Richard Dawkins is a Coward Who Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig

[indianslummer]

If Dawkins doesn't feel comfortable or 'see the point' in debating with the worlds most Renowned Professional christian theologians/debaters then he simply should not be writing books in that territory.

[BleuPoulp]

I don't understand how Dawkins' refusal to debate with WLC is supposed to be a valid argument for creationism.

[RichardBawkBawkins]

Who's calling me a coward? How dare they.

[WeAreSektor]

Dawkins is not a coward, but a wise man who uses pure evidence to back up the claims he is making. For going to the bible to back up a claim, is a joke.

We Are Sektor, We Are One, And We Are Science

[JCrownwell]

@WeAreSektor

"Dawkins is not a coward"

It's his fellow ATHEISTS who are most vociferous of his cowardice.

Google: "richard dawkins refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist" (Daniel Came) and "Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig" (Tim Stanley).

In other words, if you want to address the accusations of cowardice directed at Dawkins, you can start by addressing the atheist camp first. :)

[KevZen2000]

Why is Richard Dawkins a coward since he will not Debate Craig. He debate Lennox, he has debate people, who have already made about same types of arguments as Craig, so Dawkins has nothing to prove, nor does he have to debate Craig.

[JCrownwell]

@KevZen2000

The rumour is that it was the lambasting he received in his debate with Lennox that led to Dawkins refusing further debates on theism.

[kleykenb]

@JCrownwell

Hardly. The debate Dawkins vs Lennox you find on youtube is a deceit. It was edited severely.Basically they removed much of Dawkin's replies to Lennox to give the impression that he had no answers at all. Best to listen to the interview on Richard Dawkins Foundation's website in it's entirety. Creationists seem to have been called to arms and youtube is now filled with Creationist deceit. Faul play is definitely something relished by these fundamentalists. As is violence.

[HipHopMayhem]

Funny how you pick and choose not only your bible but everything in this video. smh.

[mnemoniccourier]

Dawkins is not a coward for not debating William Craig. Its just that William Craig have debated both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins just argues that he dont want to give William Craig the pleasure of having debated all the four horsemen.

[njridings]

While I would like to see Dawkins debate this man, I think it was Sam Harris that already put the proverbial smack down on WLC. I assume the real reason that Dawkins will not debate him is because of his debate skills and not his knowledge of God or lack thereof. WLC could be debating that the flying spaghetti monster is real and the Ragu recipe is the Bible and he could probably win that debate against many. This doesn't make the Bible any more factual.

[njridings]

@njridings Furthermore, Dawkins has shared the stage with WLC before and honestly made his points relatively clear then. So given the fact that WLC provided nothing beneficial at that point, I am not so sure that Dawkins really even should desire to engage him on stage.

[SoCalFtGuy]

I like how your title shows one thing, and the video shows another :D

[jmattos]

Sorry, what's the point of this video? It doesnt seem to have a message, it just takes swipes at Richard Dawkins..

[sonofthunder79]

Atheists are scared to death of the truth...

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Atheists are not scared of death. It is religious nuts that beg on the floor to an imaginary all mighty magician for forgiveness because of what they believe might happen after they die. pussy... go cry to your god some more.

[sonofthunder79]

@rqm797 First of all learn to read the whole sentence before spewing your ignorance in public. I didn't say atheists were scared OF death... I said TO death, TO... Moron. So you go keep believing that the universe created itself, because we ALL KNOW that nothing+nothing=something. Fool. ;)

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Name one thing in the universe that can be created before you claim that the entire universe was created. You claim that a being created all matter in the universe but all logic points to the fact that matter actually is what all beings are made of. First rule of thermodynamics is matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Don't bother asking me where matter came from because it is the same answer you will give when I ask you where God came from. Only difference is matter exists.

[sonofthunder79]

@rqm797 You're funny. First of all, the claim that matter can be neither created nor destroyed is a philosophical assertion based on faith in a naturalistic framework. If you lend the question of, where did god and/or matter come from, the same credence, then you have to ask which makes more sense. That being, which is more likely? Matter+time+energy= all of the specified complex life we see? If so, how? Or was there an intelligence behind the design? Will/can you answer me that?

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Prove to me the universe was designed before you claim that you know the designer. Matter+ Time+Energy may seem very complex and impossible to completely understand but in reality these laws are as simple as 1+1. Once you have the equation 1+1 you have an infinite set of laws.The universe is nothing but collections of tiny things making up bigger things"(1+1+1+1+1..∞) +(1+1+1+1+1..∞)"It is just one exponentially massive jigsaw puzzle where things happen only when the pieces fit.

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 If you want to know where the pieces came from, leading scientists will tell you the pieces have always been there. Prior to the big bang all matter in the universe was compressed into a space smaller than an atom. Outside of it was empty space. It was believed that empty space was nothing but scientists have recently discovered that empty space is actually not empty at all. They also believe that whatever occupies empty space is what all matter is made of.

[sonofthunder79]

@rqm797 Thank you so much for the science lesson, but that wasn't the question I asked, so I will ask again. Given your premise, that matter has always existed, how did all of the specifically complex life we see before us, arise? There are only two possible options. Was it matter+time+energy= life? Or does it make more sense to say that there was/is some kind of intelligence behind it all? In the beginning God? OR, In the beginning, dirt?

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Life isn't as incredible as you make it out to be. When you take a look at how much energy a single star has and then take a look at how many stars there are in our galaxy, let alone our entire universe, it far outweighs the energy needed for all life, on this planet, to exist. Matter is what stars, planets, and people, everything, are made of. As to the "creation" of life, scientists believe they can and will eventually replicate the natural conditions needed to "create" life.

[sonofthunder79]

@rqm797 If you were to repeat what is typed here in words to any college professor, atheist or otherwise, you would be laughed off campus. "Life isn't as incredible as you make it out to be"??? Really? Seriously? Dawkin's himself would beat you senseless for making such an ignorant remark. I think before you try to have a meaningful discussion with me, you might want to go and study a little more on biology and bio-chemistry... Until then, I believe I am wasting my time with you. Good day sir...

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Wow, while you are on this "life is so incredible hypocrisy", how about next time you decide on chomping down on some delicious meat, you go out there and kill the animal yourself, and then tell me life is so incredible, but death tastes so much better. Do you honestly believe the universe would be affected if all life on this planet were to cease existing? No.. In fact the universe would still exist if our entire solar system ceased existing.Earth is not the center of the univ

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 All the materials needed to create life can be found in in this universe and since there is life on this planet, the components needed to form life must be on or close to the planet earth. The conditions needed most likely will not happen naturally again without the help of an intelligent being, us. But that does not conclude that an intelligent being was needed for the conditions to exist when life was "created" the first time.

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 Before you use the "every watch requires a watch maker" analogy I'd like to remind you that an intelligent being needed to exist to make a watch, that's why you don't see any watches buried with the dinosaurs. But obviously there wasn't an intelligent being alive to create life so it must have happened naturally. If it can happen naturally without the need of an intelligent being, what is the purpose in bringing in, without any evidence, a supernatural intellectual being?

[sonofthunder79]

@rqm797 What I would really like for you to tell me is why you think it is so obvious that there is no god? You seem to easily overlook the fact that any life form (dinosaurs, as you put it), is far more complex than "watches". So what is it that makes you think that watches don't make themselves, yet living organisms do/have? And if you want to claim that life is self-creating/sustaining then will you present me with some evidence of that please? And don't waste your time referring me to other-

[sonofthunder79]

@sonofthunder79 bodies of work. If your mind is made up that there is no god, you should be able to explain to me why it is you think so in your own words. 

[rqm797]

@sonofthunder79 "If it can happen naturally without the need of an intelligent being,"... do you see any fossils of an intelligent being prior to the existence of the dinosaurs? No.. Intelligence is something gained through millions and millions of years of evolution. If there was an intelligent being involved don't you think he would have created intelligent life a little quicker than within hundreds of millions of years. Or maybe god didn't have the technology?

[AntiChrista4WPeace]

DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.

[theUKatheist]

i have one question. how does this prove anything? Richard Hawkins is not an idol or prophet. hes a biology professor who's been invited to debate a professional apologist.

if it happened and dawkins got beaten, he would be beaten by question not related to his proffesion. so who that hell cares!!

atheism is not a dogma we dont look up to dawkins like an idol, these videos you put up are making you all look very childish and making theists look bad.

if i was a theist i would be embarrassed.

[Al3xX420]

Before I even watch this video I gotta ask how anyone who is familiar with Professor Dawkins's work call him a coward. Not only is he the most outspoken atheist I've ever heard of, he actually went to the middle east and spoke to muslims about their ridiculous ideals!

[AtheistSpanker]

Atheists are afraid of the truth.

[torontoBluejays87]

@AtheistSpanker I know the truth. We evolved from more primitive ancestors. Ironic though, how it is you who is afraid of the truth. lol.

[AtheistSpanker]

@torontoBluejays87 Yes, atheist evolved from theoretical primordial poo. They are full of poo to this day because atheist are afraid of the truth.

[torontoBluejays87]

@AtheistSpanker Craig is not an atheist and fully accepts the theory (or should I say fact?) of Evolution. He also accepts that the earth is somewhere in the range of 4.5 billion years old. So I say to you my believing friend, is he afraid of the truth? I disagree with Craig on his spiritual beliefs but at least he knows what a scientific fact is...unlike yourself......

[AtheistSpanker]

@torontoBluejays87 Be true to your own philosophy and don't walk on yourself. True science will not call a theory a fact until it's been proven. Speaking of such did you know hat 90% of dating tests indicate a young earth. No, you didn't hear about that in your "in depth" studies did you? Did you know that if mankind had been here as long as evolutionists say there would be 150,000 people per square inch? I have many more but a 500 character limit restrains me. Atheists are afraid of the truth.

[torontoBluejays87]

@AtheistSpanker Why is Craig a sincere religious man who accepts the facts that I (a non-religious person) have stated? You need to read about what a scientific theory is again. A scientific theory is one that is built upon accumulated evidence in support of it. A theory in lay-mans terms is completely different and is what you are implying. Who knows, maybe you are right and Lord Krishna or Zeus created the universe...but not 10,000 years ago, that we do know.

[MrSeattleNative]

The debate should not be about whether gods exists, but, rather, about whether or not religion, better known as a belief in magic, is good for humanity, which it is not.

[MrFlathatter]

This may be the dumbest video I've seen on YouTube. WLC offers a "philosophical" argument as opposed to a scientific one. I watched his debate with Hitchens and some of what he said was simply gibberish. WLC didn't offer one objective fact or empirical argument for "Creation" that I could recognize as such.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

Dawkins has always been a spineless coward and is a disgrace to REAL scientists

Watch him get owned in the video below.....

/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo

TSF = evo-shill

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Dawkins Doesn't debate Creationists, That's always been his policy, And always will be.

[800mEric]

@ThePuppyTurtle William Lane Craig isn't a creationist. Furthermore, this situation is quite funny, LOL.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@800mEric Yes he is, He's listed as a DI Fellow on their Site, Making him an ID Proponent, Which is a Type of Creationist.

[Galmozzi99]

@ThePuppyTurtle David Berlinski is also a fellow at the DI and he is an Agnostic. Creation is hardly a requirement of the scholars there. Most just have the sense to accept it.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@Galmozzi99 How are you defining Creationism? Because if you mean YEC WLC isn't one. But if you use a more accurate Definition, Anything that Posits the direct Utilization of Magic by an Intelligent Agent to Create life, WLC and all DI Fellows are Creationists.

[Galmozzi99]

@ThePuppyTurtle wrote "How are you defining Creationism?" How about...Creation; the result or effect of a creator.

Berlinski though does not support ID other than arguing it should be treated as science just like competing theories on how gravity works are all treated as science. Read his books, there is no doubt about it. Sometimes for fun he takes the ID side in a debate but that for the sake of advancing the debate. He remains Agnostic and thus oes not assume creation.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@Galmozzi99 Berlinski is Irrelevent, Don't Change the Subject, WLC is s DI Fellow, Thus an ID proponent, Thus a Creationist.

[Scanini]

Religion lol.

[Galmozzi99]

Dawkins only succeeds against straw-men. While I would enjoy watching him self destruct against WLC, this running away is kinda funny. Too many you tube atheists think pointless 500 character comment debates solve anything but see no need for Dawkins to debate WLC. That's funny too.

[YhwhKhai]

@Galmozzi99 yeah I'm talking with someone now who continues to insist that a debate with Craig would be a waste of Dawkin's time. Why are folks covering up for this coward and his lame excuses about being too "busy" to debate Craig, but he will surely have enough time to debate a "bishop" or a "pope." What nonsense!

[kleykenb]

@Galmozzi99

WLC is a joke. All he does is cash in on scared religious folk. Folk scared of a world without a God. The process is simple really : paint a world without God as a world without morals, without purpose and without objective good and evil and most religious folk will avert their eyes as they prefer the ultimate bliss the Bible claims there to be at the end of the rainbow. Craig knowns only this deceit and you're the cash cow he likes to milk. Bought his book yet ?!

[toobsucker]

In other words Dawkins only debates Catholics that already believe in evolution

[wwwPizdecNet]

Ok, GOD exist ( it's can be ALIEN ). So what ? How you stupid FUCKS, link existence of remote ALIEN to FUCKING bible ? Who told you "god" what you to obey ? Who told you GOD is want somthing from you ? Why you think some remote ALIEN, care about you ? IST STUPID. It's 2 non paralel topics. Existence of "god/alien" and your fucking religion.

[bigspliffs]

Thank goodness there are Atheist's out there still, with the balls to step up to the plate with Dr.Craig.

I don't want to listen to pathetic slanderings and ad hominem attacks from Atheists. I want to listen to intelligent debate and healthy conversation on the subject of God and God's existence.

Honestly, Mr Dawkins is an embarrassment to integrity!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bigspliffs It's just that at this point, most atheists realize that neither Craig nor his following cares that he's demonstrably wrong.

[TheScienceFoundation]

Also, given that comments are off on literally every other one of your videos, don't you find the first bit hypocritical?

[bigspliffs]

@TheScienceFoundation If you agree to that, you must also agree that Mr Dawkins too, is being hypocritical.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bigspliffs Dawkins has never censored any of his work or claims from scrutiny, not accepting a debate is not censorship.

[bigspliffs]

@TheScienceFoundation "Always 'respect' the right of others to disagree with you."

Respect, i don't think he knows the meaning of the word.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bigspliffs How has he disrespected anyone?

[bigspliffs]

@TheScienceFoundation C'mon man, he disrespects anyone who isn't on his imaginary cloud of truth and justice lol

As for Craig, i'm not saying he is right. No one is right when it comes to the philosophical question of a creator. But to suggest that he or anyone is demonstrably wrong on a subject that cannot be answered is lacking in common sense.

I just want everyone to cut the bullshit and discuss with respect. Wouldn't you agree?

:)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bigspliffs You claim you want discussion, then sweepingly insult anyone who claims Craig is wrong without even asking for any counterpoints.

[bigspliffs]

@TheScienceFoundation Excuse me, but i missed the part where i 'sweepingly insulted anyone!' And i also said, "As for Craig, i'm not saying he is right."

Your comment makes no sense in light of this conversation.

Can we please stop the bullshit now?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@bigspliffs 'But to suggest that he or anyone is demonstrably wrong on a subject that cannot be answered is lacking in common sense.'

You're the only one bullshitting.

[drshamast]

@TheScienceFoundation " not accepting a debate is not censorship." Is Not Censorship but got to admit He is Coward............ poor guy I feel for him ............. He is smart he knows he is going to lose

[TheScienceFoundation]

@drshamast No, he already knows that Craigs arguments are nothing but specious garbage sold to even duller pseudo-intellectuals than Craig is so there's no point in giving him publicity.

[drshamast]

@TheScienceFoundation Dud you defend anyone with atheistic ideas Even thought  other atheists are saying he's a coward

[TheScienceFoundation]

@drshamast I challenge William Lane Craig to a debate right here, right now.

Look, he's not showing up. Is he a coward?

I challenge Shaq to a dunking contest, he's not showing up. He's a coward.

I challenge Fedor Emelianenko to a cage match, he's not here. He's a coward.

Did you ever consider since even Craigs largest cult follower here on youtube realizes that his work must be subjected to censorship that he's not worth Dawkins' time?

[TheScienceFoundation]

Cowardice plays no part, Craig is either ignorant or a charlatan. Either way he's been corrected on every argument on every level and there's no reason to give him publicity.

[gerontodon]

Cowardice could be a part of it. I'm not a Christian, but Craig is good at clarifying issues, and since Dawkins' position is primarily ideological, it's not surprising that he wouldn't particularly welcome that. Oh sorry, what am I thinking? he's a scientist, and an honest searcher for truth... yada yada.

[soomeno]

Was surprised the comment and likes part wasnt disabled, I can maybe ask the people you do believe in ID. Find me someone who actually answer the questions they are asked on debates. And, why they keep on presenting mis-representations (lies) and quote-mining.. etc .. Howcome one side almost never lies, but the other side almost always atleast refuse to answer a direct question, cant think of one debate where an ID-supporter answered the question and/or the follup-up

[fcdog555]

This video is bollocks