Richard Dawkins isn't a coward by any means... he's a smart man, thus he knows to avoid a debate with Dr. Craig because he knows he'll get his ass kicked.
It would be like Rocky 3. Craig being Clubber Lang. Maybe he would use some cheap tricks to knock Dawkins out while he was busy doing an exhibition bout with a wrestler (god) but he would come back stronger and totally kick his ass. Setting the wrongs of the world to rights in a universally profound manner (whilst still being english) thus proving once and for all religious people have been duped and should have not bothered. Its the, eye of the tiger, its the thrill of the fight, risin' up etc.
Dawkins refuses to debate him because he knows he'll get his rear end handed to him. Dawkins has no doubt seen the footage of how Craig totally eviscerated Hitchens and Atkins. I saw the video where Craig was making such excellent points, he toally stumped Atkins into silence and the modirater even joked that Atkins had better say something and quit looking like a deer in the headlights. Haha. Loved it.
Seems Dawkins is afraid of debating Craig. Though it's too bad Dr. Craig believes in the old age of the universe, when such an age cannot be absolutely proven, and it contradicts the Bible he claims to trust.
... you dont have a philosophical argument for if something exists or not it exists or it doesn't exist. Lane Craigs arguments are absurd. He does the exact same thing he bitches about the exact same thing he is accusing Dawkins of doing recently with YouTuber TheoreticalBullshit.
WLC argument : If God says or does it that ACTION at that moment becomes intrinsically good.
Other Person : Even when its killing and raping babies ?
... you are confusing my comments. The first one was setting up WLC hypocrisy in debating somebody smaller than him like he accuses Dawkins and the second is of his woeful arguments.
" what kind of argument do you suggest if not philosophical? "
- OK. Now this is gonna be radical but maybe it could have one based on EVIDENCE ?.
The same kind of ones we have for things that actually exist, like who has more money or the longest cock.
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I was an evolutionist for years until I sat down and really started asking questions which no evolutionist could answer and I realised creation at least partly answered them. Now I am fully behind Creationism and anything else sounds a bit silly
Not debating Craig is the right decision for him. Craig is a better speaker, he's better at drawing emotion from the audience, he's more animated and knows what people want to hear. Dawkins comes across as arrogant, like he's smarted and better than you, not that he thinks that, but it's how he sort of comes across. He's not a debater. He should only discuss evolution facts.
Sadly, the best one to stand against WLC recently died. We need another Hitch. A public speaker with personality and venom
Although I have ultimate respect and admiration for Dawkins...I have to admit I find it quite puzzling that he would have debated Kirk Cameron ( a real feather head who has the intelligence of a worm) and not Lane Craig.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Will Craig is the world leading defender of christian belief? The battle is won, the war is won! There isn't anything left to say! God is dead, and his children are dumb
Debate WITH. You debate WITH someone. You do not "debate a man".
How hard is this to understand?
Also, is it cowardice for a grown person to refuse to debate with a small child?
That is tantamount to the situation between Craig and Dawkins.
Dawkins thinks Craig is a crazed, psychotic flim-flam man, who's followers will believe anything he says regardless of how ridiculous it is. Dawkin's followers, on the other hand, are not stupid, and do not benefit from such a debate either.
@TheSmackerlacker It is quite extraordinary how determinded people like you are to evade the evidence: William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher with innumerable peer-reviewed articles and books to his credit. Do you really expect us to believe that such an individual, with postgraduate qualifications from Birmingham & Munich, is "crazed, psychotic", etc? If you believe that you believe it without any evidence whatsoever. Refute WLC's arguments, if you can; Dawkins' can't.
William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher? What the fuck is a professional philosopher? Does he own and operate a philosophy store?
What he is, is a conman. He cons stupid, gullible people like you into giving him loads of cash. That's it.
I don't care where he went to school, if he did at all. I don't care what qualifications you think he has. Lies are lies, no matter who says them. Bullshit is bullshit, and Craig spews bullshit everywhere he goes.
@TheSmackerlacker I have never given money to Mr Craig and I am not even sure I agree with some of his arguments; but to dismiss him as you do as though he were some kind of ignoramus is absurd. This is what Christopher Hitchens said about him: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable". You can see him saying this on utube.
@TheSmackerlacker If Christopher Hitchens could describe Dr Craig as "very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable" who are you to suggest that Dr Craig is a moron masquerading as a philosopher? I can assure you that you do not get published in the Journal of Philosophy without being a highly accomplished intellectual. I have spent several years studying at Cambridge University and he is more than a match for many of my professors. Grow up.
@bayreuth79 Furthermore, Craig's ridiculous arguments have been refuted time and again. A quick search on Youtube would render many examples.
Craig is simply the most persuasive of a dying breed of snake oil salesmen. He tells stupid, ignorant people that what they believe is true and they don't actually need to understand it, which is exactly what they want to hear.
Craig has no understanding of science, and no credibility whatsoever, and he's fucking annoying. As are you.
@TheSmackerlacker If Craig's arguments have been "refuted time and again" why is it that in all of his debates with atheists/agnostics they rarely even attempt to refute his arguments and when they do it is usually easily dealt with in Craig's rebuttal?
What I find monumentally idiotic about people like you is that you rave about evidence, but when you are confronted with evidence, you prefer to cling to your prejudices rather than allowing yourself to be challenged.
@TheSmackerlacker I should point out that I am studying astronomy at Cambridge Uni as a postgraduate, so please don't tell me that I have "no understanding of science"; I do! From what I have read, Dr Craig has a good understanding of science as well.
I recently met Professor John Polkinghorne who used to be a Theoretical Physicist at Cambridge Uni; and he is a Christian. I suppose he has no understanding of science either?!
@bayreuth79 Who the hell are you talking to, dude? At some point, you stopped talking to me, and started having an argument with someone who isn't here.
@TheSmackerlacker That is a rather evasive response. You don't like the evidence I presented, do you, that Craig is actually "very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable"?
@bayreuth79 Craig can be as rigorous, as scholarly, and as formidable as he wants. He's still wrong.
That's not the point I was making though. The point I was making is that all of the points you were making seemed to be conjured as a rebuttal to a statement or statements that I never made.
Bear in mind also that I find it very difficult to distinguish William Lane Craig from Kent Hovind, and any number of others who all make the same fallacious arguments over and over again.
@TheSmackerlacker To quote you, "Craig's ridiculous arguments have been refuted time and again". If his arguments are "ridiculous" and if they have been "refuted time and again", but he continues to use these arguments, which he does, then this hardly constitutes "rigourous, scholarly, and formidable", does it? Yet Hitchens thought that he is "rigorous, scholarly and formidable", so there is clearly something amiss with your comment that his arguments are "ridiculous".
@TheSmackerlacker "He's still wrong". Ok, please show us why his arguments are fallacious, rather than merely asserting it in order to inflate your own ego.
William Lane Craig is a highly respected philosopher; Kent Hovind isn't. Craig isn't a Creationist, but Hovind is. There is no comparison between Craig and Hovind. Hovind is a mediocrity or worse; Craig is a phd from Munich university.
@bayreuth79 The reality is that I can rarely stand to listen to these people for very long. They're so wrong so often that it makes me very angry while watching them, so I try to avoid it, unless I think they have something new to say, which is rare.
@bayreuth79 Let's get back to my original point, however. Refusing to have a debate with someone is not proof of cowardice. Saying that Dawkins is a coward because he won't have a debate with Craig is an unfounded, unnecessary explanation for something which has already been satisfactorily explained.
Dawkins also wasn't willing to debate with the banana man. Does that mean he was afraid? No. It means he didn't think it was worthwhile.
@TheSmackerlacker The reasons that Dawkins has given for not debating William Lane Craig are ridiculous reasons. If Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are correct in saying that he has to be respected, then I can see no reason other than cowardice for Dawkins to refuse to debate him. I thought Dawkins is interested in truth? If Dawkins is prepared to debate McGrath and Lennox, why not Craig? Lennox gave Dawkins a public beating, so perhaps that's why Dawkins in avoiding Craig.
@bayreuth79 Also, I do believe I owe an apology. I became uncivil. I try to not let my emotions control me, but when it comes to this sort of thing, it can be difficult at times.
With so much at stake, the slightest error in judgement can have catastrophic consequences for our future, and that concerns me greatly.
As a result, I sometimes become emotional when selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal profit.
@TheSmackerlacker "I sometimes become emotional when selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal profit". I also get very angry when "selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal gain", as you say. I loath people like Kent Hovind and Benny Hinn; but William Lane Craig is not in that category. He is not a multi-millionaire manipulator of the masses; he is a university professor of philosophy.
@TheSmackerlacker I wonder if you have ever considered Richard Dawkins motives? He is making an awful lot of money from his role as public atheist No.1. His atrociously argued book "The God Delusion", which Terry Eagleton gave a scathing review to, must have made him a wealthy individual. Dawkins must be aware that his book is philosophically mediocre; he's even been told as much by fellow atheists! I cannot help but believe that he saw an opportunity to make a lot of money...!
@bayreuth79 Again, I'm not here to champion the cause of Richard Dawkins. His motives and his reasons are not what concern me. Frankly, I like Hitchens a lot better, but that's beside the point.
Also, don't mistake my contrition for sympathy to your position. I sit firmly in the camp of "Dawkins is right and Craig is wrong.", and so far, have been presented no argument that should dissuade me.
I haven't read the God delusion, nor is my perception of Dawkins based on it.
@TheSmackerlacker If you prefer Christopher Hitchens to Richard Dawkins then perhaps you might be inclined to prefer Hitchens' much more sympathetic & reasonable assessment of W L Craig than Dawkins' absurdly unfair assessment?
It might be the case that there is no God; but I find Richard Dawkins' arguments against belief wholly unpersuasive. And the reason they fail to persuade is because he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of what we mean by "God". He is not attacking a strawman
@bayreuth79 It's pretty damned hard to have a sophisticated understanding of what anyone means by "God". Indeed, for every believer there is a different version.
The fact is that there is no objectively established physical or psychological profile for this God person.
That's why there are more than 33,000 different denominations of Christianity in the US alone, and it's also why, when I first questioned my "faith", I found that "God" was mostly whatever I wanted him to be.
@TheSmackerlacker The problem- it seems to me- is a lack of proper theological education amongst Jews, Christains and Muslims. Your average religious person knows very little about their own tradition, especially the more intellectual aspects of these traditions. Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and al-Ghazali were intellectual geniuses of the highest rank; but, unfortunately, people are not inclined toward difficult philosophical texts.
@TheSmackerlacker "God" doesn't mean whatever you want it to me if you are within a particular religious tradition. I think that most reasonably educated religious people would agree that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"- in other words, if you can think of something greater than what you label "God" it is by definition not God.
I would also so that "God" answers the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"; "why is there being instead of non-being?"
@TheSmackerlacker I agree with the apophatic (negative) theological discourse of thinkers such as Maimonides (Jew) Thomas Aquinas (Catholic) and Gregory Palamas (Eastern Orthodox). We can know that God is, but not what God is. In fact, all of our positive assertions about God (omnipotence, immutable, etcetera) do not denote his substance, but an absence in him. "God is immutable" does not mean that God is static, but rather that there is an absence of change within him.
@TheSmackerlacker What do you mean by "objectively established physical or psychological profile for... God..."? If God is the reason why there is being rather than non-being, then it follows that what ever God is in himself he is not physical; and, morever, he is not one thing amongst others competing for "space" in the universe, for he is the reason there is anything rather than nothing. God can never be a object; he is always a subject.
@TheSmackerlacker It is impossible to have a "psycholoical profile" of God. This is anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to God). You cannot psychologically profile an infinte mind that is the source of all intellience and rationality within finite being.
@bayreuth79 God has no clearly defined characteristics whatsoever. Nowhere in any supposedly holy book is his actual being ever described. All we have are secondary, tertiary, or even negative attributes. No primary attributes of "God" are ever given.
In case you're still not sure what I'm talking about, I'll spell it out for you.
@bayreuth79 Furthermore, if Yahweh is not an object, he does not exist. Plain and simple. If he has no physical being, then he is nothing more than a concept.
If Yahweh does exist, then he does so entirely outside of nature, hence, he is supernatural.
If he is supernatural, then there is no sense that I or any other natural being can possess that would detect him, thus there is no possibility of establish affirmative proof of his existence.
And since he has no ontology there is no way to argue the existence of what he supposedly is, because that has yet to be established.
I cannot argue that something does or does not exist, without first establishing WHAT it is. If you wish to argue that Yahweh does not exist in any physical sense, but only an intangible one, as you have done, then I would completely agree.
So then, we are in agreement. Yahweh does not exist.
@Ozzi4Japan: You only say that because you're a brainwashed fundamentalist that hates Dawkins because he says things you don't like — you don't care about actual truth.
Interesting how now the atheists want to strike at the very existence of Jesus. They do so because He is very inconvenient for them. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies which were made hundreds of years before He was born. He performed miracles, he raised others from the dead, and finally rose from the dead himself. The atheists now try to say He never existed because they know there were witnesses, Christian and non-Christian to all of this. Shame on you, you God-haters.
@Iceland1944 The "prophecies" Christians like to point to aren't prophecies at all, and even then this would mean that the writers of the Gospels had the OT at their disposal. This is merely typology and nothing more. (You also fail to mention how the Jesus of the NT is the complete opposite of the Messiah the Jews were expecting). Only by taken for granted that the NT is factual does one believe the miracles. There were no witnesses to Jesus; not even the Gospels can be trusted.
@Iceland1944 There are no "god-haters" here. We are Atheists and sceptics. What would be the point in hating something that has never been verified to exist in the first place?
If Craig doesn't argue against methodological naturalism in science then what is Dawkins there to talk about? Why would Dawkins care one way or the other if his proposal doesn't retard science like other religious views. If I were in Dawkins shoes I would refuse a debate because it would be a waste of time.
Decent video by the way. All that editing looked pretty good.
@stvnblmr1 He said he would debate bishops but not a Doctor ? You cant make the bold comments he does about religious people avoiding debates when HE does it himself.
@emnity33 A couple things here. A Doctorate doesn't necessarily qualify you to discuss what should be taught in schools. He would likely debate bishops because he isn't like Hitchens. Hitchens finds interest in debating with people who just make shit up on a whim. While Dawkins is more for advancing fields of sciences and education.
Not sure what bold statement your talking about, but I will agree with you if the conditions are the same. That is hypocritical, and in this case it is detestable.
I don't get what could be beneficial from an Atheist debating a Creationist, Craig's arguments are horrid logical fallacies that make people think but are always rather pointless in the long run and don't benefit society or encourage progression of our race, the same I used to make when I was religious.
They are really trying to pump up this non-issue, the Craig-Dawkins debate, for all it is worth. Craig is a phoney and any cursory check of his CV would show you that. " Philosophical argument " is bullshit and Craig has no more evidence to put forward for the existence of " magic man " than any other religious wackaloon.
Is that the play of you wackaloons? It is a typical creationist ploy just to accuse someone in biology of what you creationists really are. Richard Dawkins is a member of The Royal Society. He has a doctorate in ethology from Oxford University. He, when a working scientists, had his paper sited many times. Craig is know as two site Craig. Craig is a humanities blowhard and, in reference to your answer, so are you.
Sorry but "a philosophical argument" is NOT the same as "scientific argument". If you get a Philosophical degree you get a BA (Bachelor of Arts, so it's regards as an art/humanities but not a science. It's really like saying that Stephen Hawkins should debate flying with JK Rowkling.
@bakersteven3 The question of god IS a philosophical question and not a scientific question. You cannot answer the question "Does God exist?" using a scientific arguement. I haven't read all dawkins work but im sure his arguements are fundamentally based on philosophy and not science.
@Bernardatious There are plenty of arguments like that and the VAST majority of scientist line up on the same side here, that everything points to god not existing.
He should have never taken on any religious debate, IMO. Religion and reason are not 2 opposite points on the same subject. There's an overlap, but religion is not about reason and reason is not about having faith. Neither side is gonna convince the other this way. Religion is secularizing in the bigger picture anyhow. (example: christians don't stone/burn/torture people anymore out of religious conviction)
I would also like to point out that recognition does not and never has or will indicate genius. recognition is simply gained by people agreeing with what you are saying and promoting it, in philosophy we will never understand and perceive how others do, so to agree with another is to deny your own perceptions and understandings, you can become a Dr; much like William Lane Craig simply by being backed by idiots. Philosophical recognition means nothing.
Nobody should ever waste time talking with creationists. They deserve just ridicule and laughter untill they hide in shame. craig is a professional high pressure hose of bullshit.
and to question reality is to question your faith in God if you're of a religious background, purely by asking are we real you are asking well I believe God created us but have we really been created? anybody seeing the problem? philosophy has no belief or relevance to life or science, you cannot use it with a scientific background because science is relevant to this world and philosophy isn't, however philosophy is relevant in a psychological arguement, but psychology cannot prove God
And it is obvious that Dr Craig is one of these people who says "in my head i'm right" because he's spent his entire life trying to prove God right, he's not basing his research on psychology and science, he's basing it on philosophy and science; problem with this is that philosophy is all just crap because psychologically our understanding of fundamentals is different in each and every one of us and is based purely on thought not reality, it questions reality...
For someone who is a philospher, you would've thought that Dr Craig would realise his own psychological weaknesses, before you can even begin to comprehend your surroundings for their fundamentals you must comprehend yourself and in this it is obvious he has no idea what or who he is as a psychological being whereas Prof Dawkins has atleast contemplated his fundamental psychological workings. You can't debate someone who's just going to say in my head i'm right
Atheism is not a collaboration, it's a stamp, we who reject god need to have for theist to understand that we don't care about their silly imagination. Atheism not a religion.
I'v said it many times now, debates without a judge is for entertainment, or promotional purposes for the people involved...
Trust me? Why would you need to trust me? I would never trust anyone on the internet, I would do my own research and make my own opinion on everything I take a stand in.
"Dawkins saw what Craig did to Hitchens and will make any excuse not to debate him"
Do you think Dawkins sits around watching debates on YouTube? Do you think if he saw Craig debate Hitchens, he'd have been impressed with Craig? Really?
The irony is that Dawkins declined to debate Craig BEFORE the Hitchens debate. After the Hitchens debate, Dawkins changed his mind and DID debate Craig (albeit in a 3 on 3 format).
The childish taunting makes for clever publicity though.
Case in point. Look at how much mileage the Craig camp gets from claiming Dawkins is afraid of Craig. When the truth is that they have publicly debated in 2010. So exactly what point is being made.
If I know everything I say will be twisted misquoted and taken out of context I think the smart thing would be to walk away and not give them quotes to mine.
@littlecoloreddots As far as I know, other atheists have criticized Dawkins for being a coward, and it's mostly this user called Birdieupon who has a slight obsession with Dawkins not argueing with dr Craig.
One need only look at the shameless quote mining and dishonest representations that followed the debate with Sam Harris to know why one would want nothing to do with Craig and his followers. They claimed victory when the reality is that Craig got his head handed to him.
lol, comically, pretty much all creationist videos seem to have highly biased admins, won't surprise me if the comments get moderated and ratings disabled after a while.
Yet more evidence of religion in it's death throes, they can't even come on youtube and get positive results, let alone the real world
Even funnier - if you listen to 'MoonwalkerWorshiper' you should all be killing yourselves right now, because you have no religion or belief in god, you're society is in a state of collapse, murder/rape/genocide is rife.
I bet you're too frightened to even open the curtains and look outside for fear of having your house set on fire by rampant sinning atheists........................ ;-)
@Siedlerdeo [The funny part of all this is that I'm from sweden]
Då förstår du vad jag säger nu?
[I wonder if we get to look at society in 500 years, how much has changed by then?]
Like I said I suppose christianity have grown much more developed and deep into the hearts of men, to the point conflicts are happening as much any longer and our societies aren't governed by machines too much. I'm still waiting for you self-proclaimed scientist/body builder to answer my questions.
They've even found a way around 'moderation' of video's : they just 'mirror' them and then remove the original. That way all negative ratings and comments get binned.
Of course, everybody by now should know not to watch movies that have comments and ranking disabled. The fellow that posted this vid does the second worst thing : get very active in comments on his OWN video ! It's not just a Troll, it's a Fishing Troll !
I wouldn't want to debate Craig if I was Dawkins, for 2 reasons.
1, Craig would win the "debate". Because he doesn't debate god, he debates a philosophical god. So there is no real debate, only Craig, giving the appearance of having won the debate by self promotion, even in the debate.
2, Craig doesn't seek to prove god with science, He only seeks to make god "the best explanation" as he have said himself. Why on earth would one want to debate philosophy when your a scientist?
@Siedlerdeo [Why on earth would one want to debate philosophy when your a scientist?]
You should ask Richard Dawkins that, he's the biologist who attempt philosophy in his book God Delusion. Sure it's probably dr Craig's fault. Let's just say that any possible thought error made by Dawkins is automatically Craig's fault.
I see no reason to debate a Philosopher on science. And Dawkins probably doesn't ether. That's why the debate doesn't happen.
I'v watched many of Craigs debates and there is not a shred of real evidence, it's just a discussion for him, to win the discussion is to win the debate in his view.
And that is not what it is about for a scientist, It's about proving the truth, and providing evidence.
Exactly; if Dawkins does the debate, WLC gets platform and worldwide audience, Dawkins fails to convince a deluded man and his followers - WLC then claims victory and we never hear the end of it.
First of all, the question if god exists or not is not a debate topic. A debate is by default a way to fence with words, and brings nothing but opinions to the table.
The only table where one should discuss the existence of god is on a scientific level, with the scientific method.
Otherwise it's just philosophy, and opinions, and apologists and debaters and all other kind of bullshit, diverting the attention from the real question.
@Siedlerdeo [the question if god exists or not is not a debate topic]
That's a very stupid thing to say given that much smarter and educated men than you and me have used exactly that topic for academic debates, articles and books. Writing and saying stupid things only makes you look stupid, see.
[brings nothing but opinions to the table]
If the subject is not completely covered with verified science, arguments are required. It stimulates your brain, if you pay attention.
@Siedlerdeo [I and most of the scientific community measure the world with evidence]
According to theism, God is not a subject OF the world but OUTSIDE of it. I wonder why it's so hard for some people to figure out what God is about. It's not a physical entity which you can measure with instruments.
[that's all it is, entertainment]
How do you know that it's all entertainment and that it doesn't have any educational value?
1. "According to theism, God is not a subject OF the world" Theism is saying theism cannot me measured by physics? I guess we just have to have faith in theism then. haha
2 "How do you know that it's all entertainment and that it doesn't have any educational value?"
Educational value is not the point, proving a theory, like the theory of god can only be done with evidence, and I know because no evidence is presented, only discussion. haha
Right there you are already beginning to sound like a fascist. Just an observation, but keep in mind that nothing good can come out of "if you think different from me you are...either this or that".
[a person that doesn't need evidence, and operates on faith.]
I operate on faith and evidence.
[And we have nothing more to discuss.]
If you don't have any arguments, and magically decide you are right, then yeah but that would be an immature attitude
Alright, I see evidence and faith as polars, opposite ends on the same line. To you this must be deluded, as you are deluded for believing in imaginary beings.
That aside, I am chatting with you because you commented on my comment, and I was hoping you had some evidence for your faith in god.
So far you have not produced said evidence, and only try to "reason" with inaccurate facts behind you. Or no facts at all.
I have nothing to gain from talking with you obv.
This is true, in order to prove or disprove god - we refer to scientific evidence, there is zero supporting the existence of god, so we revert to philosophical faith-based discussion - which is all well and good - but I think greasy individuals such as WLC seek to simply benefit from the fame and support the debate brings them, regardless of the outcome.
@grexory [in order to prove or disprove god - we refer to scientific evidence]
Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm.
[I think greasy individuals such as WLC seek to simply benefit from the fame]
In what way, and how is he "greasy"? Are you going to explain yourself soon?
"Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm"
what? we couldn't have a scientific debate about science ? what the hell are you talking about? when we have scientific debates about global warming - we don't throw out evidence and rely on philosophy!
WLC is greasy because he's on a mission to preach his bullshit.
@grexory Like they said about Harris vs WLC, Craig won the debate but Harris won the argument.
And still it doesn't matter, because it's only a debate.
The bottom line is that God has no merit, besides a man written book, and grand assumptions about stuff we don't yet know. The only way we can know heads or tails, is by evidence.
I think WLC is on a mission, and like all other people so hopelessly lost in their faith, will never back down, for fame or for god. He will always be deluded.
There's is no way a scientist can hope to win a 'god' argument.
If I want to, I can sit here all say reading the script from 'ghostbusters' and convince my deluded self that Slimer is a real ghost, there's no evidence but there doesn't need to be because it's faith based.
If my faith is strong enough (which it might be) no amount of debating will sway me, I might look stupid, but I don't care because I have my undying faith in Ghostbusters.
That is the problem with religion, you can have that argument about everything, I think gummy bears created the universe and when I eat gummibears I am one with the lord gummi bear! haha
The only way to see what is right and what is wrong, is to measure it from the outside, and that is what the scientific method is about, unbiased observation.
Religion skips all that, and makes science obsolete, because you don't need to prove anything, you only need to believe.
@grexory I kind of notice how you and Siedlerdeo begins to talk more with each other than me in order to escape and ignore the pressure I put you under, so you can comfortably push my comments under a pile of religious mockery unrelated to the subject being discussed. If intelligence is insufficient, try covering your ears and convince each other you are intelligent. You see from my point of view you two could just aswell be creationists, because your behavior is similar.
You call yourself intelligent? how can an intelligent person say what you said earlier, and I quote;
"Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm"
How can you call yourself intelligent after writing that?
As for Siedlerdeo - I have no idea who he is, but there's nothing wrong with 2 people agreeing.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper " you and Siedlerdeo begins to talk more with each other than me in order to escape"
We are not collaborating against you, we are talking on the subject with each other because we share the same thoughts and enjoy the subject obv. "and ignore the pressure I put you under"
@grexory [Dawkins fails to convince a deluded man and his followers]
Of course, if atheism doesn't have sufficient philosophical and evidental "meat" it doesn't get any points. Since atheism doesn't survive under scutiny Dawkins FLEES. Don't try to kid yourself otherwise.
[WLC then claims victory and we never hear the end of it.]
No you won't. Regardless of how much cowardice there is within New Atheism, it doesn't affect christianity.
@Siedlerdeo [I see no reason to debate a Philosopher on science.]
I thought the God Delusion was about religion not science? They were suppose to argue the God Delusion.
What's wrong with discussions? Craig never says that he "wins" them.
A biologist is suppose to prove things within biology. An apologetic is suppose to prove things within christianity. Both men are doing their duties. The biologist wrote a cheap philosophy book. The apologist tackles with it.
Have you thought about writing a screenplay for a film or play which you could compose the music for? You could write a novel so that you can get a fan base to justify financing your film or play.
I've been writing a novel based on ideas I have for a film. I want various people to contribute to the soundtrack. It would be a privilege to hire you and an honour to hire Slipknot.
Why would Dawkins bother with a debate with WLC anyway? WLC simply wants it because he needs the platform to rant ignorant creationist BS from - that's the only reason.
Dawkins however needs no such platform, he's written world-wide best sellers on the subject.
Rather than debate the existence of god - they could instead invite WLC for a debate on the existence of ghosts and unicorns, why is it always limited to god.
@grexory [Why would Dawkins bother with a debate with WLC anyway?]
Because WLC is the best known christian apologetics of modern time, that's why. Your ignorant question has been answered.
[he's written world-wide best sellers on the subject]
Atheists tend to buy books written by atheists and not theist, while as dr Craig have written more books than Dawkins that are more sophisticated but have sold less.
Because WLC is stuck in the stone ages, in the developed world (UK/Europe) we're leaving religion behind, churches are closing secularism is on a steady increase, the debate is over and the outcome is clear
The pioneering work Dawkins did on evolution and genetics in the has massively increased our knowledge across the entire spectrum of life, explaining how things are the way they are.
WLC can argue for god, but it's meager and puny in the face of Dawkins achievements.
See I knew you would reply back some immature crap like that. Your question was answered, that's it. Craig is the best known christian apologetic and that makes him suitable to debate for Dawkins, and it's not a matter of liking Craig as a person or not. The purpose of debate IS because you DISAGREE with your opponent for fucking sakes. I answered your question, you can't handle it, you throw up excuses.
It doesn't matter how good or bad WLC is, the debate has been had enough times and the outcome is crystal clear - religion lost and is being pushed under the carpet in an increasingly secular society, (Look at the UK and Europe).
Dawkins doesn't need to waste time going over the same arguments over and over, his position is crystal clear. No amount of debating skill or knowledge will convince delusional individuals they're wrong
As far as I know Dawkins have never defended his God Delusion book. I'm about to watch the stuff with John Lennox and see if there's something about it there. Lennox is btw not a bischop either yet Dawkins debated him, which again goes to show Dawkins is talking lots of rubbish. I'm kind of sick of getting told rubbish to me. It doesn't matter if you think Dawkins position is "crystal clear" because his position holds no water.
Holds no water? a person who's only helped to advance our understanding of all life on earth, who's timeless scientific contributions will go on and on, that's meaningless to you is it?
What you should remember is that Dawkins was famous before the god delusion was written, the selfish gene was written in the 70's and is still a best seller today
There are thousands of people who dogmatically argue for the existence of god, but that's all they do and WLC is no exception.
@grexory *sorry "give a reason NOT to face dr Craig"*
[a person who's only helped to advance our understanding of all life on earth]
But he hasn't helped to advance our understanding of spiritual faith, rather the opposite, by writing such an intellectually superficial book he's making the progress slow down. Dr Craig is a person who gets christian faith back up on its intellectual feet. (con)
Dawkins shouldn't debate WLC, because he'd be giving a worldwide platform to a person who'd use it only to preach religious belief.
As i've already said, nothing that WLC says is new, nothing he says hasn't been said before - you're talking as though he's some kind of messiah - like he's got something important to say - he hasn't.
We don't need christian faith, we're doing fine sweeping it under the carpet along with WLC.
@grexory [he'd be giving a worldwide platform to a person who'd use it only to preach religious belief]
Still not a valid excuse. Dawkins have debated other religious people like Lennox. Didn't he gave them a platform to fame and preaching while acknowledging them? You're a tool, how about you start use your brain when you claim you belong to the camp that has one. Even so, Craig uses arguments not preaching.
Careful, don't insult me and call me a tool when, you can't even construct a coherent sentence, because it makes you look like a halfwit.
Just because Dawkins has debated other creationists doesn't mean he has to go over the same debate over and over again.
This is the comical thing about creationists, even though religion is a lost cause and is being torn to bits everywhere you look - the delusional state of mind makes it impossible for them to quit.
@grexory [Just because Dawkins has debated other creationists doesn't mean he has to go over the same debate over and over again]
Craig does. You complain that people like Craig gives the same arguments over and over, but that's because they face different opponents you idiot. If the arguments are valid, they're going to be used over and over and they stand the test of confrontation. Dawkins doesn't do this because he sucks at making a valid case for atheism.
@grexory And I find it interesting and in a way distasteful that so many american populist atheists actually choose to turn things around and make it into a bad thing that we got a christian giving intellectual arguments for his religion. At the one side of your mouth you complain there is no rational basis for christianity. When someone gives you a basis you moan "not again, can't we just sweep it under the carpet". Fucking well done, how RATIONAL you are.
Richard Dawkins isn't a coward by any means... he's a smart man, thus he knows to avoid a debate with Dr. Craig because he knows he'll get his ass kicked.
Povidius 1 hour ago
It would be like Rocky 3. Craig being Clubber Lang. Maybe he would use some cheap tricks to knock Dawkins out while he was busy doing an exhibition bout with a wrestler (god) but he would come back stronger and totally kick his ass. Setting the wrongs of the world to rights in a universally profound manner (whilst still being english) thus proving once and for all religious people have been duped and should have not bothered. Its the, eye of the tiger, its the thrill of the fight, risin' up etc.
fillyfresh 5 hours ago
Fight, fight, fight fight!
fillyfresh 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins refuses to debate him because he knows he'll get his rear end handed to him. Dawkins has no doubt seen the footage of how Craig totally eviscerated Hitchens and Atkins. I saw the video where Craig was making such excellent points, he toally stumped Atkins into silence and the modirater even joked that Atkins had better say something and quit looking like a deer in the headlights. Haha. Loved it.
Yrhp8268 15 hours ago
Comment removed
Yrhp8268 15 hours ago
Seems Dawkins is afraid of debating Craig. Though it's too bad Dr. Craig believes in the old age of the universe, when such an age cannot be absolutely proven, and it contradicts the Bible he claims to trust.
terminat1 18 hours ago
... you dont have a philosophical argument for if something exists or not it exists or it doesn't exist. Lane Craigs arguments are absurd. He does the exact same thing he bitches about the exact same thing he is accusing Dawkins of doing recently with YouTuber TheoreticalBullshit.
WLC argument : If God says or does it that ACTION at that moment becomes intrinsically good.
Other Person : Even when its killing and raping babies ?
WLC : Yes
Other Person : Dick
NefariousVirtuoso88 2 days ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88 But you can be a Dick and exist.
Richard Dawkins is just another Dick, and he obviously exists.
Seriously though, what kind of argument do you suggest if not philosophical?
punochi 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punochi
... you are confusing my comments. The first one was setting up WLC hypocrisy in debating somebody smaller than him like he accuses Dawkins and the second is of his woeful arguments.
" what kind of argument do you suggest if not philosophical? "
- OK. Now this is gonna be radical but maybe it could have one based on EVIDENCE ?.
The same kind of ones we have for things that actually exist, like who has more money or the longest cock.
NefariousVirtuoso88 2 days ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88 If those kind of arguments interest you, you may be interested in who has the bigger balls too. Scroll up and watch the video.
It aint Dawkins, and that's based on the evidence.
Happy?
punochi 6 hours ago
@NefariousVirtuoso88 ....wat?!
Ulitmadusk 13 hours ago
William Lane Craig is, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, "formidable". I have a lot of respect for him, even though I wholeheartedly disagree.
leelue7 2 days ago
Im not an atheist but are they going to pay him if not it is a waist of his time
faithfisherstar 2 days ago
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I was an evolutionist for years until I sat down and really started asking questions which no evolutionist could answer and I realised creation at least partly answered them. Now I am fully behind Creationism and anything else sounds a bit silly
Thegreenandwhitearmy 2 days ago
@Thegreenandwhitearmy God is face palming right now....Why can't evolution be true? And why can't God exist at the same time?
ScienceTimeWithMrC 2 days ago
@ScienceTimeWithMrC
Evolution was divinely directed by the hand of God!
TuAbuelaCatolica 1 day ago
@TuAbuelaCatolica Which God? The Bible doesn't teach evolution.
terminat1 18 hours ago
@TuAbuelaCatolica Okay....so why do you follow creationism?
Erdos2n 18 hours ago
"two citations" Craig sounds mad.
DizzyDisco93 3 days ago
Not debating Craig is the right decision for him. Craig is a better speaker, he's better at drawing emotion from the audience, he's more animated and knows what people want to hear. Dawkins comes across as arrogant, like he's smarted and better than you, not that he thinks that, but it's how he sort of comes across. He's not a debater. He should only discuss evolution facts.
Sadly, the best one to stand against WLC recently died. We need another Hitch. A public speaker with personality and venom
tommy605 3 days ago
Although I have ultimate respect and admiration for Dawkins...I have to admit I find it quite puzzling that he would have debated Kirk Cameron ( a real feather head who has the intelligence of a worm) and not Lane Craig.
atheistexchristian 3 days ago
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Will Craig is the world leading defender of christian belief? The battle is won, the war is won! There isn't anything left to say! God is dead, and his children are dumb
AMpufnstuf 3 days ago
Meh, Forget Craig!, Lennox has already handed dawkins his loud mouth ignorant stupid arse on a silver platter using simple rationality and logic.
85Aheadstix 4 days ago
WLC do not debate anyone, he spews his "lecture" to the believers
VogonJ 4 days ago
WLC is a moron.
immoley 4 days ago
Debate WITH. You debate WITH someone. You do not "debate a man".
How hard is this to understand?
Also, is it cowardice for a grown person to refuse to debate with a small child?
That is tantamount to the situation between Craig and Dawkins.
Dawkins thinks Craig is a crazed, psychotic flim-flam man, who's followers will believe anything he says regardless of how ridiculous it is. Dawkin's followers, on the other hand, are not stupid, and do not benefit from such a debate either.
TheSmackerlacker 5 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker It is quite extraordinary how determinded people like you are to evade the evidence: William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher with innumerable peer-reviewed articles and books to his credit. Do you really expect us to believe that such an individual, with postgraduate qualifications from Birmingham & Munich, is "crazed, psychotic", etc? If you believe that you believe it without any evidence whatsoever. Refute WLC's arguments, if you can; Dawkins' can't.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
Comment removed
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher? What the fuck is a professional philosopher? Does he own and operate a philosophy store?
What he is, is a conman. He cons stupid, gullible people like you into giving him loads of cash. That's it.
I don't care where he went to school, if he did at all. I don't care what qualifications you think he has. Lies are lies, no matter who says them. Bullshit is bullshit, and Craig spews bullshit everywhere he goes.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker I have never given money to Mr Craig and I am not even sure I agree with some of his arguments; but to dismiss him as you do as though he were some kind of ignoramus is absurd. This is what Christopher Hitchens said about him: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable". You can see him saying this on utube.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker If Christopher Hitchens could describe Dr Craig as "very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable" who are you to suggest that Dr Craig is a moron masquerading as a philosopher? I can assure you that you do not get published in the Journal of Philosophy without being a highly accomplished intellectual. I have spent several years studying at Cambridge University and he is more than a match for many of my professors. Grow up.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Furthermore, Craig's ridiculous arguments have been refuted time and again. A quick search on Youtube would render many examples.
Craig is simply the most persuasive of a dying breed of snake oil salesmen. He tells stupid, ignorant people that what they believe is true and they don't actually need to understand it, which is exactly what they want to hear.
Craig has no understanding of science, and no credibility whatsoever, and he's fucking annoying. As are you.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker What's even more annoying are those intelligent atheists such as D.Came who aren't buying Dawkins bullshit.
punochi 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker If Craig's arguments have been "refuted time and again" why is it that in all of his debates with atheists/agnostics they rarely even attempt to refute his arguments and when they do it is usually easily dealt with in Craig's rebuttal?
What I find monumentally idiotic about people like you is that you rave about evidence, but when you are confronted with evidence, you prefer to cling to your prejudices rather than allowing yourself to be challenged.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker I should point out that I am studying astronomy at Cambridge Uni as a postgraduate, so please don't tell me that I have "no understanding of science"; I do! From what I have read, Dr Craig has a good understanding of science as well.
I recently met Professor John Polkinghorne who used to be a Theoretical Physicist at Cambridge Uni; and he is a Christian. I suppose he has no understanding of science either?!
You have blind faith in Dawkins, I'm afriad. Sad.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Who the hell are you talking to, dude? At some point, you stopped talking to me, and started having an argument with someone who isn't here.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker That is a rather evasive response. You don't like the evidence I presented, do you, that Craig is actually "very rigourous, very scholarly, very formidable"?
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Craig can be as rigorous, as scholarly, and as formidable as he wants. He's still wrong.
That's not the point I was making though. The point I was making is that all of the points you were making seemed to be conjured as a rebuttal to a statement or statements that I never made.
Bear in mind also that I find it very difficult to distinguish William Lane Craig from Kent Hovind, and any number of others who all make the same fallacious arguments over and over again.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker To quote you, "Craig's ridiculous arguments have been refuted time and again". If his arguments are "ridiculous" and if they have been "refuted time and again", but he continues to use these arguments, which he does, then this hardly constitutes "rigourous, scholarly, and formidable", does it? Yet Hitchens thought that he is "rigorous, scholarly and formidable", so there is clearly something amiss with your comment that his arguments are "ridiculous".
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker "He's still wrong". Ok, please show us why his arguments are fallacious, rather than merely asserting it in order to inflate your own ego.
William Lane Craig is a highly respected philosopher; Kent Hovind isn't. Craig isn't a Creationist, but Hovind is. There is no comparison between Craig and Hovind. Hovind is a mediocrity or worse; Craig is a phd from Munich university.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 The reality is that I can rarely stand to listen to these people for very long. They're so wrong so often that it makes me very angry while watching them, so I try to avoid it, unless I think they have something new to say, which is rare.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Let's get back to my original point, however. Refusing to have a debate with someone is not proof of cowardice. Saying that Dawkins is a coward because he won't have a debate with Craig is an unfounded, unnecessary explanation for something which has already been satisfactorily explained.
Dawkins also wasn't willing to debate with the banana man. Does that mean he was afraid? No. It means he didn't think it was worthwhile.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker The reasons that Dawkins has given for not debating William Lane Craig are ridiculous reasons. If Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are correct in saying that he has to be respected, then I can see no reason other than cowardice for Dawkins to refuse to debate him. I thought Dawkins is interested in truth? If Dawkins is prepared to debate McGrath and Lennox, why not Craig? Lennox gave Dawkins a public beating, so perhaps that's why Dawkins in avoiding Craig.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Also, I do believe I owe an apology. I became uncivil. I try to not let my emotions control me, but when it comes to this sort of thing, it can be difficult at times.
With so much at stake, the slightest error in judgement can have catastrophic consequences for our future, and that concerns me greatly.
As a result, I sometimes become emotional when selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal profit.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker "I sometimes become emotional when selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal profit". I also get very angry when "selfish, abusive people use religion as a tool to misinform for personal gain", as you say. I loath people like Kent Hovind and Benny Hinn; but William Lane Craig is not in that category. He is not a multi-millionaire manipulator of the masses; he is a university professor of philosophy.
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker I wonder if you have ever considered Richard Dawkins motives? He is making an awful lot of money from his role as public atheist No.1. His atrociously argued book "The God Delusion", which Terry Eagleton gave a scathing review to, must have made him a wealthy individual. Dawkins must be aware that his book is philosophically mediocre; he's even been told as much by fellow atheists! I cannot help but believe that he saw an opportunity to make a lot of money...!
bayreuth79 4 days ago
@bayreuth79 Again, I'm not here to champion the cause of Richard Dawkins. His motives and his reasons are not what concern me. Frankly, I like Hitchens a lot better, but that's beside the point.
Also, don't mistake my contrition for sympathy to your position. I sit firmly in the camp of "Dawkins is right and Craig is wrong.", and so far, have been presented no argument that should dissuade me.
I haven't read the God delusion, nor is my perception of Dawkins based on it.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker If you prefer Christopher Hitchens to Richard Dawkins then perhaps you might be inclined to prefer Hitchens' much more sympathetic & reasonable assessment of W L Craig than Dawkins' absurdly unfair assessment?
It might be the case that there is no God; but I find Richard Dawkins' arguments against belief wholly unpersuasive. And the reason they fail to persuade is because he doesn't have a sophisticated understanding of what we mean by "God". He is not attacking a strawman
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@bayreuth79 It's pretty damned hard to have a sophisticated understanding of what anyone means by "God". Indeed, for every believer there is a different version.
The fact is that there is no objectively established physical or psychological profile for this God person.
That's why there are more than 33,000 different denominations of Christianity in the US alone, and it's also why, when I first questioned my "faith", I found that "God" was mostly whatever I wanted him to be.
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker The problem- it seems to me- is a lack of proper theological education amongst Jews, Christains and Muslims. Your average religious person knows very little about their own tradition, especially the more intellectual aspects of these traditions. Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and al-Ghazali were intellectual geniuses of the highest rank; but, unfortunately, people are not inclined toward difficult philosophical texts.
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker "God" doesn't mean whatever you want it to me if you are within a particular religious tradition. I think that most reasonably educated religious people would agree that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"- in other words, if you can think of something greater than what you label "God" it is by definition not God.
I would also so that "God" answers the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"; "why is there being instead of non-being?"
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker I agree with the apophatic (negative) theological discourse of thinkers such as Maimonides (Jew) Thomas Aquinas (Catholic) and Gregory Palamas (Eastern Orthodox). We can know that God is, but not what God is. In fact, all of our positive assertions about God (omnipotence, immutable, etcetera) do not denote his substance, but an absence in him. "God is immutable" does not mean that God is static, but rather that there is an absence of change within him.
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker What do you mean by "objectively established physical or psychological profile for... God..."? If God is the reason why there is being rather than non-being, then it follows that what ever God is in himself he is not physical; and, morever, he is not one thing amongst others competing for "space" in the universe, for he is the reason there is anything rather than nothing. God can never be a object; he is always a subject.
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker It is impossible to have a "psycholoical profile" of God. This is anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to God). You cannot psychologically profile an infinte mind that is the source of all intellience and rationality within finite being.
bayreuth79 3 days ago
@bayreuth79 God has no clearly defined characteristics whatsoever. Nowhere in any supposedly holy book is his actual being ever described. All we have are secondary, tertiary, or even negative attributes. No primary attributes of "God" are ever given.
In case you're still not sure what I'm talking about, I'll spell it out for you.
Yahweh has no clear ontological basis.
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
@bayreuth79 Furthermore, if Yahweh is not an object, he does not exist. Plain and simple. If he has no physical being, then he is nothing more than a concept.
If Yahweh does exist, then he does so entirely outside of nature, hence, he is supernatural.
If he is supernatural, then there is no sense that I or any other natural being can possess that would detect him, thus there is no possibility of establish affirmative proof of his existence.
Continued...
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
Comment removed
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bayreuth79 Continued...
And since he has no ontology there is no way to argue the existence of what he supposedly is, because that has yet to be established.
I cannot argue that something does or does not exist, without first establishing WHAT it is. If you wish to argue that Yahweh does not exist in any physical sense, but only an intangible one, as you have done, then I would completely agree.
So then, we are in agreement. Yahweh does not exist.
TheSmackerlacker 3 days ago
,,, | '<
h2omanz 5 days ago
Comment removed
h2omanz 5 days ago
Dawkins has no basis for his ideas of "morality", and neither does Harris, but at least Harris has the humility to debate with Craig.
franknhonest 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franknhonest
"Dawkins has no basis for his ideas of "morality"
Sure he does. Morality is a human trait that is a product of evolution. That's his basis.
citizenghosttown 5 days ago
Dawkins is flat out scared hahaha
irclaw42 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who wants this DEBATE? thumbs UP
p.s. it would be so FUN :)
newpro2227 6 days ago
Comment removed
newpro2227 6 days ago
William Lane Craig is not even in the same league as Dawkins.
chinopisces 6 days ago
@chinopisces He's on a higher plane.
PassageOfChrist 6 days ago
@PassageOfChrist: One that is crashing.
chinopisces 6 days ago
@chinopisces Rising.
PassageOfChrist 6 days ago
@PassageOfChrist: Only my penis is rising.
chinopisces 2 days ago
@chinopisces Clearly. Your intelligence certainly fucking isn't.
PassageOfChrist 1 day ago
@PassageOfChrist
Hi brother I assume you're a Christian right? What kind of language is that? "Fucking"
TuAbuelaCatolica 1 day ago
@TuAbuelaCatolica Were you born yesterday friend? Or have I enlightened you on the use of swearing?
PassageOfChrist 1 day ago
@chinopisces You only say that because Dawkins is saying what you want to hear, you don't care about actual truth.
Ozzi4Japan 6 days ago
@Ozzi4Japan: You only say that because you're a brainwashed fundamentalist that hates Dawkins because he says things you don't like — you don't care about actual truth.
chinopisces 2 days ago
Interesting how now the atheists want to strike at the very existence of Jesus. They do so because He is very inconvenient for them. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies which were made hundreds of years before He was born. He performed miracles, he raised others from the dead, and finally rose from the dead himself. The atheists now try to say He never existed because they know there were witnesses, Christian and non-Christian to all of this. Shame on you, you God-haters.
Iceland1944 1 week ago
@Iceland1944 The "prophecies" Christians like to point to aren't prophecies at all, and even then this would mean that the writers of the Gospels had the OT at their disposal. This is merely typology and nothing more. (You also fail to mention how the Jesus of the NT is the complete opposite of the Messiah the Jews were expecting). Only by taken for granted that the NT is factual does one believe the miracles. There were no witnesses to Jesus; not even the Gospels can be trusted.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 week ago
@Iceland1944 There are no "god-haters" here. We are Atheists and sceptics. What would be the point in hating something that has never been verified to exist in the first place?
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 week ago
/watch?v=LhzbtPBtqHI
DanielGannage 1 week ago
If Craig doesn't argue against methodological naturalism in science then what is Dawkins there to talk about? Why would Dawkins care one way or the other if his proposal doesn't retard science like other religious views. If I were in Dawkins shoes I would refuse a debate because it would be a waste of time.
Decent video by the way. All that editing looked pretty good.
stvnblmr1 1 week ago
@stvnblmr1 He said he would debate bishops but not a Doctor ? You cant make the bold comments he does about religious people avoiding debates when HE does it himself.
emnity33 1 week ago
@emnity33 A couple things here. A Doctorate doesn't necessarily qualify you to discuss what should be taught in schools. He would likely debate bishops because he isn't like Hitchens. Hitchens finds interest in debating with people who just make shit up on a whim. While Dawkins is more for advancing fields of sciences and education.
Not sure what bold statement your talking about, but I will agree with you if the conditions are the same. That is hypocritical, and in this case it is detestable.
stvnblmr1 1 week ago
I don't get what could be beneficial from an Atheist debating a Creationist, Craig's arguments are horrid logical fallacies that make people think but are always rather pointless in the long run and don't benefit society or encourage progression of our race, the same I used to make when I was religious.
correctionguy 1 week ago
I really cannot figure out if I shud like or dislike this and I c more dislikes than likes and do not know why. I can debate Craig.
filmtvcritic 1 week ago
Craig is such an ass.
jib1000 1 week ago
They are really trying to pump up this non-issue, the Craig-Dawkins debate, for all it is worth. Craig is a phoney and any cursory check of his CV would show you that. " Philosophical argument " is bullshit and Craig has no more evidence to put forward for the existence of " magic man " than any other religious wackaloon.
MrNeodarwinian 1 week ago
@MrNeodarwinian richard dawkins is a phony too
infinitechamp3000 1 week ago
@infinitechamp3000
Is that the play of you wackaloons? It is a typical creationist ploy just to accuse someone in biology of what you creationists really are. Richard Dawkins is a member of The Royal Society. He has a doctorate in ethology from Oxford University. He, when a working scientists, had his paper sited many times. Craig is know as two site Craig. Craig is a humanities blowhard and, in reference to your answer, so are you.
MrNeodarwinian 1 week ago
Sorry but "a philosophical argument" is NOT the same as "scientific argument". If you get a Philosophical degree you get a BA (Bachelor of Arts, so it's regards as an art/humanities but not a science. It's really like saying that Stephen Hawkins should debate flying with JK Rowkling.
bakersteven3 1 week ago
@bakersteven3 The question of god IS a philosophical question and not a scientific question. You cannot answer the question "Does God exist?" using a scientific arguement. I haven't read all dawkins work but im sure his arguements are fundamentally based on philosophy and not science.
Bernardatious 1 week ago
@Bernardatious There are plenty of scientific arguments about it to, even if it is in the deepest an philisophical question ofcourse.
scientific reasons is for example that the laws of the universe are so tight that there are no room for a god, nor any room for miracles of any kind.
Another is that the existence of life have no need for a god or a creator, it doesnt disprove god but it shows that hes unecessary.
Porkusido 1 week ago
@Bernardatious There are plenty of arguments like that and the VAST majority of scientist line up on the same side here, that everything points to god not existing.
Porkusido 1 week ago
He should have never taken on any religious debate, IMO. Religion and reason are not 2 opposite points on the same subject. There's an overlap, but religion is not about reason and reason is not about having faith. Neither side is gonna convince the other this way. Religion is secularizing in the bigger picture anyhow. (example: christians don't stone/burn/torture people anymore out of religious conviction)
KeizerrO 1 week ago
I would also like to point out that recognition does not and never has or will indicate genius. recognition is simply gained by people agreeing with what you are saying and promoting it, in philosophy we will never understand and perceive how others do, so to agree with another is to deny your own perceptions and understandings, you can become a Dr; much like William Lane Craig simply by being backed by idiots. Philosophical recognition means nothing.
spazic1493 1 week ago
Nobody should ever waste time talking with creationists. They deserve just ridicule and laughter untill they hide in shame. craig is a professional high pressure hose of bullshit.
bary1234 1 week ago
They actually did debate: watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4
qabala 1 week ago
and to question reality is to question your faith in God if you're of a religious background, purely by asking are we real you are asking well I believe God created us but have we really been created? anybody seeing the problem? philosophy has no belief or relevance to life or science, you cannot use it with a scientific background because science is relevant to this world and philosophy isn't, however philosophy is relevant in a psychological arguement, but psychology cannot prove God
spazic1493 1 week ago
@spazic1493 THis is exactly what i'v been pointing out.
WLC debates and discusses philosophical science.
And that by default has no value into anything, it's just bullshit covered as science.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
Is that your philosophy?
Birdieupon 1 week ago
@Birdieupon hmm?
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
And it is obvious that Dr Craig is one of these people who says "in my head i'm right" because he's spent his entire life trying to prove God right, he's not basing his research on psychology and science, he's basing it on philosophy and science; problem with this is that philosophy is all just crap because psychologically our understanding of fundamentals is different in each and every one of us and is based purely on thought not reality, it questions reality...
spazic1493 1 week ago
For someone who is a philospher, you would've thought that Dr Craig would realise his own psychological weaknesses, before you can even begin to comprehend your surroundings for their fundamentals you must comprehend yourself and in this it is obvious he has no idea what or who he is as a psychological being whereas Prof Dawkins has atleast contemplated his fundamental psychological workings. You can't debate someone who's just going to say in my head i'm right
spazic1493 1 week ago
it's a shame that a man who claims to be the author of truth won't (cant?) respond to critique.
KiwiChristian 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Atheism is not a collaboration, it's a stamp, we who reject god need to have for theist to understand that we don't care about their silly imagination. Atheism not a religion.
I'v said it many times now, debates without a judge is for entertainment, or promotional purposes for the people involved...
Trust me? Why would you need to trust me? I would never trust anyone on the internet, I would do my own research and make my own opinion on everything I take a stand in.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
Comment removed
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
ridiculous, what is this, the world wrestling federation? what has this testosterone-filled back and forth have to do with philosophy?
Caminacels 1 week ago
Dawkins saw what Craig did to Hitchens and will make any excuse not to debate him...
imax1971 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imax1971
"Dawkins saw what Craig did to Hitchens and will make any excuse not to debate him"
Do you think Dawkins sits around watching debates on YouTube? Do you think if he saw Craig debate Hitchens, he'd have been impressed with Craig? Really?
The irony is that Dawkins declined to debate Craig BEFORE the Hitchens debate. After the Hitchens debate, Dawkins changed his mind and DID debate Craig (albeit in a 3 on 3 format).
The childish taunting makes for clever publicity though.
citizenghosttown 1 week ago
Case in point. Look at how much mileage the Craig camp gets from claiming Dawkins is afraid of Craig. When the truth is that they have publicly debated in 2010. So exactly what point is being made.
If I know everything I say will be twisted misquoted and taken out of context I think the smart thing would be to walk away and not give them quotes to mine.
littlecoloreddots 1 week ago 2
@littlecoloreddots As far as I know, other atheists have criticized Dawkins for being a coward, and it's mostly this user called Birdieupon who has a slight obsession with Dawkins not argueing with dr Craig.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
One need only look at the shameless quote mining and dishonest representations that followed the debate with Sam Harris to know why one would want nothing to do with Craig and his followers. They claimed victory when the reality is that Craig got his head handed to him.
That false witness thing comes to mind.
littlecoloreddots 1 week ago
Comment removed
littlecoloreddots 1 week ago
Who removed my comment! omfg this video has a biased admin!
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
lol, comically, pretty much all creationist videos seem to have highly biased admins, won't surprise me if the comments get moderated and ratings disabled after a while.
Yet more evidence of religion in it's death throes, they can't even come on youtube and get positive results, let alone the real world
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory
The funny part of all this is that I'm from sweden, 85% of us doesn't believe in the supernatural, at all.
Only place I get to discuss such a great topic is on english or american videos.
I wonder if we get to look at society in 500 years, how much has changed by then?
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
Even funnier - if you listen to 'MoonwalkerWorshiper' you should all be killing yourselves right now, because you have no religion or belief in god, you're society is in a state of collapse, murder/rape/genocide is rife.
I bet you're too frightened to even open the curtains and look outside for fear of having your house set on fire by rampant sinning atheists........................ ;-)
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory haha it's so funny how people can blindly set themselves to a belief system.
And think it has all the answers, and that everything would collapse without it.
But the second they step outside, it's no different, and the only real difference is that you dont have to pray. haha
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siedlerdeo [The funny part of all this is that I'm from sweden]
Då förstår du vad jag säger nu?
[I wonder if we get to look at society in 500 years, how much has changed by then?]
Like I said I suppose christianity have grown much more developed and deep into the hearts of men, to the point conflicts are happening as much any longer and our societies aren't governed by machines too much. I'm still waiting for you self-proclaimed scientist/body builder to answer my questions.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
*aren't happening as much*
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@grexory
They've even found a way around 'moderation' of video's : they just 'mirror' them and then remove the original. That way all negative ratings and comments get binned.
Of course, everybody by now should know not to watch movies that have comments and ranking disabled. The fellow that posted this vid does the second worst thing : get very active in comments on his OWN video ! It's not just a Troll, it's a Fishing Troll !
kleykenb 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
"Wasn't Harris making red herrings at the moment of truth and played around with his cellphone during Craig's rebuttal?"
See here, debates are not conclusive, only the audience decides.
I'm not claiming anything, you are claiming that god exists, I'm simply saying that you need to prove your delusion.
You said it yourself, "arguments for god's existence"
Not a single peace of evidence has been proven, if I've missed it, please point me in the right direction
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
Comment removed
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Birdieupon
I wouldn't want to debate Craig if I was Dawkins, for 2 reasons.
1, Craig would win the "debate". Because he doesn't debate god, he debates a philosophical god. So there is no real debate, only Craig, giving the appearance of having won the debate by self promotion, even in the debate.
2, Craig doesn't seek to prove god with science, He only seeks to make god "the best explanation" as he have said himself. Why on earth would one want to debate philosophy when your a scientist?
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo [Why on earth would one want to debate philosophy when your a scientist?]
You should ask Richard Dawkins that, he's the biologist who attempt philosophy in his book God Delusion. Sure it's probably dr Craig's fault. Let's just say that any possible thought error made by Dawkins is automatically Craig's fault.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper What on earth are you talking about.
I see no reason to debate a Philosopher on science. And Dawkins probably doesn't ether. That's why the debate doesn't happen.
I'v watched many of Craigs debates and there is not a shred of real evidence, it's just a discussion for him, to win the discussion is to win the debate in his view.
And that is not what it is about for a scientist, It's about proving the truth, and providing evidence.
They are in 2 different worlds.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
Exactly; if Dawkins does the debate, WLC gets platform and worldwide audience, Dawkins fails to convince a deluded man and his followers - WLC then claims victory and we never hear the end of it.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory haha your precisely right.
First of all, the question if god exists or not is not a debate topic. A debate is by default a way to fence with words, and brings nothing but opinions to the table.
The only table where one should discuss the existence of god is on a scientific level, with the scientific method.
Otherwise it's just philosophy, and opinions, and apologists and debaters and all other kind of bullshit, diverting the attention from the real question.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo [the question if god exists or not is not a debate topic]
That's a very stupid thing to say given that much smarter and educated men than you and me have used exactly that topic for academic debates, articles and books. Writing and saying stupid things only makes you look stupid, see.
[brings nothing but opinions to the table]
If the subject is not completely covered with verified science, arguments are required. It stimulates your brain, if you pay attention.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
If ones opinion is to measure the world by faith, then I can understand what you are saying.
But I and most of the scientific community measure the world with evidence.
I'v watched many debates, and it's good fun to watch a good counter argument destroy the opposition. But that's all it is, entertainment.
If you think otherwise, then you are a person that doesn't need evidence, and operates on faith. And we have nothing more to discuss.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siedlerdeo [I and most of the scientific community measure the world with evidence]
According to theism, God is not a subject OF the world but OUTSIDE of it. I wonder why it's so hard for some people to figure out what God is about. It's not a physical entity which you can measure with instruments.
[that's all it is, entertainment]
How do you know that it's all entertainment and that it doesn't have any educational value?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper You just made 2 fallacies
1. "According to theism, God is not a subject OF the world" Theism is saying theism cannot me measured by physics? I guess we just have to have faith in theism then. haha
2 "How do you know that it's all entertainment and that it doesn't have any educational value?"
Educational value is not the point, proving a theory, like the theory of god can only be done with evidence, and I know because no evidence is presented, only discussion. haha
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo [If you think otherwise]
Right there you are already beginning to sound like a fascist. Just an observation, but keep in mind that nothing good can come out of "if you think different from me you are...either this or that".
[a person that doesn't need evidence, and operates on faith.]
I operate on faith and evidence.
[And we have nothing more to discuss.]
If you don't have any arguments, and magically decide you are right, then yeah but that would be an immature attitude
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Alright, I see evidence and faith as polars, opposite ends on the same line. To you this must be deluded, as you are deluded for believing in imaginary beings.
That aside, I am chatting with you because you commented on my comment, and I was hoping you had some evidence for your faith in god.
So far you have not produced said evidence, and only try to "reason" with inaccurate facts behind you. Or no facts at all.
I have nothing to gain from talking with you obv.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siedlerdeo [I see evidence and faith as polars, opposite ends on the same line.]
Don't you have faith in that evidence holds up to scrutiny?
[you are deluded for believing in imaginary beings]
Thank you very much, unfortunaley kindergarden attitude doesn't count as a rational argument OR evidence.
[you have not produced said evidence]
You haven't asked for it. Do you think I can read your mind?
Dude. Wise up.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
This is true, in order to prove or disprove god - we refer to scientific evidence, there is zero supporting the existence of god, so we revert to philosophical faith-based discussion - which is all well and good - but I think greasy individuals such as WLC seek to simply benefit from the fame and support the debate brings them, regardless of the outcome.
I truly believe Dawkins has done the right thing.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory [in order to prove or disprove god - we refer to scientific evidence]
Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm.
[I think greasy individuals such as WLC seek to simply benefit from the fame]
In what way, and how is he "greasy"? Are you going to explain yourself soon?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
"Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm"
what? we couldn't have a scientific debate about science ? what the hell are you talking about? when we have scientific debates about global warming - we don't throw out evidence and rely on philosophy!
WLC is greasy because he's on a mission to preach his bullshit.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory Like they said about Harris vs WLC, Craig won the debate but Harris won the argument.
And still it doesn't matter, because it's only a debate.
The bottom line is that God has no merit, besides a man written book, and grand assumptions about stuff we don't yet know. The only way we can know heads or tails, is by evidence.
I think WLC is on a mission, and like all other people so hopelessly lost in their faith, will never back down, for fame or for god. He will always be deluded.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@Siedlerdeo
There's is no way a scientist can hope to win a 'god' argument.
If I want to, I can sit here all say reading the script from 'ghostbusters' and convince my deluded self that Slimer is a real ghost, there's no evidence but there doesn't need to be because it's faith based.
If my faith is strong enough (which it might be) no amount of debating will sway me, I might look stupid, but I don't care because I have my undying faith in Ghostbusters.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory haha excellent!
That is the problem with religion, you can have that argument about everything, I think gummy bears created the universe and when I eat gummibears I am one with the lord gummi bear! haha
The only way to see what is right and what is wrong, is to measure it from the outside, and that is what the scientific method is about, unbiased observation.
Religion skips all that, and makes science obsolete, because you don't need to prove anything, you only need to believe.
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
@grexory I kind of notice how you and Siedlerdeo begins to talk more with each other than me in order to escape and ignore the pressure I put you under, so you can comfortably push my comments under a pile of religious mockery unrelated to the subject being discussed. If intelligence is insufficient, try covering your ears and convince each other you are intelligent. You see from my point of view you two could just aswell be creationists, because your behavior is similar.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
You call yourself intelligent? how can an intelligent person say what you said earlier, and I quote;
"Since God is not a subject to science the debate would be rather meaningless. You couldn't for example have a scientific debate about science, it would quickly be taken up in the philosophical realm"
How can you call yourself intelligent after writing that?
As for Siedlerdeo - I have no idea who he is, but there's nothing wrong with 2 people agreeing.
grexory 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper " you and Siedlerdeo begins to talk more with each other than me in order to escape"
We are not collaborating against you, we are talking on the subject with each other because we share the same thoughts and enjoy the subject obv. "and ignore the pressure I put you under"
I think you need to stop flattering yourself
Siedlerdeo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grexory [Dawkins fails to convince a deluded man and his followers]
Of course, if atheism doesn't have sufficient philosophical and evidental "meat" it doesn't get any points. Since atheism doesn't survive under scutiny Dawkins FLEES. Don't try to kid yourself otherwise.
[WLC then claims victory and we never hear the end of it.]
No you won't. Regardless of how much cowardice there is within New Atheism, it doesn't affect christianity.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Siedlerdeo [I see no reason to debate a Philosopher on science.]
I thought the God Delusion was about religion not science? They were suppose to argue the God Delusion.
What's wrong with discussions? Craig never says that he "wins" them.
A biologist is suppose to prove things within biology. An apologetic is suppose to prove things within christianity. Both men are doing their duties. The biologist wrote a cheap philosophy book. The apologist tackles with it.
What's your beef?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you thought about writing a screenplay for a film or play which you could compose the music for? You could write a novel so that you can get a fan base to justify financing your film or play.
I've been writing a novel based on ideas I have for a film. I want various people to contribute to the soundtrack. It would be a privilege to hire you and an honour to hire Slipknot.
5trawman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I went onto your IMDB profile and noticed you like Pantera. Have you thought about doing a record which mixes pop with metal?
5trawman 1 week ago
Why would Dawkins bother with a debate with WLC anyway? WLC simply wants it because he needs the platform to rant ignorant creationist BS from - that's the only reason.
Dawkins however needs no such platform, he's written world-wide best sellers on the subject.
Rather than debate the existence of god - they could instead invite WLC for a debate on the existence of ghosts and unicorns, why is it always limited to god.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory [Why would Dawkins bother with a debate with WLC anyway?]
Because WLC is the best known christian apologetics of modern time, that's why. Your ignorant question has been answered.
[he's written world-wide best sellers on the subject]
Atheists tend to buy books written by atheists and not theist, while as dr Craig have written more books than Dawkins that are more sophisticated but have sold less.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Because WLC is stuck in the stone ages, in the developed world (UK/Europe) we're leaving religion behind, churches are closing secularism is on a steady increase, the debate is over and the outcome is clear
The pioneering work Dawkins did on evolution and genetics in the has massively increased our knowledge across the entire spectrum of life, explaining how things are the way they are.
WLC can argue for god, but it's meager and puny in the face of Dawkins achievements.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory [Because WLC is stuck in the stone ages]
See I knew you would reply back some immature crap like that. Your question was answered, that's it. Craig is the best known christian apologetic and that makes him suitable to debate for Dawkins, and it's not a matter of liking Craig as a person or not. The purpose of debate IS because you DISAGREE with your opponent for fucking sakes. I answered your question, you can't handle it, you throw up excuses.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
It doesn't matter how good or bad WLC is, the debate has been had enough times and the outcome is crystal clear - religion lost and is being pushed under the carpet in an increasingly secular society, (Look at the UK and Europe).
Dawkins doesn't need to waste time going over the same arguments over and over, his position is crystal clear. No amount of debating skill or knowledge will convince delusional individuals they're wrong
WLC is about 50 years behind i'm afraid.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory [the debate has been had enough times]
As far as I know Dawkins have never defended his God Delusion book. I'm about to watch the stuff with John Lennox and see if there's something about it there. Lennox is btw not a bischop either yet Dawkins debated him, which again goes to show Dawkins is talking lots of rubbish. I'm kind of sick of getting told rubbish to me. It doesn't matter if you think Dawkins position is "crystal clear" because his position holds no water.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Holds no water? a person who's only helped to advance our understanding of all life on earth, who's timeless scientific contributions will go on and on, that's meaningless to you is it?
What you should remember is that Dawkins was famous before the god delusion was written, the selfish gene was written in the 70's and is still a best seller today
There are thousands of people who dogmatically argue for the existence of god, but that's all they do and WLC is no exception.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory *sorry "give a reason NOT to face dr Craig"*
[a person who's only helped to advance our understanding of all life on earth]
But he hasn't helped to advance our understanding of spiritual faith, rather the opposite, by writing such an intellectually superficial book he's making the progress slow down. Dr Craig is a person who gets christian faith back up on its intellectual feet. (con)
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Dawkins shouldn't debate WLC, because he'd be giving a worldwide platform to a person who'd use it only to preach religious belief.
As i've already said, nothing that WLC says is new, nothing he says hasn't been said before - you're talking as though he's some kind of messiah - like he's got something important to say - he hasn't.
We don't need christian faith, we're doing fine sweeping it under the carpet along with WLC.
grexory 1 week ago
@grexory [he'd be giving a worldwide platform to a person who'd use it only to preach religious belief]
Still not a valid excuse. Dawkins have debated other religious people like Lennox. Didn't he gave them a platform to fame and preaching while acknowledging them? You're a tool, how about you start use your brain when you claim you belong to the camp that has one. Even so, Craig uses arguments not preaching.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper
Careful, don't insult me and call me a tool when, you can't even construct a coherent sentence, because it makes you look like a halfwit.
Just because Dawkins has debated other creationists doesn't mean he has to go over the same debate over and over again.
This is the comical thing about creationists, even though religion is a lost cause and is being torn to bits everywhere you look - the delusional state of mind makes it impossible for them to quit.
grexory 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grexory [Just because Dawkins has debated other creationists doesn't mean he has to go over the same debate over and over again]
Craig does. You complain that people like Craig gives the same arguments over and over, but that's because they face different opponents you idiot. If the arguments are valid, they're going to be used over and over and they stand the test of confrontation. Dawkins doesn't do this because he sucks at making a valid case for atheism.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago
@grexory And I find it interesting and in a way distasteful that so many american populist atheists actually choose to turn things around and make it into a bad thing that we got a christian giving intellectual arguments for his religion. At the one side of your mouth you complain there is no rational basis for christianity. When someone gives you a basis you moan "not again, can't we just sweep it under the carpet". Fucking well done, how RATIONAL you are.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 week ago