Dawkins responds to a stalker – Craig gets his debate

Last year when I was at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne there was a motley little crew of creationists (3 I think) outside heckling people and demanding that Richard Dawkins debate evolution with them. Just one example of people who try to hitch their cause on to the fame and reputation of others.

And what arrogance. Dawkins was travelling throughout Australia and New Zealand for lectures and other appearances. He arrived as the last speaker at the convention having flown from Auckland where he had lectured the night before. An extremely busy man. And I am sure audiences appreciated his willingness to make these efforts to communicate his love of science and counter the childish rumours some people put out about him.

And even more arrogant – these creationists accused Dawkins of cowardice because he refused to debate them! (Actually he probably didn’t even know they existed).

Debating an empty chair

Recently we have seen a similar arrogance from William Lane Craig. Wishing to boost his audience during his current UK visit Craig demanded Dawkins debate him. Then he promoted a cowardice story and attempts to make a point by debating an empty chair instead. Childish. But also publicity seeking.

Frankly I think Dawkins was perfectly correct to turn down a debate request.  So does Sharon Hill who wrote:

“Debates are not about who has the best facts, it’s about who is the best debater – something completely different. And, debates are for the audience. If the audiences comes into the debate, entrenched in their views, they leave loving their champion even more.”

I think Dawkins has hit on a better approach with the public discussions he has promoted. Here two authorities can sit down and have a reasoned discussion, presenting evidence, outlining their differences as well as where they agree. Much better than the public punch-up of the debate format and the bloodletting pronouncements of winners and losers from the fanboys.

Craig’s dark side

I wondered if Dawkins should respond to Craig by offering a public discussion – something Craig has no skills in. But clearly Dawkins’ objections to Craig run deeper than differences over debate formats. He says in a recent article (Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig) that he just wouldn’t share a platform with the man. Because of Craig’s  “dark side, and that is putting it kindly.” Craig’s “refusal to “disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”

Dawkins quotes extensively and convincingly from Craig to justify his claim (he calls them “revolting words”). Have a look at the article for the details.

However, it strikes me that Craig has now got the debate he wanted – but not on his own terms as he usually insists. Dawkins has called his bluff. Up till now Craig was effectively stalking Dawkins. Harassing him in the hope of getting cheap publicity. Dawkins has basically ignored him

But now Dawkins has laid down a challenge. He has pointed out Craig’s support for some of the worst action and justifications of Christianity and religion.

Inevitably Craig and his many apologist fans, will retaliate. Not in the format they want. Nor on the subject they demanded. But it would be inconceivable for them to ignore the challenge.

So the debate is on. Let’s keep it clean. Dawkins has laid down his criticisms – it’s up to Craig and his supporters to put up their defence, if they can.

I think so far it is Dawkins 1: Craig 0.

About these ads

14 responses to “Dawkins responds to a stalker – Craig gets his debate

  1. Dear spambot, how are you? I like your site but i don’t know about this topic, but i want to leave good comment to this site. Good work spambot!
    (spamlink)

    Like

  2. Dawkins is well within his right in deciding he will not answer questions put to him regarding his worldview – however cowardly that may be. Similarly, religious people are well within their rights is refusing to countenance any questions he has regarding their worldviews. Hopefully now, Dawkins will be satisfied with this standoff and restrict himself to preaching only to fellow atheists. If he dares to show his face in any public debate again on the issue of worldviews he’ll be humiliated as he’s being done today by Craig! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Like

  3. Pingback: Outsourcing moral decisions to justify genocide | Open Parachute

  4. Pingback: Flying Teapot » Outsourcing moral decisions to justify genocide

  5. Rosmary LYNDALL WEMM

    Dawkins has already been on a platform with Craig, which was recently hosted in Mexico. The debate included 5 other speakers and was not in a format that Craig controlled. In this format Craig was unable to declare “victory”. Apparently this does not sit well with his ego.

    In the Mexico-hosted debate, both Craig and Dawkins defended their “worldview”, so zakiaminu has no valid basis for his vindictive compliant.

    No-one has demonstrated cowardice in this incidence. Craig, however, has demonstrated arrogance, viciousness, underhandedness and a deeply worrying disregard of human life and well-being on behalf of his disturbing version of a god. His supporters, including zakiaminu, have demonstrated insidious nastiness against people with worldviews that differ from their own and a mindset that thinks nothing of supporting arguments for cruelty and genocide without reservation. They are excellent examples of Carlin’s contention that in order for good people to do bad things you need religion.

    The behavior of Craig and his fawning minions is similar to the Christian Nazis who wore uniforms with belt-buckles reading “God with Us” (in German, of course) and felt themselves religiously justified in their horrific treatment of the Jews. Like Hitler, they were anti-atheist. Like their church leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, they were staunchly antisemitic. According to their religious indoctrination, the Jews had killed their Christ so the Holocaust was a holy vendetta approved by their god. Now Craig has given his minions justification for killing whoever they believe to be “sinful”, using their god’s behavior as a moral example. This is hideous.

    Like

  6. “Dawkins has already been on a platform with Craig, which was recently hosted in Mexico….”

    So what is the objection now that Dawkins’ has to debating Craig one on one? EVERYONE – INCLUDING ATHEISTS – this is all about COWARDICE on the part of Dawkins! Hahhahahahahhahahahahaha!

    Like

  7. “……No-one has demonstrated cowardice in this incidence. Craig, however, has demonstrated arrogance, viciousness, underhandedness and a deeply worrying disregard of human life and well-being on behalf of his disturbing version of a god. His supporters, including zakiaminu, have demonstrated insidious nastiness against people with worldviews that differ from their own and a mindset that thinks nothing of supporting arguments for cruelty and genocide without reservation…..”

    Since atheists do not recognise ANY form of OBJECTIVE morality why are they getting all huffy about people being killed or tortured? What is in it for atheists? What is their RATIONAL basis for opposing torture or genocide? What do they care whether a million or even a billion are tortured to death? It’s all MEANINGLESS anyway to ateiists, isn’t it? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Like

  8. “….The behavior of Craig and his fawning minions is similar to the Christian Nazis who wore uniforms with belt-buckles reading “God with Us” (in German, of course) and felt themselves religiously justified in their horrific treatment of the Jews. Like Hitler, they were anti-atheist. Like their church leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, they were staunchly antisemitic. According to their religious indoctrination, the Jews had killed their Christ so the Holocaust was a holy vendetta approved by their god. Now Craig has given his minions justification for killing whoever they believe to be “sinful”, using their god’s behavior as a moral example. This is hideous.”

    What is the ATHEISTIC basis for saying that ANYTHING is “hideous”? Or is this just a word that is used when atheists think it will suit their particular aims at the time?

    And, by the way, if you trust Nazi words so much, I take it you also trust the declaration over the gates of Auschwitz: “Arbeit macht frei.” Hahahahahahahahahahahahaah!

    Hitler and his Nazis were inveterate LIARS and propagandists – just like ALL committed ATHEISTS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Like

  9. Dawkins dares not show his face again in public challenging religious people’s worldviews – because they are bound to challenge his, and then where would he be? Craig’s arguments, which he’s terrified of, are available to everyone now – and they’re bound to be used against him. Look how John Lennox HUMILIATED him! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    As long as he’s incapable of facing down someone like Craig, no religious person will pay him any further serious attention. His time as the atheist bogeyman from the point of view of theists is over! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Like

  10. William Lane Craig is taking advantage of the obscurantist tradition of Western intellectual culture. He appeals to the type of person who is initiated in the mind-set of obscurantism, which is that the more convoluted a statement is the greater its intellectual merit. He also knows that it is for the same reason that Dawkins’ lucid, no-nonsense arguments can easily be made to appear intellectually unrefined. This is a common smokescreen used by humanities types whose careers depend on maintaining an appearance of intellectual authority because their work is so devoid of meaningful substance.

    Like

  11. Missile Smile

    “atheists do not recognise ANY form of OBJECTIVE morality”

    What is ‘objective morality’ and in what way do atheists not recognise it?

    Like

  12. Why bother to respond to such nonsense from Zakiwacko? His ‘logic’ and ‘argument’ consist of 1 part unsubstantiated assertion and 6 parts “Hahahahahahaha…ad naseum,” the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your tongue out.

    Like

  13. Pingback: Religie, Atheïsme en Moraliteit - Kloptdatwel?

  14. Zakiaminu typifies the Craig style debate. Rather than deal with facts and clear, substantiated facts, the central argument appears to be misrepresentation followed by:
    ‘Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!’ ad naseum.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s