There's Probably No Dawkins...

[Omega]

https://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/theres-probably-no-dawkins.htm

  Hilarious, right?

Remember those buses in England that were brandished with the ads: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"? Well, William Lane Craig's campaign has brandished their own ad on several buses in the UK that hilariously state "There's probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy Oct. 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre" after not only Dawkins, but AC Grayling and the British Humanist Association's President Polly Toynbee outright refused to debate William Lane Craig in his tour in the UK (which is painfully ironic as the British Humanist Association's website states that one of its main motivations and obligations is to participate engage in any and all public debate and discourse about atheism / humanism, etc) . Dawkins was invited to defend his book, "The God Delusion" at the Sheldonian Theatre. Lane Craig plans on placing an empty chair should Dawkins suddenly change his mind and agree to defend his own book! Perhaps the most disappointing refutation to debate comes from Dawkins, who was invited to defend the "arguments" he crafted in his infamous "The God Delusion" as William Lane Craig *refutes* them. Subsequently, Dawkins' action to refuse to debate Lane Craig at all costs is being interpreted as cowardice by many, even fellow atheist and professor Daniel Came, who bluntly accused Dawkins of cowardice.

            *His refutations are quite complete and effective...


Why is Dawkins (and other members of the British Humanist Association) avoiding a debate with William Lane Craig at all costs? It is really getting too suspicious...

What do you think about this?

Sandwich?

[GuineaPig]

I don't know why I'd waste a perfectly good Tuesday night.

[Ħ]

The only debate I've seen w/ Dawkins and Craig was when it was 3 atheists vs 3 theists, and Dawkins, giving him the benefit of the doubt, horribly misinterpreted pretty much all of Craig's arguments.

[73109]

He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.

And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.

[Omega]

I don't know why I'd waste a perfectly good Tuesday night.

Well, I find William Lane Craig's lectures to be extremely enjoyable and enlightening.

Plus they probably will have free food or something...

[GuineaPig]

I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle?  Lots of religious groups do it.

[Omega]

The only debate I've seen w/ Dawkins and Craig was when it was 3 atheists vs 3 theists, and Dawkins, giving himthe benefit of the doubt, horribly misinterpreted pretty much all of Craig's arguments.

It was a horrendously formatted "debate" in which no one was given an adequate amount of time to significantly develop any kind of argument or idea.

[Omega]

I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle?  Lots of religious groups do it.

If you are offended by it, I'd be more than willing to remove that from the OP...

[Ħ]

He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.

And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.

That's the case in all these debates.  If you read the books, you don't REALLY need to watch these debates.  They are just like the "SparkNotes" versions of the books.

So I don't think that's why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig.  After all, Dawkins debates many theists, using what he's already written in his arguments.

[73109]

He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it. I admit, I would too. On both sides. The only time you ever see him debate a theist now is when he lectures and the inevitable theist asks a question that ticks him off.

[73109]

I'm confused: what's "condescending and silly" about purchasing ad space to promote your society/lifestyle?  Lots of religious groups do it.

If you are offended by it, I'd be more than willing to remove that from the OP...

I'm not offended at all. It however, is insulting. On these forums, I can say I don't believe in a God, and that's cool. But I have never (nor should I ever) call God "utter nonsense," as that is insulting to his believers.

[Omega]

He's refusing to debate Craig because Craig will use the same exact arguments he used against Hitchens, Harris, Kagan, and a bunch of other atheists. Not to mention that Dawkins will use the same ones professed in his book. I happen to agree with Dawkins and I think that if they were to debate, he'd wipe the floor with Craig, but a majority of the people will disagree with me, so whatever.

And adding an asterisk and saying, "reduce to utter nonsense" is insulting. Just hope you know that.

Sorry about the asterisk...

But when a respected theologian and philosopher is inviting you to defend your own published work, refusing under silly or no reasons is apt to be interpreted as cowardice.

[El Barto]

I'm not familiar with the gent in question,  but it seems to me that if it's his program,  then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view.  Nobody loves a good debate more than me,  but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf,  where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say.  Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.

This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly.  Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.

[Ħ]

He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it.

Okay.  I mean, he's allowed to take that route.  But if he really wants to spread atheism, then debates are one of the best ways to do it.
 
I'm sure that even the theists get tired of the same arguments.  But the point is not to do it for yourself.  There are plenty of people who haven't heard the arguments from either side.  It's important to keep doing it.

Why do you think Dream Theater still plays Pull Me Under?

[Omega]

I'm not familiar with the gent in question,  but it seems to me that if it's his program,  then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view.  Nobody loves a good debate more than me,  but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf,  where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say.  Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.

This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly.  Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.

You make an entirely valid point, yet it must be stressed that (the very much secularized) England is very much so Dawkins' home turf and the people that come to the debates are surely not entirely theists. The audience is actually generally very balanced and no Lane Craig despises the use of "dirty tactics" while debating...

[Omega]

He's been on record stating he refuses to debate anymore, as he's grown tired of it. I admit, I would too. On both sides. The only time you ever see him debate a theist now is when he lectures and the inevitable theist asks a question that ticks him off.

That's still no excuse to avoid all discourses with an intellectual of an opposing worldview. Especially just one particular man.

[73109]

Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.

If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.

[Ħ]

I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would.

Not really.  People change their minds.  Not to rub my own Buddha, but I did, so I know it's possible.

[73109]

Here's the way I look at it...

Both have their "evidence" and are so strong in their opinions that for Dawkins, it is like arguing with a dude who believes the world is flat. Same goes for Craig. It's just that Craig gets a special place in heaven for arguing with said flat earthers.

[El Barto]

Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.

If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.

Yeah, but as I often point out,  the exercise is usually more valuable than the end.  I'm all for a debate even if I'm certain that nobody will be swayed by it.  I'm just not interested if I'm merely there to be fodder.

[Ħ]

Dude you are not getting the point of debates.  There is no room for both sides being "right".  Either one side holds the truth, or neither of them do.  And especially considering that there are some potentially serious ramifications for believing something false (in both perspectives, really), I think that these debates are incredibly helpful in forcing viewers to actually think.

[73109]

Dude, we could debate the existence of God for the next thousand years. I'd think your arguments suck and you'd think mine would. (I use as a term for wrong here, don't get offended.) At the end of the day, whenever we are finished, you are going to go home and believe in god and I won't. It's pointless and there's no point in doing it. And as El Barto says, he'd be apart of Craig's tour which increases the annoyance factor by a ton.

If you notice the polls of before and after with debates, the same amount of people believe in God, and about 4 or 5 percent of the undecided move toward atheism. It is somewhat pointless.

Yeah, but as I often point out,  the exercise is usually more valuable than the end.  I'm all for a debate even if I'm certain that nobody will be swayed by it.  I'm just not interested if I'm merely there to be fodder.

I agree. I'd love to debate anyone on the existence of God, as I love to argue. Dawkins doesn't anymore, and I understand why. Hitchens like's the dialectic. He admits he wants to keep faith around just so he can argue against it. Hawkins prefers to think and write books and yay on him for it. He reaches his audience through his books and that is what he wants.

And H, all I'm trying to say is that it is annoying on both ends. You realize that Dawkins thinks Craig is an idiot and vice versa? Like I said, there's no point. Getting people to think sways the undecided. I'm happy that usually, the undecided tend to move more toward atheism, and that's not a shot. I'm just saying I understand his point. I'd love to have him debate, and I would watch it intently, but I know why he isn't and I don't blame him.

A perfect example...I was arguing the existence of God with a friend of mine and he gave me an argument so dumb (it wasn't even an argument,) I gave up trying...Same thing applies.

[Ħ]

We were kind of getting off on a tangent, but basically...if you are right a book that calls theism "delusion", and a reknowned theist debater calls you out on it, you defend yourself.  That's my opinion.

It's like people that debate on these forums (myself included) that respond to easy counterarguments but ignore the strong ones.  That's exactly what I'm seeing with Dawkins.

[73109]

Here's the thing. I can turn this back on Craig. (Which pretty much proves that debates in this vain are useless.)

Dawkins has been put on record as refusing to continue to debate theists...ESPECIALLY William Lane Craig. Craig knows this. I could just as easily say that Craig is running this campaign knowing Dawkins won't show up which does make him look like a coward to some people. That's a cheap shot and I don't like it. Is it true? I think so. Just like you think Dawkins is too scared to defend "strong" counterarguments. Odds are, we won't find out.

[Ħ]

I think partially Craig wants to debate Dawkins for the sake of debate (leading Christian debater versus leading atheist debater), and partially wants to show people that Dawkins won't face him.  I mean, we don't know, so it's not fair to say.

And if Dawkins has such clear, strong arguments/counterarguments, he really shouldn't have anything to worry about.  In fact, if Dawkins' victory is assured, then the stage is pretty much perfectly set up for him to shoot down one of the most universally revered Christian figures.

[73109]

Dude, with all due respect, I'm getting annoyed with this debate! Imagine how Dawkins would feel hearing the same rehashed arguments that he thinks are crap meanwhile giving the audience a spark notes version of his book. It's useless.

Dawkins has said that no argument for God has ever swayed him. However, he admits that the one that he always found most interesting was the extremely fine tuning of the universe. He's admitting that though so it's not like he is afraid of debating and conceding arguments. He is just in favor of the anthropic principle as means of refuting the argument.

[Ħ]

Just one more debate, though, and most theists (or at least Christians) would be satisfied.

[73109]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if he would do it. I think it is safe to say that Craig is the most prominent Christian (religious) apologist and Dawkins is the most prominent atheist. It would be one great debate, and I'd love to see it, but it won't happen.

Also, if it were to happen. I think that there shouldn't be any time limits what so ever. Just let them talk and talk and talk. And at the end, have them rapid fire counter arguments at each  other until both their heads explode.

[Ħ]

Actually...something I thought of, what if Dawkins and Craig had an e-debate?  Sort of like how we do it here.  That way, Craig's charisma isn't an issue.

It might be boring, it might be difficult to moderate...but I wonder if Dawkins would be down?

[73109]

Dude, if you do that, might as well read "Why there is almost certainly no God" and some article by Craig.

[Omega]

Two things:

We were kind of getting off on a tangent, but basically...if you are right a book that calls theism "delusion", and a renowned theist debater calls you out on it, you defend yourself.

Dawkins has been put on record as refusing to continue to debate theists...ESPECIALLY William Lane Craig. Craig knows this. I could just as easily say that Craig is running this campaign knowing Dawkins won't show up which does make him look like a coward to some people.

The debate was not set up by Lane Craig. He was invited to debate on topics the group that set up the debates decided.

The only party acting rudely here are Dawkins and his Humanist ilk. This video explains the entire situation aptly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFDyheyAebU&feature=channel_video_title

[73109]

I wouldn't want to debate a wall either and that is what this is, dude.

edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.

[Omega]

I wouldn't want to debate a wall either and that is what this is, dude.

Not at all. Describing Lane Craig as a wall is incredibly dishonest.

[73109]

Any theist is a wall...as is any atheist. There's no point, bro!

[Omega]

edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.

Please, my skin is as about as thick as hardened titanium mounted upon 3 layers of kevlar. I'd be delightfully interested in hearing your objections to his view on "Christian morality issues."