John Quin

  • **
  • 985 Posts
    • View Profile
Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #105 on: November 29, 2010, 07:24:38 am »
I think the great irony of this thread is that people who are claiming WLC is a master of rhetoric are just reciting rhetoric of their own.
The ONLY think that draws me to WLC is the logical arguments. WLC could no sooner argue that the sky is green than anyone.
All this talk about WLC winning because he is a seasoned debater seems like an excellent example of rationalisation. ("Those grapes were sour anyway")

I agree that a debate has limited academic value however there are scholarly articles written by apologists and I don't think Dawkins or Shermer are really up to responding to them on that level either.
When you do find people who do publish and respond like, T Nagel, Q Smith, M Ruse you find that they don't hold to the untenable views promoted by popular atheist.

As far as the value of a Craig/Dawkins debate I can certainly see some. I very much doubt the die hards will benefit as they have been exposed to the arguments before and have made up their minds. However there are a great many people out there who think Dawkins is some kind of wizard who has destroyed belief in God. They really need to be educated in how bad his arguments are.

Perhaps one day people will find that belief in God is untenable but until then I'll just ignore the posturing from both sides and analyse the arguments. To date the new atheists are yet to make a sound one, I'm all ears to someone who can tell me what contribution they have made to atheistic philosophy.

BTW you can respond to Craig's Audio Blog. (Oddly a very different atmosphere than in the forum)
What abiogenesis needs is a form of life so simple that even Stanley Miller could create it.


Matthew Young

  • **
  • 51 Posts
    • View Profile
Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #106 on: November 30, 2010, 11:25:47 am »
littledoc wrote:
Huh? I've seen many of Craig's debates, and I don't think he's "won" any of


Then you're biased.

And I don't mean to say it's because you're an atheist that you're biased. I mean to say that you probably don't look at the debates in an objective manner. Despite being a Christian, I can look at debates objectively. I'll acknowledge a good argument regardless of who formed it or what it's against. Some other people have a real problem doing the same.

Nevertheless there does exist atheists who are more objective, admitting that Dr. Craig has won most (if not all) of his debates. For example,



  • **
  • 74 Posts
    • View Profile
Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #107 on: November 30, 2010, 02:56:01 pm »
I don't really understand why Richard Dawkins would participate in a debate surrounding what he believes to be a nonsensical question. If the question really is as absurd as the "what color is jealousy" question, then what does it say about him that he's willing to indulge in such a discussion? I think I know the answer to that question, but I'm wondering if Dawkins himself is ultimately behaving in a way consistent with what he claims to believe about the titular question.



  • ***
  • 1599 Posts
    • View Profile
Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #108 on: November 30, 2010, 06:31:27 pm »
But he's debated others before on this particular nonsensical question.

Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #109 on: November 30, 2010, 10:10:19 pm »

First off, I thought it was very interesting to see Christians and Jews coming together to team up on the opposition.  That was a great combination IMO..

William Craig showed a strong performance in that debate.  I loved how he called Dawkins out on his "Machines for propagating DNA"...The "ought to be" statement was a good way to start the fight.  Dawkins then backpeddled with a weak rebuttal and an obvious evasion.  (why ask why? ok Atkins said that, but can you come up with your own material?).  I actually expected a bit more from RichDawkins and was a bit disappointed.  He never attacked the debate.  WLC and company sailed away into victory after that.  (That boxing ring was a little lame), but I was really impressed with Wolpes FIRST ARGUMENT and I give him some props, he really was the big surprise to me here.  The "purposer" point was actually the new material I learned when he went more into depth with it.  But then Wolpe lost a little bit in the 2nd debate and got a bit confusing and then he got too spiritual on his last statement (which has some relevance, but don't say that to naturalists), this gave Dawkins his only clear shot of the night.

It was really WLC and the Midget at the end that fought for who can stomp the atheist side more into oblivion.... I'd have to say that from the atheist side, Ridley had the best arguments out of the three, and at least made some type of argument when he talked about Evil.  The other two showed alot of insecurity with lame jokes, some cheap shots with no relevance to the debate and not much rebuttal, which I believe showed an "inferiority complex" on their part.  Hitchens did a much better job than Dawkins IMO

Kaku was alright, and his "God" gene idea was pretty interesting.  But like he said we will probably be back for this 100 years from now.  Science cannot prove or disprove God.  I hope Ridley realized that Kaku wasn't taking a cheap shot at the theists either, he was playing it neutral.  I actually thought Kaku took a subtle shot at Dawkins to be honest.

The Atheistic cult can whine and come up with all the excuses they want, it is what it is...YOU LOST, deal with it and move on IMO...

Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #110 on: December 01, 2010, 01:06:35 pm »
jbiemans wrote: If Dawkins were to debate WLC on the topic of evolution vs. creationism, I do not doubt that Dawkins would win the debate.  If they were to debate about "does God exist", then I think it would probably go in WLC's favor. This is only due to the fact that WLC is a thelogoen and Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.  They each have different strengths.

I would love to see WLC against some of the people I see as strong philosophers on youTube.  I know you may laugh but a few of them are really intelligent and eloquent.

Pretty much the people from Tudesday Afternoon.
Actually Dawkins is a zoologist

Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #111 on: December 02, 2010, 11:42:18 pm »

Lol yeah Dawkins claimed in the same debate "WE ARE WORKING ON IT" and then "why do we need an explanation"...I wonder how he deals with his multiple personalities?  I wonder if he was worried about book sales?





I wonder if RichDawkins was worred about his book sales on this one....I bet alot of Cosmologists are pretty pissed off after finding out that Dawkins thinks there jobs are silly and worthless.



  • **
  • 197 Posts
    • View Profile
Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #112 on: December 07, 2010, 05:41:42 pm »

Glad to see richard the coward come out of his hiding spot after such a long time. As expected he mumbles nonsense as usual. As expected he fails miserably at being coherent let alone defend the unbearable burden of proof that comes with such absurd claims as that made by atheists. Although the debate was interesting I don't think any thinking person can claim that the atheists won by any stretch of the imagination, although they are pretty notorious in how far they can stretch it when they are desperate.

As usual the atheists brethren are here to propagate their irrationalities but a special lol goes out to that guy who claimed that Craig never won a debate... He even cited stenger as a winner... lol stenger out of all people. Incredible!

PS. I would still like to see a one-on-one debate between Craig and richard though.

PPS. I like how kaku went up there trying to play the neutral intellectual and spewed the hollow promises of string theory... It's more likely that we find unicorns before anyone makes sense of that garbage. lol

PPS. The winning statement from the entire presentation was that of the clinical therapist on the wheelchair. Specifically, regarding the arrogance displayed by atheists who claim that their existence is purposeful (regardless of how irrational and delusional such claim actually is) while the wonder of the entire universe is purposeless. I honestly could have not said it better myself.

Dawkins and Craig Are Going to Meet?
« Reply #113 on: December 14, 2010, 04:35:14 am »
My thoughts on the Craig v Dawkins exchange:

Enjoy! :-)