Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Richard Dawkins is a super coward

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Dawkins a coward

I guess he is afraid that his arguments based on attacking man made religion won't stack up when challenged by the undefeated William Lane Craig

Dawkins goes out of his way to publish excuses online saying that Craig isn't a worthy adversary and isn't worth his time..... But yet he took the time to write an essay on the man and why he won't debate him.

I believe he is afraid. What do y'all think?



Craig



+7 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sdb93awd
 


Undefeated?


I guess you missed his debate with Bart Ehrman...

Undefeated indeed...
edit on 17-8-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sdb93awd
 


Whenever I've watched William Lane Craig debate I find myself yelling at the monitor, and I'm not even an atheist!

Craig's arguments aren't based on science. He's so thick headed that he just can't see how his own arguments are pleas based on faith and assumes others are willing to take that leap with him. Not all of us are.

Oh, and by the way, just because Chris Hitchens didn't reply to all of Craig's suppositions doesn't mean he lost the debate. Some ideas are just to ridiculous to have prepared for. In my opinion Hitchens wipe the floor with William Lane Craig.

edit on 17-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
There is a lot of faith believing in evolution and the big bang theory as well.
Many answers science cant hope to ever give



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sdb93awd
 


Oh! Look what I found!




posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, there is no faith is accept evolution and science. You're just uneducated in science and therefore do not understand.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't think he's a coward, however almost all of the debates that I've seen or heard with him tend to not be evolution vs creation, but Christian vs Not Christian, or at least that's what it devolves into.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sdb93awd
 


William Lane Craig is a presuppositional apologetic. Which means he's an idiot.

Presuppositional apologetics is logically invalid because it begs the question of the "truth" of Christianity and the non-"truth" of other worldviews.

Dawkins doesn't need to waste his time.
edit on 17-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, there is no faith is accept evolution and science. You're just uneducated in science and therefore do not understand.


well explain how life evolved from dirt and water, how conscience came into existence and why we have so many elements in the elemental table.
Thats a start

No hurry



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Well, I'm no expert. But I'll do my best.

For starters it seems you're mixing abiogenesis with evolution. In science abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life and evolution is the change of biological life forms over the years. Hopefully I'm explaining it accurately. Because I'm not a teacher. However, I don't think science presents life coming from dirt and water. I understand there are various elements that make up the building block life.

Here is a link with loads of information I already posted before on ATS. That I know gives a lot of information of evolution. Because I do my best to present a good introduction to evolution and why it's supported by science.

Link

I was reading your sentence about conscience and it got me curious. Because I only know so much about human psychology. I was thinking about the concept of God and I was thinking if only human's can or disbelieve in God. Compared to animals or if we created robots that could think for themselves.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by sdb93awd
 


Whenever I've watched William Lane Craig debate I find myself yelling at the monitor, and I'm not even an atheist!

Craig's arguments aren't based on science. He's so thick headed that he just can't see how his own arguments are pleas based on faith and assumes others are willing to take that leap with him. Not all of us are.

Oh, and by the way, just because Chris Hitchens didn't reply to all of Craig's suppositions doesn't mean he lost the debate. Some ideas are just to ridiculous to have prepared for. In my opinion Hitchens wipe the floor with William Lane Craig.

edit on 17-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Craig mopped the floor with Hitchens.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Well, I'm no expert. But I'll do my best.

For starters it seems you're mixing abiogenesis with evolution. In science abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life and evolution is the change of biological life forms over the years. Hopefully I'm explaining it accurately. Because I'm not a teacher. However, I don't think science presents life coming from dirt and water. I understand there are various elements that make up the building block life.

Here is a link with loads of information I already posted before on ATS. That I know gives a lot of information of evolution. Because I do my best to present a good introduction to evolution and why it's supported by science.

Link

I was reading your sentence about conscience and it got me curious. Because I only know so much about human psychology. I was thinking about the concept of God and I was thinking if only human's can or disbelieve in God. Compared to animals or if we created robots that could think for themselves.



Irrespective of the validity of abiogenesis and evolution, it still cant be explained.
Neither can the big bang. They are taken as faith theory's to justify something that cant be explained.
Science needs a faith element because it simply cant explain everything

No pedantic arguments, I am not at war with evolutionists, just see holes in the theory, see a lot of faith in evolution as well.

They are foundational to evolution and need to be explained



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


There is a lot of evidence. You just have to do your research. I understand it's confusing because people like me who accept evolution are not that great in explaining it and people who disagree for whatever reason do so in the wrong way. You can find a whole loads of terrible arguments on the internet about evolution and science.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





Craig's arguments aren't based on science. He's so thick headed that he just can't see how his own arguments are pleas based on faith and assumes others are willing to take that leap with him. Not all of us are.


Craigs arguments are based in rationality and logic. I've rarely heard him plea for anyone to "just have faith". He breaks things down very nicely and uses his superior knowledge to crush his opponents logically and fairly.

People say that Dawkins shouldn't waste his time, yet even Dawkins' peers believe he is afraid. Also, Richard will spend time coming up with excuses to publish online rather than debate craig on his home turf.

Why wouldn't an intellectual superhero like Dawkins want to crush his most worthy adversary?

Maybe he can't....



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, there is no faith is accept evolution and science. You're just uneducated in science and therefore do not understand.


well explain how life evolved from dirt and water, how conscience came into existence and why we have so many elements in the elemental table.
Thats a start

No hurry


WOW.. Yeah like there aren't hundreds of threads already on ATS where this has been asked then explained ad-nauseum.

Try the search function on the site you will be surprised how much there is and will learn the difference between big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution along with the evidence to support those theorys.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdb93awd
reply to post by windword
 





Craig's arguments aren't based on science. He's so thick headed that he just can't see how his own arguments are pleas based on faith and assumes others are willing to take that leap with him. Not all of us are.


Craigs arguments are based in rationality and logic.


No they're not. Not to me and others who are well versed in their prospective scientific fields.


I've rarely heard him plea for anyone to "just have faith".


Perhaps you're just so programmed that you can't see the leaps of faith, which you also take for granted, in the existence of God and God to be the end all answer, within his arguments.


He breaks things down very nicely and uses his superior knowledge to crush his opponents logically and fairly.


No. He can't get past his ideal Judeo Christian image of who and what god is, he can't address the actual universe and it's possible nature. He confuses and muddies the issues with his very limited understanding and narrow mind.


People say that Dawkins shouldn't waste his time, yet even Dawkins' peers believe he is afraid. Also, Richard will spend time coming up with excuses to publish online rather than debate craig on his home turf.


There's no reason for Dawkins to continue to address the same lame arguments, time after time. If you want his opinion, since there is no proof of gods' existence, opinion is ALL there is, read his books.



Why wouldn't an intellectual superhero like Dawkins want to crush his most worthy adversary?

Maybe he can't....




posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I do think that he's arrogant and seems to think he's the Pope of Atheism or something, but I don't think that he's a coward. I just think that he's got a point about the challenger being not worth his time.

Dawkins is, without a doubt, an extremely intelligent man and his arrogance is even somewhat justified because of this. He deserves the cream of the crop, best of the best, if he's going to have a reasoned, sound debate.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, there is no faith is accept evolution and science. You're just uneducated in science and therefore do not understand.




Precise thinking contains undigested absolutes. Nature is not precise. The universe is not precise when reduced to our scale; it is vague and fuzzy, full of unexpected movements and changes.

***


All proofs inevitably lead to propositions which have no proof! All things are known because we want to believe in them. The human mind, as is the case with the mind of any animal, is a resonator. It responds to resonances in the environment.

***


If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden
arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong,
true or false, you believe the assumptions in the words
which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full
of holes, but remain most precious to the convicted.
-The Open-Ended Proof
from The Panoplia Prophetica

***


Answers are a perilous grip on the universe. They can appear sensible yet explain nothing.
-taken from The Chronicles of Dune by Frank Herbert

***



"People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define "reality". But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts… their "reality" may all be a mirage. Can we consider them to simply be living in their own world, shaped by their beliefs?"
- Uchiha Itachi

ironically, even fiction proves you wrong,
not that I'm backing the OP.

Ignorance denied?
or will you, like the "religious" you denounce, embrace it more firmly?


edit on 18-8-2013 by TheMagus because: added comment



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMagus
 


Random passages from books? I can get lessons from the Harry Potter books to prove there is an after life.



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, there is no faith is accept evolution and science. You're just uneducated in science and therefore do not understand.


well explain how life evolved from dirt and water, how conscience came into existence and why we have so many elements in the elemental table.
Thats a start

No hurry


will a few ["that is eight"]* YT videos do?








*1 Peter 3:20






top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join