Richard Dawkins Again Refuses Debate With Christian Apologist William Craig

billvon said:
I think it makes him look like he has some standards. We have plenty of infotainment from FOX, Comedy Central, CNN etc. I admire people who don't want to descend to that level.
Click to expand...

C'mon, so much of the crap is disinformation. Even if it is true what they talk about, they talk about the same depressing crap that no one needs to know so that we are all walking around with our heads up our asses.. thats why things stay the same. Media has always ruled the world.
 
A debate is a debate. There are winners and losers according to the established best practices, and it's far from the best way to disseminate information. The real question is if Craig is brining anything new to the table (apart from admittedly respectable debating skills) and the answer is no, he isn't.

If anyone disagrees, let's have it. I'll be genuinely surprised if you can produce a single argument he's made that isn't identical to or derivative of those that have already been examined, critiqued and found wanting.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Thus perfectly illustrating my point.


Why?

If he refuses to debate a ten-year old child would you also claim that to be cowardice?
Click to expand...

He is afraid of a ten year old too ? Man he is a coward ! A ten year old ? Yeah most definitely Coward ! Big C .
 
Signal said:
Dawkins said:



Craig would fall into the category of "professional debaters," whom Dawkins claims not to take on.
Click to expand...
It is disingenuous to claim Craig's only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater.
To be fair, Craig is an academic whose other "claims to fame" (the ones that actually count) are actually academic.

I still agree with Daniel Came.
 
Last edited:
NietzscheHimself said:
Do you deny that nature is omnipresent
Click to expand...

Unless you're smuggling a controversial definition of 'nature' into the proceedings, then no, I don't deny that nature seems to be omnipresent.

or omnipotent?
Click to expand...

Omnipotence is generally attributed to a deity, and a deity is generally defined as a supernatural entity, so yes in that sense I would deny that nature is omnipotent.

I suspect that you may be taking liberties with your definition of omnipotence judging by your context so you'll need to elaborate if that is indeed the case.
 
Knowledge91 said:
C'mon, so much of the crap is disinformation. Even if it is true what they talk about, they talk about the same depressing crap that no one needs to know so that we are all walking around with our heads up our asses.. thats why things stay the same. Media has always ruled the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why waste your time arguing with such crap?
 
Rav said:
A debate is a debate. There are winners and losers according to the established best practices, and it's far from the best way to disseminate information. The real question is if Craig is brining anything new to the table (apart from admittedly respectable debating skills) and the answer is no, he isn't.

If anyone disagrees, let's have it. I'll be genuinely surprised if you can produce a single argument he's made that isn't identical to or derivative of those that have already been examined, critiqued and found wanting.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The debate is as meaningful as a boxing match.
Two guys trying to beat the shit out of eachother, in front of an audience, the same thing that thousands of others have done before them.


Techne said:
It is disingenuous to claim Craig's only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater.
To be fair, Craig is an academic whose other "claims to fame" (the ones that actually count) are actually academic.

I still agree with Daniel Came.
Click to expand...

I really do not think that the popular public atheist/theist debate is about anything other than politics.
Low blows are the norm.

Panem et circenses!
 
Trees grow constantly taller at enormous evolutionary cost in their competitive fight for sunlight. Ichneumon wasps lay their eggs in the paralyzed yet still living bodies of caterpillars so that the new larvae have instant access to a sustainable food supply. Dawkins does not rail against the Book of Genesis so much anymore. He doesn’t need to. He need only explain Darwin’s theory of incremental steps trudging mindlessly through time.
 
Signal said:
Of course you would. Vicars in tutus need to have their fun too!
Click to expand...
A vicar in a tutu is kind of on par with Dawkins trying to set himself apart from "professional debaters" .....


I mean is he with the Allied Atheist Allegiance, the United Atheist League or the United Atheist Alliance?

sp_1012_15_m4.jpg


gournelos-image004.jpg


southpark.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rav said:
If anyone disagrees, let's have it. I'll be genuinely surprised if you can produce a single argument he's made that isn't identical to or derivative of those that have already been examined, critiqued and found wanting.
Click to expand...
actually I am still waiting for this from Dawkins ....
 
Signal said:
Exactly.
The debate is as meaningful as a boxing match.
Two guys trying to beat the shit out of eachother, in front of an audience, the same thing that thousands of others have done before them.




I really do not think that the popular public atheist/theist debate is about anything other than politics.
Low blows are the norm.

Panem et circenses!
Click to expand...
I believe there would be a clear winner. People want too see the top football teams at the top of the league tables in the world have matches against each other, people want too see the top boxers in a match too see who would win, seeing arguably the best Christian apologist against the person at the forefront of the new atheism debate each other is similar.

I would pray for all atheists to find God. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top