Why is richard dawkins chicken to debate doctor William Land Craig?
Seeing how Doctor Craig the Christian Intellectual just demolished Christopher the drunk hitchens in their last debate, do you think this is the thing that made dawkins scared like a little chicken to debate Doctor Craig? It looks like Craig wants to knock of all 4 horsemen of atheism in debates. The guy is mowing through them like a hot knife through butter. It was hillarious how he gave hitchens a pat on the back and told him to come back next time more prepared lol.
I have never seen an atheist leader humiliated on the facts liek Craig did to hitchens.
ecuse the typo , its William Lane Craig
excuse lol, keyboard is stuck lol
Seems likethe ignorant atheists patrol is on full alert. Wow, I never seen a group of morons answer a question in rapid fashion. To say that atheists dont debate christians is a lie, they have been debating each other for many years now. Atheists love to lie. Second, criag is a powerhouse in the theist community and dawkins knows that if he can get a win over him it would be huge for atheists everywhere. here is a video of craig demolishing hitchens on moral objectivity in which he had the atheist leader agreeing with him towards the end of the video loooooooool. If thats not a demolishment i dont know what is?
watch the last 20 seconds and see how a theist totally embarressed a well know atheistic appologetic. NO WONDER WHY DAWKINS IS AFRAID TO DEBATE AN INTELLECTUAL CHRISTIAN AND THEIST.
If you doubt dawkins is a chicken, this is coming from his own thread http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20... naturally these biased atheists are saying that craig is too below dawkins for dawkins to debate him, but dawkins knows that craig is the top theist debater alive and is a cowering chicken to even debate him on even one area.
Atheistic groups like to pick on ignorant people like kirk cameron but when they have an intellectual theists in front of them they will hide under a rock, because they know that science is doing nothing but validating the existence of god.
God bless you people, your gonna need it if your top atheist wont even debate lol
Vincent K, Doctor craig is far from a funde, and this is why hitchens debated him and lost (he got trounced), If a guy was unreasonable and ignorant it would be that much more of a victory for dawkins and atheists, but atheists are what?????? Chickensssss buck buck buckackkkkkkkkkkkk
If science is true it should be able to stand the rigurous test of critique, Hmmm, dawkins is a scientist who wont even debate his science. Maybe its because his science is in error and biased towards the atheistic side, and he knows full well craig knows these errors and will rip into them easily.
You atheists are hypocrits, when an atheists scientist debates a layman theists and the theist loses you all scream yayyyyy but when an atheist powerhouse chickens out to debate a theist power house about the atheists own field of expertise you say there is no way to debate christians.
Guess whose the hypocrite now hehehehe
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I have said something along similar lines - Richard Dawkins to debate Dr Jonathan Sarfati (author of numerous books including Refuting Evolution, and By Design). However, to the best of my knowledge, Dawkins is at least clever enough to know he has no scientific case, and won't dare to debate the Christian genius. He is instead content to roam the pseudo-scientific chook-pen looking for straw-man arguments to peck at.
(I can almost hear him clucking.....)
- 1 decade ago
Uh, no-one said that atheists and Christians didn't debate, you moron. They said that you can't have a REAL debate with a creationist, since they just fall back on utter nonsense and refuse to engage in it.
And sorry, but again, there's no such thing as an atheist leader. Are you incredibly simple or something?
Dawkins argues against creationists. As has been pointed out, since your man is not a creationist, there's no debate there.
Lastly, you seem to be under the impression that if one person wins a debate, that makes their position correct. This is utterly stupid. I am involved in competitive debates with my university, and ANY subject can be won in a debate; it's not about the issue, it's about the relative skillls of the debaters. So Hitchens sucks at live debate? Who gives a crap? Oh that's right, a sad little fundie troll who has nothing else to go on. Must be a sad life being you.
EDIT: I never called Craig a fundie; I called YOU a sad little fundie troll. Again you've missed the main points that you refuse to answer:
1: Dawkins debates people who are advocating creationism, not Christianity in general. He's an evolutionary biologist.
2: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ATHEIST LEADER. We don't HAVE leaders. Claiming otherwise shows you to be a liar.
3: If Craig beats Hitchens in a debate, it means he's a better debater than Hitchens. It does NOT means that he MUST be right, and Hitchens MUST be wrong.
Since you ignore these points and just keep posting bilge, I'm forced to conclude that you're an idiot of the first degree.
Oh, by the way, since you've just said earlier that Craig's debate is based around moral relativism, what's that got to do with SCIENCE which you claim Dawkins is chickening out from? Oh, that's right, not a damn thing. Gee, guess you don't actually understand the basic points of what you're talking about, huh?
- john-patrickLv 43 years ago
by way of fact in case you debate somebody you're in certainty announcing that their ideals are equivalent to yours even while your "ideals" are supported by way of stressful info. Richard Dawkins would not debate a creationist for an identical reason a geographer would not debate a flat earther and a doctor would not debate an exorcist.
- 1 decade ago
I watched the debate and at no point could I see where Craig bested Hitchens. This is because you subjectively accept Craig's argument, and therefore perceive Craig as having won the debate I see the problem as being where Craig started his last response. The axiomatic fulcrum for his argument was that Jesus died for the sins of humanity, which you would fully support. I on the other hand see that as unproven myth and any argument that proceeds from that axiom is metaphysical bunk. Basically for me Craig's last argument might as well have been spoken in Klingon, because the was just a superstitious framework built upon a mythical supposition.
Craig only won from your point of view because you buy into his beliefs. From my point of view it was an epic fail.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Nikon f5Lv 61 decade ago
Believe what you want to believe, I haven't seen the single debate you talk about, however, I cannot believe that Dawkins would shy away from a debate with anyone who was logical and reasoned. Is the guy you speak of a narrow minded fundie by any chance? I wouldn't bother debating with a fundie, a bit like trying to debate with racist, homophobes and bigots, the flaw runs deep. Sometimes you just have to accept that logic cannot be applied to the illogical, and there is no point applying reason to the unreasonable. Just a thought.Source(s): Edit: Maybe this guy is irrelevant to him, maybe he feels his time is best spent elsewhere, it is his time to spend as he wishes.
- FarsightLv 71 decade ago
Dawkins is a biologist and Craig is a philosopher. Their subjects of expertise are two very different things. What would they debate about? If they debate biology, Dawkins automatically has the upperhand. If they debate philosophy, Craig automatically has the upperhand. What would be the point in debating?
- sparky_dyLv 71 decade ago
Dawkins is not afraid to debate Craig. He just thinks there are more productive ways to spend his time. Such as painting coal white, or polishing suède boots.
Also, there is nothing to debate. Anyone who denies evolution denies reality. It is really that simple. One might just as profitably debate whether television works by a beam of electrons causing phosphors to glow as it impinges upon them, or by having tiny people inside the set who act out the programmes.
- zaLv 71 decade ago
Who is this man Craig?
Ah! Now I see. He is at Biola University, which includes in its mission statement "We believe that there is truth; it is knowable and revealed in God's inerrant Word. ". In other word Craig is a fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible as being without error.
Dawkins is, in the view of many, including Christians, wise not to engage in debate with fundmentalists for one very simple reason. Their source of authority is an inerrant book, whereas the source of authority of science is (potentially errant) evidence and reason. There can be no meeting of minds in such a situation, so any debate is pointless.
And by the way, if you espouse a Christian position, it belittles you to describe others as "Christopher the drunk hitchens" and Dawkins as 'scared like a chicken'.
As a Christian I can tell you that Craig is not "mowing through them like a hot knife through butter" [and in any case if you have ever tried a hot knife in cold butter it goes quite slowly: a better analogy is 'a knife through hot butter'] so please come out of your small world and face the facts.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
William Lane Craig is anti-Creationist - from Dawkins' point of view he is an irrelevance.
I suppose they could debate who makes the coolest trainers .....
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Richard Dawkins also refused to debate Ray Comfort, the retard who thought bananas proved the existence of God.