Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
Wow. I must admit, that made me chuckle. As I said, Dawkins is knowledgeable in his own scientific field. But once he dares endeavor into philosophy, he's an embarrassing hack. He commits philosophical gaffes in The God Delusion
that are the typical ones you'd expect someone who has never even taken high school intro to philosophy 101.
And you're right, WLC is nowhere
near his caliber. He is millions of miles above.
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here.
The temptation to respond lengthily to this is immense, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).