding Dawkins has yet to debate WLC even once. Correct me if I am wrong.
shimwah 1 week ago
@shimwah
Dawkins debated Craig as part of 3 on 3 debate in 2010.
I doubt anyone who watched that debate would conclude that anything productive could possibly come from further debate between those two. Everyone knows exactly what these two think on this subject.
The rest is all about publicity and entertainment. Not actual argument much less understanding.
citizenghosttown 1 week ago
@shimwah What citizenghosttown said they already tried that.
peteymandem 1 week ago
he's scurred
airemillion90 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Show me this article or video where he said his own argument is incoherent. Also, it is not proof of God, but it is a good argument for the existence of God. You would call that persona lier.
bobcatallstar7 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 it's the first result pay attention to Craig's rebuttal
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 I don't know . Maybe you consider common sense and intuition a substitute for the rules and laws of logic.
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 well he is most certainly not telling a lie.
bobcatallstar7 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 Craig admitted that his Cosmological argument is incoherent yet he still uses it as a Logical proof of god. what do you call that ?
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist so your basically saying that creationist are stupid and not worth anybodies time just because of their beliefs? The Bible is right when it describes people like you. Mean fools who wont accept truth.
bobcatallstar7 2 weeks ago
@bobcatallstar7 You can't possibly mean Craig's truth
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
I've got a new ringtone..."I'm busy...i'm busy...i'm busy". When my mother in law calls, thats the ringtone i hear:)
To Richard. You little girl.
LLThenu 2 weeks ago
Indeed Mr, Atheist--Dawkins was made of fool of when he debated Lennox and again during a simple exchange with Ben Stein--so why would he knowingly make a fool of himself yet again--too busy?????????
pulp7theman 2 weeks ago
@pulp7theman These things are not true. If you wish to believe clearly doctored videos then....O wait you're a Christian you can't tell what is real and what isn't
peteymandem 1 week ago
Translation: I will gladly debate anyone who I deem an easy target, and I wont debate Craig because my ego is too big.
NickoliLion 3 weeks ago
@NickoliLion correction- I will gladly debate anyone worth my time. Craig is a debater. That is it. Nothing else. he is not worth my time.
SuperMrAtheist 2 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist Craig is more than qualified to debate Dawkins. Two masters degrees, one in philosophy and one in Christian history. Another Ph.D in philosophy, and a Th.D in theology.
Dawkins has debated other opponents that had far less qualification than he does. Therefore, he has no excuse other than he is just too full of himself to do it.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Craig is just a debater. That's it. Nothing more. A masters in Christian history? First off that is worth crap and second, Why does he give so much misinformation about the history of Christ?
I also notice that you refused to talk about Dawkins degrees.lol
There is no way Craig even comes close to Dawkins.
SuperMrAtheist 2 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist First off, why do you discredit one of his degrees and make no mention of the other three?
Second, I didn't talk about Dawkin's degrees because I was not talking about his qualifications, I was talking about Craig's. I'm fully aware of his qualifictions.
Thrid, Dawkins has debated far less qualified people before, so why refuse Craig when he is more than qualified?
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Craig is a dishonest debater. Concerning His cosmological argument Craig admitted it to be incoherent yet still uses it. How do you debate with someone who has no problem lying and twists facts to prove his invisible friend. the guy admitted that evidence against god should be ignored
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Please direct me to your sources. I wish to see this for myself.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996. It should be the first result. The quote was Craig's rebuttal
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 I listened to Craig's rebuttal to Quentin and I couldn't find him saying that. all I saw him doing was pointing out that Quentin committed the fallacy of composition. Could you please tell me what I missed?
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Dude it's not a video. You have to read the debate. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 I still did not find him saying that. Sorry.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Google it. the first result
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 I did. I read the transcript and I didn't see it. Was it in his first or second rebuttal?
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion The Atheistic Point-of-View Dr. Craig's Rebuttal
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Still don't quite see it. Is it the part where he says that the second premise of Quentin's argument doesn't work because there isn't a definition of material causation yet in the Philosophical community?
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion You play dumb very well.
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion Causation is causation . still incoherent "prior" to time
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Sorry, but I still don't quite understand. I'll have to read on this further before I can talk about it from an informed position.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Sorry, but I still don't quite understand. I'll have to read on this further before I can talk about it from an informed position.
P.S. I am legitimately attempting to understand the point you are trying to make. Accusing me of simply playing dumb is not helping either of us.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666 Sorry, but I still don't quite understand. I'll have to read on this further before I can talk about it from an informed position.
P.S. I am legitimately attempting to understand the point you are trying to make. Accusing me of simply playing dumb is not helping either of us.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Sorry, but I still don't quite understand. I'll have to read on this further before I can talk about it from an informed position.
P.S. I am legitimately attempting to understand the point you are trying to make. Accusing me of simply playing dumb is not helping either of us.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666 Sorry, but I still don't quite understand. I'll have to read on this further before I can talk about it from an informed position.
P.S. I am legitimately attempting to understand the point you are trying to make. Accusing me of simply playing dumb is not helping either of us.
NickoliLion 2 weeks ago
@NickoliLion I sent you the link check your youtube email
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist If that is true ^ Why is Dawkins so afraid? Hmm... surely, if Dawkins was out of Graigs league he would have no problem with a simple debate that he would "surely win" correct?
bammc19 2 weeks ago
@bammc19 you are assuming Dawkins is scared when in fact he is not afraid at all. Craig is an ant compared to Dawkins. Craig is the car salesmen. And he just sold you his car.lol
SuperMrAtheist 2 weeks ago
@bammc19 he has already won.
peteymandem 2 weeks ago
@SuperMrAtheist Speaking of misinformation, I'm really not sure where this assumption that Craig is "just a debater" (whatever that might mean) comes from. He studied for his PhD under John Hick and also has a ThD. He's made several important contributions to the philosophical literature outside of the philosophy of religion, particularly in the area of paradoxes. I'm an atheist, a philosopher and I'm very quick to point out that you can't refute anyone by false ad hominem.
MarksMindBox 1 week ago
@MarksMindBox My goodness....an actual logical AND rational statement from an atheist! JK...givin you a hard time. But, you must admit that they are rare nowadays from either camp. God bless
ArmyMedicRN 1 week ago
@MarksMindBox I think it's pretty clear Dawkins didn't realise that Craig had a PhD and had written several books on the subject, because he did actually debate Craig in the end...
watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 That wasn't a one on one debate, Dawkins was asked to come to Mexico to debate as a panel, Craig was askin for a one on one, and even after Mexico he asked again but Dawkins said no again
don't make excuse for this guy, u thnk Dawkins is so dumb that he would know who Craig is but not realize his qualifications.
Ive seen Dawkins argue with guys with no qualifications at all,
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore "u thnk Dawkins is so dumb that..." obviously not... Lack of knowledge doesn't not mean unintelligence.
Look, if he was scared, he would not have debated craig, full stop. He clearly has other reasons.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 He didnt debate him tho did he?, they both had teams and were debating a fixed subject about meaning in the universe. Craig asked for a all out debate one on one with no fixed subjects, before and after the panel debate both times Dawkins said no. 1st time u can say he was unaware of his qualifications, but the second time, he was aware so what was his excuse?
Teams and fixed subjects vs one on one and no fixed subject are comletely different things
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore As I said, if Dawkins was scared he would not have debated Craig, even if there was a fixed subject and there were two teams.
Perhaps Dawkins doesn't like Craig, he does suggest Craig has too much interest in self-promotion. Also he might think one debate is enough, Dawkins does come across to me as a kind of "I think I've said enough" person.
I also don't really care that much. If Dawkins is scared I don't blame him, but I don't think he is.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 That isn't a debate against each other, Dawkins had no threat of being embarace as Craig was not allowed to stray from the fixed subject, its not even a debate, all it was basically 2 groups of guy talking about a single subject
Self promotion, this is Dawkins were talkin about. the guy who talks abou the "Sneaky Fucker Gene" haha.
Dawkins comes a across as the i avoid all interesting questions with the " what the hell u talkin about" line
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Just because it's one on one does not mean it's not a debate... Dawkins addressed points Craig made and Craig argued back.
As for the sneaky fucker gene, I'm going to have to use the "what the hell you talking about?" line...
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 It was not a one on one..
Dawkins and Craig both adressed points on one fixed subject. thats like 2 guys fighting, but there only allowed to use their right toe. the result will be incunclusive, just like their debate was.
Oh and u havn't heard?? Dawkins failed to explain how his theory of the Gay gene being passed down worked, so he decided to come up with a new theory called "The Sneaky Fucker Gene" haha it still makes me laugh everytime
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore sorry that was a typo, I meant to say "just because it's NOT one on one does not mean it's not a debate."
Actually that's not Dawkins theory. The hypothesis Dawkins likes one where there is a gene which had some survival advantage, but manifests itself as a gay gene under some modern phenomena. For more detail: watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
These are just possible explanations we have at the moment.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 Its possible to explain everything away, so making up theories for the sake of explanation is a waste.
Dawkins Talks about The Sneaky Fucker Gene as if it was a fact.
And the Idea of the Gay Uncle crap is just all balls seriously, he makes one theory to support another, and when that theory is questioned he will make another , its a never ending cycle,
Have you read Dawkin's book?? barely any of his theories are his own, he just basically recycled other peoples theories
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore sorry, he talks about the sneaky fucker gene as if it was a fact?? You mean by stating two alternatives at the same time?? And it's not a waste of time, that's how you generate new theories in sciences, you start with possible explanations (hypotheses) and then you test them until you have a properly established theory.
He says, these are some possible explanations: 1, 2, 3. You're manipulating that into "he keeps making up random crap when he finds out his old idea is wrong."
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 my point is he really doesn't know and is just making these theories up, making explanations and then acting like its a fact and they teach like this to kids who grow up thinking that all theories are facts that "a gay uncle would give more food to his nephew therefore his gay gene would survive" theory is is less likely then the "the gay ancestor survived because he was pimpin himself out to women for food" theory wich i just this second made up.
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Again, he is not talking as though they are fact, if he was, he wouldn't be mentioning three different possibilities! Plus you keep focusing on the two theories that Dawkins actually thinks are the least likely, and totally ignoring the one he think is the most likely.
He would happily admit he doesn't know, that's why, and I stress this again, he gives THREE different possibilites.
Also I'm afraid you seem to have a drastic misunderstanding of what theory means in science.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Theories are above facts in the hierarchy of science. A theory is an explanation of a fact.
For the last time, the theory Dawkins thinks is the most likely is the one where some other gene manifests itself as a "gay gene" under some modern phenomena. If you fail to address this again, you are either dishonest or an idiot, so please don't ignore it.
watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Yes I have read one of Dawkin's books, and I have another one to read soon. There is nothing wrong with writing about a theory put forward by another scientist. Theories are very big and there's plenty of room for that, in fact it needs to be done. After all, you won't find just one book on The Big Bang theory, by one single author.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore And you talk as though scientists should be spouting out theories all over the place in order to be credible. Nonsense. Most scientists won't produce a single theory in the whole career, for one thing it usually takes several scientists. It takes years of research and testing to produce a theory.
Criticising Dawkins because "barely any of his theories are his own" is like criticising a politician for not inventing an entirely new revolutionary government system, eg. democracy.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 writing a book about it and promoting it like it has all the answers never heard before is. So apart from being a loudmouth there is no real reasons to buys his books is there as its the same old info all over again.
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore The Selfish Gene: "The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[6] and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages."
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore "The Extended Phenotype is a biological concept introduced by Richard Dawkins in a 1982 book with the same title."
Climbing Mount Improbable and The Greatest Show on Earth are about debunking creationist arguments. There are still creationists, so how is this irrelevant?
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Unweaving the Rainbow: "Driven by the responses to his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker wherein readers resented his naturalistic world view, seeing it as depriving life of meaning, Dawkins felt the need to explain that, as a scientist, he saw the world as full of wonders and a source of pleasure."
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 really u belive that?? or do u think he saw an opportunity to make millions selling his books?
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Who cares? If you think his work was irrelevant, why did it earn him the highest honours for literature AND science? Why was he made professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford university? The latter should tell you that the work which mostly describes the work of other scientists is aimed at explaining it to the general public, which he does well.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Seeing an opportunity to make millions selling books, really? No one ever sees an opportunity to make millions selling books. Seriously, even if your book is really good, most of the time it won't sell enough to earn you millions. If Dawkins did want to make more money selling books he would have written another one about religion by now, since that was his best seller by far...
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Are you going to address the fact that you made a fundamental misunderstanding on Dawkin's explanation of the gay gene or just pretend that never happened?
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 Oh come one u really so nieve, if u see an opportunity even if its small you go for it,.
What fundamental misunderstanding did i make?????
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore The Ancestor's Tale "follows the path of humans backwards through evolutionary history, meeting humanity's cousins as they converge on common ancestors."
Magic of Reality (aimed at children and young adults): "Neville Hawcock for the Financial Times praises Dawkins' clarity in explanation: "He really is very good at this. The chapter on rainbows has the clearest explanation of how they appear that I’ve ever seen.""
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Dawkin's books often introduce new concepts and new and better ways of explaining things than before. This has earned him the honours of both FRS and FRSL, two of the most prestigious honours in the world.
To say that your opinion is humble would be an overstatement.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 My opinion is always humble, so what u trying to prove?
Wow explaining the rainbow to kids.... u for real wow this man is a mastermind.
In one of his books Dawkins writes a disclaimer " that this is unabashed advocacy" meaning its his opinion
and
"contains no hypotheses that are testable" meaning its non scientific
and his selfish gene was poorly received by other Scientists.
His books are there to make money, just cleverly worded
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Again you cherry pick. You ignore all the other books and just focus on that one, which you ridicule, and one other. Also I bet you wouldn't have made that comment if the reporter had used the word "refraction" instead.
Once again, there is no basis for saying his books are there to make money. How the fuck do you know? Maybe he genuinely cares? Again, he would have written a sequel to The God Delusion, his best seller.
Please address the gay gene comment.
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore and what are you talking about? The selfish gene had brilliant reception. Do I have to point out again that he's a member of the FRS? Do you think if his books were poorly received by scientists he would still be in the FRS?
Pirate44444 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 being a Member of the FRS, doesn't mean everysingle scientists agrees with him and that Dawkins knows everything. u really so ignorant???
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@Pirate44444 Your defending Dawkins so ferociously u don't even allow the possibility of Dawkins having his own motive of being Rich and Famous.
Your completely deluded and bought in by him.
The selfish gene had many misconceptions and false statements, ask a real scientist to read it and he will know. being in the FRS just means that the FRS decided it would benefit them to have hime. that is all,
AlexiusMoore 1 week ago
@AlexiusMoore Yeah ask a real scientist, not one of those fake scientists they have in the FRS. Only an idiot would write books to get rich, since it almost never works. If you do write a book to get rich, it's usually to promote something else you do (eg. selling health foods). That's how I know, not because I am deluded and bought in by Dawkins. I like his science books but I have no intention of reading the God Delusion since friends have told me it's mostly a big rant.
Pirate44444 5 days ago
@AlexiusMoore You on the other hand are bitter, you cherry-pick, your beliefs about Dawkins's ulterior motives are baseless and irrational. I'm saying that because it's what I think, not because I worship Dawkins. When you realised you were wrong about the gay gene thing you ignored it instead of admitting you were wrong. That is pathetic.
Pirate44444 5 days ago
@AlexiusMoore One more fucking time. If you watch the video where Dawkins talks about the gay gene, he gives THREE explanations. The first two you ridicule. The third one, the one Dawkins prefers, the one he thinks is most likely, the one that he suggests you totally ignore. Lame, pathetic, pointless, useless, ignorant, waste of time.
Being a member of FRS means you're not an idiot, not that you know everything.
Pirate44444 5 days ago
@NickoliLion In other words, Craig has degrees in worthless bullshit. No different than having a degree in Star Trek. What would Craig want to debate with anyone?
Hey - here's a clue - how about something OTHER than just christard philosophy!
So and so ancient person said/believed this. Some other ancient person said or believe that about the first person. Yeah, you're right: Craig could sure beat me in THAT worthless debate.
mphello 1 hour ago
I don't understand why people are still clamoring for a debate between Craig and Dawkins.
Didn't anybody see their debate last year? Admittedly, it was a lame format (3 on 3) with limited time contraints, but how could anybody who watched that debate, think that further exchange between these 2 could provide anything remotely useful?
We know exactly what Craig's view is and what Dawkins view is - and the strengths & weaknesses of each.
The rest is all entertainment and publicity.
citizenghosttown 4 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown
i want them to talk and i want to see WLC destroy Dawkins because Dawkins is no philosopher he's scientist and should stick there
skuterixas91 3 weeks ago
@skuterixas91 Craig is a poor philosopher who does not even believe the validity of 4 of 5 of his arguments
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666
the man wrote more books than you have red in your life...
skuterixas91 3 weeks ago
@skuterixas91 Before I got a nook i was running out of space form my books had to donate 225 to charity didn't have the room . So unless Craig wrote over 2000 books you are wrong
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skuterixas91 "the man wrote more books than you have red in your life..."
Priceless
Atheeizm 3 weeks ago
@skuterixas91
I completey agree that Dawkins is no philosopher. . But unlike Craig,he doesn't pretend to be.
At the same time, Craig is no scientist - yet that doesn't stop Craig from pretending his arguments (cosmological and fine-tuning) are rooted in science..
citizenghosttown 3 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown
WLC is very literate and well-read so why shouldn't he use the knowledge gained by reading various science works ? It's the Dawkins who is out of his league here because philosophy is main think about these discussions
skuterixas91 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skuterixas91
"WLC is very literate and well-read so why shouldn't he use the knowledge gained by reading various science works"
He absolutely SHOULD. But of course he was really so literate and well-read in science, he wouldn't botch the science as badly as he does.
citizenghosttown 3 weeks ago
I want to commend you on your intellectual honesty in keeping this an open forum
emailpobox666 1 month ago
The answer is obvious - for Craig to debate someone of Dawkin's calibre and reputation would look good on his CV. For Dawkins to debate someone of Craig's calibre and reputation would not look too impressive on HIS CV.
MsCrazyCuckoo 1 month ago
@MsCrazyCuckoo
"Dawkin's calibre and reputation"
LOL, Dawkins is a lousy scientist. His PhD was in the pecking order of baby chicks and his Professorship was invented for him by a rich man who liked his style of POPULAR book writing! He's not actually contributed anything of legacy to scientific academia. Craig, by contrast, actually publishes regularly in peer-reviewed philosophy journals and his work has been on Oxford's faculty reading list since 1980! Dawkins is a celebrity!
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Craig admits that evidence against Christianity should be ignored in favor of faith. As far as reputation where was Dawkins a professor and where was 2 citation Craig
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon WLC Continued " i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Hello are you still here.? I thought you were eager to defend your position!
emailpobox666 1 month ago
also I have watched a few debates that Craig has been in, and I think it's safe to say that Craig brings up the same arguments every time because the atheists that he has debated can't refute them in any way.
bobcatallstar7 1 month ago
Dawkins just contradicted his own words he said "I am free to debate a bishop or a pope" but then he goes on saying "I don't debate creationist because I don't have time" that is just a excuse the true reason why he doesn't debate craig is because he doesn't want to lose and get embarrassed
bobcatallstar7 1 month ago
@bobcatallstar7 he is not interested in creationism, he is interested in people who believe they have a magical attunement or something interesting. just being a creationist means nothing to him.
craigs arguments are typically the transcendental, ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments, all of which date back many decades, and were discredited decades ago. these arguments are covered in first year philosophy
TheBluePianist 1 month ago
@TheBluePianist he maybe not into creationism, but for him to refuse to debate craig is just making dawkins look like a coward, Craig even went to dawkins how town during the reasonable faith tour and they left a spot open for dawkins and he didn't show. Also, if all of craigs arguments have been discredited then dawkins shouldn't have any problem refuting them during the debate. But once again i have watched a few debates craig has been involved with and no atheist refutes them.
bobcatallstar7 1 month ago
@bobcatallstar7 don't think he cares
tbh i don't bother refuting these basic arguments when i see them. they are all formed from fallacious presuppositions; they are too keen to reason in their favour. a quick internet search would be enough for direct disproof
from what ive seen, the atheist in each debate refutes each claim by disproof through counterexample. this is not as satisfying as direct disproof, but requires little effort and allows more time for comedy :).
TheBluePianist 1 month ago
@bobcatallstar7 since we are talking about this particular man, its also difficult to keep track of dr craig, he can make several errors in a sentence, refute himself in the following sentence etc.. it would take a long time to actually point out the number of errors he accumulates in just a minute of speech.
TheBluePianist 1 month ago
@TheBluePianist *home
bobcatallstar7 1 month ago
@bobcatallstar7 Nope. There is a difference between a creationist and a bishop or a pope. Even the pope believes in evolution while creationists don't. Creationists are stupid and not worth the time to debate or even take seriously.
SuperMrAtheist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So Dorkins widely belittles creationists and runs a popular website which often mocks them, but he refuses to debate them!
These are precisely the double standards we'd expect from someone who actually believes he is descended from a simple life form! What a joke!
RUKEAL 1 month ago
Comment removed
RUKEAL 1 month ago
ridiculous he's a flat out coward! Calls William a "professional debater" ...he's an apologist as is Richard & he just won't debate him!! That's what you call a cowardly Atheist!
BenMuseShaman 1 month ago
@BenMuseShaman Why would you debate someone who has nothing to add?
All he would do is give Craig more promotions to give into his debate, I'v watched several of Craigs debates now and he brings the same arguments to every debate, and as I understand it is also the 6 basic arguments presented in his book.
All the 6 arguments are not prof, as craig says himself: Best explinations.
Why would you want to debate that explinations, when your dealing in evidence.
Siedlerdeo 1 month ago
@BenMuseShaman It's because he is a moron, you can't get through to someone like him, he just parrots the same things over and over, and as he said himself, Lane would get benifits for his CV or whatever for having debated dawkins, dawkins has nothing to gain.
MegaBlueZOMBIE 1 month ago
hahaha "...I'm busy'! Love it!
mjfraser04 1 month ago
Craigs contingency and kalim cosmological arguments sounds the same.
Sonneybouy 1 month ago
William Lane Craig is not a "young earth creationist" and every single Christian, Jew and Muslim is a "creationist" in the wider meaning. So he could've said as well that he doesn't want to debate religious people any more.
robbocoppe 1 month ago
@robbocoppe It's too bad Craig uses failed arguments over and over and over.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"It's too bad Craig uses failed arguments over and over and over." Which ones would those be?
gebor83 1 month ago
@gebor83 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Fine tuning begs the question..." It does? How? And don't just repeat the wikki definition please. I know what the term means.
"Moral objective argument circular reasoning." I think you mean objective morality. HOW is it circular?
"The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it." Even if He did that doesn't necessarily mean that it does. But where and when did he do so?..... Proof.
gebor83 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose"
LOL! Lame. Fine tuning eliminates chance and necessity, leaving only design remaining. That's not circular. You need to counter the evidence against those eliminations.
Moral is not circular (you don't even give an argument). Are you not aware it takes the form of 1. ~P --> ~Q 2. Q C. P which is by definition a valid argument?
You gave no explanation of incoherence in OA, cosmo is metaphyics. FAIL.
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon Fine tuning ASSUMES that the universe has a purpose . The purpose to produce life. . You can not assert objective morals without invoking god and then use objective morals to prove god. Cosmo has been refute by one of it's main proponents William Lane Craig. Incoherence of the OA between the three Omni's
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Fine tuning ASSUMES that the universe has a purpose." How so?
"You can not assert objective morals without invoking god and then use objective morals to prove god." Sorry. i don't see how this answers my question.Your thus far baseless assertions still leave either a how or why or both.
"provide evidence of Objective morals.." Do you believe that "It's wrong to rape children for fun" is just a matter of personal taste or that it's objectively wrong?
gebor83 4 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Please provide evidence of Objective morals without invoking god
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon WLC ":If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Birdieupon WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"then so much the worse for those theories!." You forgot the next few lines.
"That only shows that those definitions need to be revised. Indeed the standard procedure in terms of which proposed definitions of causality are assessed is to postulate counter-examples of intuitively obvious cases of causation and then show how the definition fails to accommodate these examples!" Did you have an appointment you had to run out for or where you leaving that part out?
gebor83 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gebor83 Have those definitions been revised?
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Have those definitions been revised?" Is he right or is he wrong? If he's wrong why were you quoting (out of context) him in the first place?
"Do you believe that "It's wrong to rape children for fun" is just a matter of personal taste or that it's objectively wrong?
gebor83 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gebor83 It has been 15 years since that debate. maybe they have. If so please provide them
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@Birdieupon
Yup. The moral argument is indeed a valid argument - it's also perfectly circular.
(Circular arguments are by definition valid arguments - they are also useless arguments)
As such, the moral argument easily the weakest of Craig's arguments (other than the historical Jesus argument).
His fine-tuning argument has problems and several baseless assumptions but it's at least got a sedutively intuitive appeal. By contrast, the morality argument is a bit of a joke.
citizenghosttown 4 weeks ago
@gebor83 You will find your answers They are addressed to Birdieupon
emailpobox666 1 month ago
watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4
TheMrgoku1985 1 month ago
Creationists, by definition, do not deserve to be debated with as they believe things against what has been repeatedly proven by scientific evidence, and therefore, is factual. This makes them unreliable candidates who believe things even when it is beyond reason to. This of course, also makes them extremely dangerous and volatile individuals who should have no say in how any country is run.
indie4life23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is… unmistakable… for him who has it; …that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…" ~Billy Craig, "professional philopher." Who in their right mind would want to debate a dishonest twat like Craig who is not interested in any evidence whatsoever?
alexanderalexandrou 1 month ago
Richard Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual and fucking inspiration to dark and edgy 16 year olds. WLC would slaughter him with ease. Dawkins debates close-minded religious bigots, and hten pats himself on the back...and you guys suck on him. The Hitch [was] much better. R.I.P. to the greatest atheist of all time.
Crobat87 1 month ago
@Crobat87 All of Craig's arguments fail, Dawkins would waste his time debating such a illogical apologist
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 So The Hitch wasted his time, huh? And so did Sam Harris?
And WLC's arguments are lucid. Prove to me why you think otherwise?
Crobat87 1 month ago
@Crobat87 I'm posting Craig's own admission the cosmological argument fails
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories! "
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 As far as the fine tuning argument it assumes that the universe has a purpose which begs the question
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 The moral argument circular reasoning
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 The ontological argument . the definition of a maximal great being is incoherent
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Crobat87 The last is the bible and do I need say any more
emailpobox666 1 month ago