Richard Dawkins is a super coward

reply to post by windword


I watched the entire debate last night thinking I may get some new insight on both sides however it wasn’t there IMO. The religious kept going back to the same argument of there must be some reason for it all and basically that was their proof well that does not cut it for me. Finding reason is a human trait (why did this happen) it isn’t necessary for what actually is. We all look for meaning in things (why did my father die, why was there an earthquake killing so many, why was there a tsunami) well truth is sh#t happens there isn’t any rhyme or reason behind it just happenstance raw physics and general chaos in the universe. Grow up, move on, and effect what you can hopefully in the best possible way. We only get this life and we should do the best we can with it. There will always be a few morally bankrupt people out there but they are the exceptions not the rule.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by sdb93awd

 

Until Dawkins starts holding his 1v1 debates in Muslim countries and challenges Clerics about Islam, he is a chicken sh*t. Picking on the safe religion and ignoring the others makes him a coward.

So you're saying you've gone to the middle of Tehran and denounced Islam at the top of your lungs while loudly proclaiming to be a Western Christian. If not, according to your logic, you're a coward.

Very good writeup by Craig with references to Dawkins weak arguments

Dawkins Delusion


Dawkins couldn't possibly be more terrified of this man. Why is he avoiding him?

Maybe because if he gets thoroughly dominated he won't make sell as many books?


All you atheists out there need to write this "man" some letters. He's making y'all look bad.

reply to post by sdb93awd


No wonder he will not debate him. You can't fix stupid.

In all seriousness I was reading his arguments and it all boils down to he doesn't understand where it all began or how so it must be god. One of his real arguments was the universe exists=God.

I do not know is a a good answer a better one is we are trying to figure that out but the answer of god is just a cop out.

I do not blame him for not debating him because he talks nonsense. There was already a debate where they could make there case WinWord posted it check it out and you will understand the guys arguments just aren't worth the time.

reply to post by sdb93awd


The excistence of god argument is just as valid as my argument that we excist on the back of a pink multidimensional elephant named Earl. And has the exact same amount of evidence to support it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by sdb93awd

 

The excistence of god argument is just as valid as my argument that we excist on the back of a pink multidimensional elephant named Earl. And has the exact same amount of evidence to support it.

Darn! I can't prove that Earl DOESN'T exist!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by sdb93awd

 

The excistence of god argument is just as valid as my argument that we excist on the back of a pink multidimensional elephant named Earl. And has the exact same amount of evidence to support it.

and I bet you believe that whole heartedly and would die for that belief, would actively surrender your life for others.

So what does your elephant faith teach....Peace love hope joy

another petty argument with no context or validity

I guess that must be a Dawkins teaching

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

I see a coward in plain sight. So Dawkins picking apart young earth creationists makes him brave? Give me a break. Craig isn't a young earth creationist and his arguments hinge on logic. Where he often traps his opponents is by forcing them on the issue of atheism vs agnosticism. Most atheists are too caught up with faith in their position (and that is what it ultimately is, make no mistake about it) to admit that they don't know how the universe came into existence other than to say "the big bang did it". If they admit that they don't know what caused the big bang, then they are forced to admit that they are closet agnostics, but often refuse to do so.

How on earth is that a trap??

I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't claim to know (as-in absolutely) that there is no God. Most (9/10) atheists hold this position, to claim otherwise is a sign of a slightly unstable mind IMO as we really can't claim to know anything absolutely.

We can however know things to a high degree of certainty, such as we know to a high degree of certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow, but we can't claim to know this absolutely.

e.g: I would say that I'm fairly certain that the claims made by theists are completely untrue, but I would not claim to know this absolutely.

Here's a pic that will hopefully help you understand

However, a faith based claim is one for which we have no reason or evidence to believe is true.

I know that theists would love to claim anyone that doesn't believe their claims to also hold similarly tenuous and insubstantial beliefs, as this would make them feel much more secure with their own world view.

But unfortunately for you and them, this simply isn't the case as I have shown and this 'trap' would ensnare only the naive.

I do however agree with you on one thing, that picking on young earth creationists doesn't by itself make you brave, after all creationists of any description are easy prey, in fact all theists are due to the baseless claims they make.

But calling them or anyone else on ridiculous claims about anything doesn't make you arrogant, believing a claim is true and expecting others to believe it without evidence is however incredibly arrogant.

Originally posted by borntowatch
another petty argument with no context or validity

Funny. It's exactly the same argument the religious people have. So I guess your comment is quite true.

reply to post by sdb93awd


Ithink he'd be more afraid of ravi Zachary.

On the other hand, man can use logic to argue any point.

I can spend the next 10 years creating a new religion, and focusing on writing volumes of books based on defending my view from every possible nay Sayers.

Islam has apologetics, as does Christianity, as do pretty much all the other religions.

There comes a times in your own spiritual growth where you move past the point of your own ego needing to debate others.

That's al Dawkins is, an atheist based ego, in love with, and feeding off of, the addiction to argue against other egos. Its an actual addiction and high you can get off of it if you are right or the guy you are rooting for wins.

But spiritually, its a trap

Originally posted by sdb93awd

-Most atheists and academics have considerable respect for Dr. Craig

Lol what?? have you been reading this thread at all?

This is a claim you'll have to back up, because WLC is the person that said children dying was actually a blessing (as they've received his gods love earlier in life )

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Source

So in WLC's world, we should be happy whenever we see children die...........a swell guy

And unless you can show that 'Most atheists and academics have considerable respect for Dr. Craig' despite the quote above I put it to you that, unsurprisingly, you made it up out of thin air.......

Seeing as I was awarded a double post, ill just leave this here

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

Originally posted by sdb93awd
I'm 100% sure you've never listended to Dr. Craig debate.
Also, nobody here is talking about the age of the earth because that is irrelevant to anybody with any sense.

You're 100% incorrect. I have. And he doesn't impress me nor does he seem like a logical person. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by sdb93awd
Very good writeup by Craig with references to Dawkins weak arguments

Ugh. That's a pitiful article! It's more about his annoyance with the semantics of what it means to "disbelieve" in his God and trying to pull upon the language and rhetoric of debate to argue against an atheist position and the scientific hypothesis in how the universe came to be.

He doesn't actually offer genuine scientific evidence to the contrary. Just semantics.

And this is why Dawkins probably doesn't want to debate him. It's like a petulant child, when a parent says, "Go and pick up your toys now" and the child says, "No, YOU go up pick up the toys, NOW!".

You cannot reason with a child - it doesn't work. I've tried for 9 years!! Same goes with die-hard religious believers.

reply to post by noonebutme


AMEN! Thanks for the link, I missed it earlier. Now I can better answer this:

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.

reply to post by sdb93awd

Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

William Lane Craig
www.reasonablefaith.org...

God is always the answer, when you don't know the answer!

Craig goes on to say:

Now this is a logically airtight argument.

Uh, no it's not.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Watch from 1:26:00 to 1:27:45. Lewis Wolpert agrees with the definition of what agnosticism is and declares it a reasonable position, yet refuses to call himself agnostic while simultaneously claiming he doesn't know 100% what caused the big bang. By your own chart and his own admission, he should be comfortable with declaring himself an agnostic, but refuses to do so in order to avoid giving up any philosophical ground to Craig. It's absurd.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Y'all are making this too easy.

As someone else had posted, Dawkins went out of his way to write an excuse for not debating the man.

But unfortunately for you and them, this simply isn't the case as I have shown and this 'trap' would ensnare only the naive.

Shouldn't Dawkins be able to wipe the floor with him then? Dawkins has no issue with debating other apologists or others in the community.....

Why wouldn't he want to destroy such an easy target? Especially considering how WLC is considered to be perhaps the most powerful Christian apologist. This is supposed to be Dawkins wheelhouse. He writes books on the subject.

You all can discredit WLC all that you want but he is a respected apologist by all standards and Dawkins is clearly ducking him. Just read his excuse that he went out of his way to publish. It sounds like things that I heard in middle school.

At the very least Dawkins needs to hand in his man card.


You guys have to be honest with me here.............

Does anyone actually think that Dawkins would win this debate?

reply to post by Prezbo369

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

After reading that I wouldn't debate him either hell if I ever meet the guy I would be very tempted to punch him. He is scum.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What a very lovely sentiment. Clearly it is atheists who hold the intellectual high ground here.

reply to post by Grimpachi

After reading that I wouldn't debate him either hell if I ever meet the guy I would be very tempted to punch him. He is scum.

If God exists then I'm quite sure that everything he does is fine. If he can create the universe and life, then I'm also quite sure that he could provide perfect justice for humanity.

He is not something we are going to be able to comprehend if he is in fact real. He would be much greater than us. If he isn't real then I'm afraid we will never understand anything about life or the universe. We will just end up extinct due to our stupid/evil nature.

I would also venture to guess that you aren't familiar with the culture of the Canaanites or how the Old and New Testaments fit together and the instructions that Christians have received from Jesus Christ. Go read his words again and tell me where Christians are told to be a harmful people. I challenge you to find one thing that Jesus says that is of an evil nature.


Lets talk about Dawkins for a bit. The man makes $ by humiliating Christians. Someone's faith is of utmost importance to them(moreso than almost any attribute), and as an avid reader of the Bible I have never read anything that even remotely made me want to do evil things. A lot of lost souls find God and turn their lives around forever because of the gospel of Christianity. Has anyone ever used their conversion to atheism as the crux to overcome a heroin addiction?

Dawkins is unreasonably and nonsensically attacking a group of people who are told to simply love everybody. And he is probably convincing a lot of people to lose their faith.......

It breaks my heart..........especially because I know what Jesus has done to my heart.


Oh and by the way Dawkins is afraid of William Lane Craig. That's the point of this thread. I've simply seen nothing that would indicate otherwise.