Is Richard Dawkins afraid to debate the best?

Heh heh. You said Ben Witherington.

Also, Dawkins doesn't need to debate D'Souza since Daniel Dennett already made minced meat out of him.

As for William Lane Craig, I can't blame Dawkins in stating “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.” It's not Dawkins's job to get yelled at by every two-bit bozo who feels like taking a break from ranting on a street corner.

 

Nonsense. Do you REALLY think people watch debates to form a correct opinion? If he won, would you change your mind? If you want to hear Dawkins arguments you don't need a debate to see them, he has written books, you know. They claims of cowardice are an attempt to smear him, no one is under any moral obligation to debate anyone. Substitute any whom you admire, asked to debate with someone you consider unworthy, and see if you still think the claim of cowardice holds.

 

Do you think the leaders of ACOG should regularly set up debates against those who believe in the Stork Theory? I mean do you think that's the best use of both parties' time or shouldn't they just spend their time in bettering their fields?

 

You just can't leave this topic alone, can you Chuck? You're clearly not interested in that little personal ceasefire we have. I mean had.

 

Wow. No matter what web forum I join there is always some religious fundies spouting off about creationism.

 

I don't speak for Stev0, and I'm not going to ask him not to speak. You two can carry on your own little war, and I'll take the odd peek now and then.

 

I haven't listened to it.

Was the debate about validity or values? It's a big difference. Some of Dawkins views are about values rather than validity and he's not a theologian.

 

It's part of America's DNA. We are a nation that clings to our guns and bibles. A shot of penecillin isn't going to cure that. Time and education will.

 

Not if education budgets keep getting slashed. Or if creationism is taught as a 'balanced' alternative to science. Religionistas know thine enemy well, and education is a clear target.

 

I can easily pick holes in Craig's arguments, I wouldn't dream of debating him. Debates aren't about logic, evidence, they are about rhetoric.

I would however debate him (in print), if YOU promised to change your mind, should I win. So, are you willing to put YOUR money where your mouth is? Of course, if he declines to debate me, you are required to call him a coward prominently in public

 

Dude, YOU started this thread.

 

I have faith that knowledge, learning, and education has the inertia to continually illuminate the darkness and ignorance that religion demands.

 

This is like saying that basketball is a bad sport because I'm not very good at playing it. Winning or losing a debate does not necessarily indicate the soundness of an idea, as the outcome is heavily influenced by the skill of the debater. One can have a brilliant, completely correct idea and still do a poor job defending it.

Tom

 

Hey. I have no use for a bible but I do love shooting.

 

When one's belief system isn't based on reality, things like debate results and popularity of their belief system become very important.

Most atheists and agnostics that I know don't give a rats arse that other people are religious as long as the religious ones don't try to impose their beliefs on others.

To many of the the religious, it's like they were in politics and the more people they can get in their camp the better. It's as if that somehow made them more correct. I think it's related to herd/tribal instincts.