Richard Dawkins' Blind Faith in William Lane Craig's Non-Existent CV

[mysticjbyrd]

You people are delusional...

Nothing to see here but strawman attacks folks.

[StephenDeMille]

Did you see the cartoon that I made of Dawkins run away from Craig? lockerz.com s 158646031

[hobaleo]

birdieupon... DAWKINS IS STILL GOLD.. only in his own field that is evolution... neither Craig nor his fellow at the discovery intstitute can defeat dawkins in a debate on that.. so what if Dawkins thought he could go and write in philosophy of religion that is not his field.. like sam harris in ethics.. that doesnt mean atheists have no case.. we got the brightest atheist philosophers that can handle Craig.. the recent debate by millican was one of the best i heard.. atheists are no lightweight

[Jesrael1986M]

@hobaleo I'm sure anyone from Discovery Institute would make mincemeat of Dawkins on Intelligent Design vs Evolution. That's the real reason why Dawkins won't debate "creationists".

[hobaleo]

@Jesrael1986M you are so naive, i felt like i am messing with a baby animal :)

[Jesrael1986M]

@hobaleo How else do you explain the fact that he writes a 500 page bestseller directly challenging creationism and intelligent design, yet he's too scared to face the most prominent ID supporters? I'm sure Behe, Dembski and Meyer would welcome a debate with Dawkins.

[hobaleo]

@Jesrael1986M my friend.. you dont understand that dawkins is not just a thinker that is advocating an opinion of his own, and he is just an eccentricity.. if dawkins never existed AT ALL, you still have actual scientists taking on creationism long ago in book length academic refutations: Kitcher 1982, Futuyma 1983, Gilkey 1985, etc. dawkins is a popularizer, means: his audience is the public laymen, not other academics

[Jesrael1986M]

@hobaleo Of course you are right that there are may others who have addressed the issues, I never denied that. I was simply responding to your original comment about Dawkins. But yeah, I do think the case for design is so airtight that denying it is like saying the sky isn't blue.

[AtheistApologetics]

@Jesrael1986M "But yeah, I do think the case for design is so airtight that denying it is like saying the sky isn't blue."

How about you provide some evideince for that claim, other the standard argument from incredulity that you cannot understand it thus it cannot be so? You also need to explain why all professional scientific organizations and education institutions reject ID, other than the absurd claim of a "consipracy". That is not only illogical it is laughable.

[AtheistApologetics]

@Jesrael1986M Actually the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania *already* made "mincemeat" out of Behe, the Discovery Institute and several others in the Kitzmiller-v-Dover trial. If you read the court's decision as well as the transcripts, (I have) not only was ID shown *not* to be science, but Behe and the Discovery Istitute were shown to be completely dishonest. If ID were true, that would not be necessary.

[stu1002]

It's a puzzle to me as to why Dawkins is seen as the "premier new atheist". He doesn't have Hitchen's silver-tongued wit, he doesn't have Dennet's philosophical credentials, and he doesn't have Sam Harris's stylish conversational approach.

Of the new atheists, he just constantly comes over as bad tempered, ponderous, out of touch . Ironically, he singularly seems to have failed to adapt, and just seesm like a fossilised dinosaur.

[m1chae15]

@stu1002 Social dynamics. He is still the lead popularizer, due in no small part to the invocation of a common belief, which he actually IS qualified to pontificate upon.

This isn't just an 'atheist' thing though. The more that people commit to a position esp. publicly, especially when combined with writing, the less likely they are to reverse or even reconsider the stated position. Works in wars, works in advertising. I wonder if Dr. Harris has pointed this out, speaking of qualifications?

[m1chae15]

@stu1002 Look at all the press he is STILL getting, primarily via theists. Seems like all press really is 'good' press. Unreasonable faith isn't a theistic monopoly either. With a decent publicist, Dr. Dawkins will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. Hopefully he won't laugh all the way to perdition. While he may be unwise, he isn't stupid. You can only be so stupid and still pass professional standards in the doctor world, at least in developed countries.

[Drgamedood]

How long will you keep beating a dead horse, Birdieupon?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood How long are atheists going to champion a no-hope like Prof. Dawkins?

[Drgamedood]

@DigitalDecadence Don't know. I'm not a fan of Dawkins myself. :)

[DigitalDecadence]

@Drgamedood Well I'm guessing that's the answer really. As I too take exception to Prof. Dawkins damning remarks, that he doesn't wish to defend. I am not saying that there are no strong atheistic arguments, or even, issues with theistic arguments. There are of course, nothing is perfect. But I really feel Prof. Dawkins needs to step down from the limelight, as it's frustrating for me when people use his arguments, as I simply don't believe in the God he disbelieves in.

[m1chae15]

@DigitalDecadence Well, here's to better argumentation then. Truth wins, or there's no such. If the Atheists are correct, we'll never know, and if they aren't, there will be less excuse. Nice to see someone else, even an 'enemy', tire of blatant rubbish of whatever stripe. I much prefer the old school Atheists myself. Something more than junk food. Both sides have their "Why are there still monkeys?" moments.

[DigitalDecadence]

@m1chae15 Yeah I can't say I disagree. I think really Prof. Dawkins started out being against anti-intellectualism and those who were religiously violent. Which is fine, I'm quite happy to side with him against those people, and for good reasons. But now he seems to include the more thoughtful, and less violent theists in his remarks, which is very frustration for us.

[m1chae15]

@DigitalDecadence Well, again, A/theism aside, the preening perch of pride does seem to precede the perilous precipice. I need to wipe my screen now.

On a more sober note, which is proper when one is both Prof and Doc?

[DigitalDecadence]

@m1chae15 I have no idea, I call Richard Dawkins Prof. Dawkins, and William Lane Craig, Dr Craig, as he seems to prefer it hehe.

[m1chae15]

@DigitalDecadence A hazard of press, believing one's own.

[Birdieupon]

@Drgamedood

So long as this dead horse continues to weasel his way out of his responsibilities by using ad hominems and lies, I'll be there to expose and parody him.

What you need realise, Drgame, is that it is YOU who are beating a dead horse by trying to pretend that there's really nothing to talk about here. If you're "bored" of my criticizing Dawkins then don't watch (or comment) on my videos... but Dawkins is a coward and a sleaze, and I'm not leaving him alone until he shapes up.

[Bigjon145]

@Birdieupon Dawkins needs to repent of his pride and arrogance.

[ClumsyRoot]

@Bigjon145

And what about Craig? He's easily as prideful and arrogant as Dawkins.

Both men could use a little good old fashioned humility.

[ClumsyRoot]

@Birdieupon

By the way, I freely acknowledge that Craig would eviscerate Dawkins in a debate. Dawkins is a rather poor spokesperson for atheism, and Craig often runs circles around opponents who are not professional philosophers themselves.

I suggest you watch Craig's informal "debate" with Shelly Kagan. Craig doesn't do well outside of the traditional debate format--he can't rely on his usual sophistry--and Kagan very neatly exposed the many flaws in Craig's arguments.

[walkingphilosopher]

@Drgamedood If you think Dawkins' influence on this topic is over, look again on richarddawkins . net where they COWERED, yet there they are, STILL slandering Craig. The current situation is that believing in even a mere spinozan God have been made to look ridiculous, and ALL this is because of fallacious arguments by Dawkins.This COMPLICATES the discussion and our search for truth. SO if you think that this video is just for fun, think again!