Is the high priest of atheism a COWARD?

[Danno 1,228]

Only if Dawkins had never debated the issue with anyone before... if you're interested you could look up video clips and transcripts for old debates

Politicians would love to pull that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because the guy won't debate this professor doesn't mean he hasn't debated it before with others.

[scandal 951]

When I used the term higher life form, I simply meant something more meaningful than pond scum on some mucky planet.

I brought that point up to (try to) show, if we are not even sure about life within the distance the eye can see, how can one reach such a firm conclusion that god in some form does not exists.

At best it's a reasoned guess.

Again, I don't see the logic in this.

Let's take it as granted that life has independently evolved on multiple different planets throughout our galaxy, let alone others, which have conditions to support some form of life. What that proves is that life exists, and can independently evolve. It says nothing whatsoever as to whether a "higher power" is needed to spark that initial creation of life, whether exactly once on Earth, or multiple times throughout the cosmos. We know life was created at least once, here. We're pretty sure it's been created multiple times more than that. I'm personally content with a soup of amino acids combined with natural selection as the basic mechanism, no further ingredients needed. You and others of faith devoutly believe some form of "spark" was required. I don't agree, but respect this as your belief. What I don't see is what bearing life on other planets has on the discussion.

[faust-yusov 103]

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.

However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.

Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.

Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

[Danno 1,228]

Again, I don't see the logic in this.

Let's take it as granted that life has independently evolved on multiple different planets throughout our galaxy, let alone others, which have conditions to support some form of life. What that proves is that life exists, and can independently evolve. It says nothing whatsoever as to whether a "higher power" is needed to spark that initial creation of life, whether exactly once on Earth, or multiple times throughout the cosmos. We know life was created at least once, here. We're pretty sure it's been created multiple times more than that. I'm personally content with a soup of amino acids combined with natural selection as the basic mechanism, no further ingredients needed. You and others of faith devoutly believe some form of "spark" was required. I don't agree, but respect this as your belief. What I don't see is what bearing life on other planets has on the discussion.

- I never said -life on other planets, proves a creator, I simply suggested, the reason many people entertain "the possibility" of life on other planets is because we have hardly explored other planets to even know.

In the same way as our search for a creator is so limited.... even if we were to confine our search to the "natural world".

While I understand how a person intellectually concludes "no God exists".... I fail to understand how people can "be certain" why you yourself are only "comfortable" in crediting a soup of amino acids and natural selection.

[Danno 1,228]

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.

However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.

Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.

Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

-Is your use of insulting comparisons a sign of confidence in your opinions?

-History is full of people with your shared opinion: Never debate ideas which might catch on.

-YOur post is based on one huge contradiction in that, this very gentleman has already debated others from a similar viewpoint. (you even provide one link to one occasion)

-I post a news story to kick around on the board here and you..... jump to the conclusion that I am "enamored" with the guy.

[faust-yusov 103]

-Is your use of insulting comparisons a sign of confidence in your opinions?

One would be a rather disingenuous individual if one were not reasonably resolved to the position one advocates, would one not?

This is the nature of having thought something through - of being, analogously, a dedicated lifelong academic, justifiably staunch in your expertise, and justifiably wary of groups with vested interests clamouring for your ear, your time and your coat-tails.

-History is full of people with your shared opinion: Never debate ideas which might catch on.

What a wonderfully trite and reductive paradigm! Perhaps you might save one of these for every dispute, lest we be forced to judge individual circumstances on their own virtue?

-YOur post is based on one huge contradiction in that, this very gentleman has already debated others from a similar viewpoint. (you even provide one link to one occasion)

I believe I was quite clear in addressing the distinction between Lane Craig and McGrath.

Regardless, had Dawkins debated creationists in the past, this would not preclude him from changing his mind, nor make his decision to snub the ID propagandist Lane Craig any less acute.

-I post a news story to kick around on the board here and you..... jump to the conclusion that I am "enamored" with the guy.

Richard Dawkins refuses invitations to debate, meet with or be interviewed by creationists regularly and consistently - yet it is for William Lane Craig, a mediocre academic and thoroughly uninteresting public figure remarkable only for his aptitude for brazen self-promotion, that you reserve your incredulity.

Edited May 22, 2011 by faust-yusov

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Prof Dawkins declined them all. He told The Daily Telegraph that he had recently debated Prof Craig, in a boxing ring, in Mexico, and claimed he was not impressed by his opponent. His critics say this event was a six-person discussion, not a rigorous debate, but Prof Dawkins disagrees.

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford” in October, he said.

Prof Craig will be using his UK tour to analyse The God Delusion and to present his own “strong rational grounds” for belief in God.

His tour will include a London conference on the defence of Christianity and a debate in Manchester with the atheist, Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, on the existence of God.

Prof Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.

He has gained world-wide attention for his outspoken criticism of organised religion, and argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed that a harder line must be taken with believers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

And if he doesn't debate it is proof positive there IS a God.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What does that have to do with a spokesman avoiding a debate?

Debate about what? That water somehow isn't wet? Why would any person with a sound mind want to engage in any such "debate"? What would be the point?