lol.

Are you being serious?

Dawkins is the opportunist. While Craig has been busy preparing for debates with the best philosophers scientists the UK has to offer, Dawkins has been busy on the publicity trail of his new books.

Besides, Craig is no opportunist. The point that Dawkins has conveniently not mentioned is that it ISNT WILLIAM LANE CRAIG who is organising this tour of the UK, it is two independent organisations- bethinking.org and Premier Radio. Craig is merely accepting the invitation to debate, something that Dawkins is too scared to do.

It's really getting embarrassing for him now. He writes a book called "The God Delusion", supposedly an analysis of the God question, but then he doesnt want his arguments to be scrutinised. Instead, he criticises someone's character on the Guardian website. "Oh, Craig believes this, therefore I won't debate him on a completely different question".

How sad. What a prideful old man. Just do yourself a favour Dicky, and lay low.

Graham,

You claim that Dawkins has made theological claims, however, having actually read the "god delusion" what is clear, even from the introduction, is that Dawkins is not trying to make any theological argument. He does not even claim that god does not exist. However, what he does say is that there is no evidence that god exists, and that he chooses on evidence to hand to accept that there is no god.

Further in the book he spends some time deconstructing creationism, "intelligent design" and other claims that organised religion has on morality and ethics. He challenges the concept that morality springs from religion, and charges that the influence of religion on common laws is to some extent detrimental to society.

Given that Craig openly claims that the first and over riding proof is his own spiritual experience and it over rides any evidence that others can provide, is there any chance of serious debate?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220509
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220516
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220520
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220523
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220533
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220535
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220536
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220538
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220552
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220554
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220555
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220559
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220565

AJ Philips, Pericles, McReal, Squeers, Aristocrat, Saltpetre & Poirot, so your "debate", or 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought are,

Point #1, that it is GOOD when an atheist uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry cheap tricks, BAD if a theist does it.

Point #2, evolution is GOOD when you are destroying religion, BAD when religion is evolving over time &/or improving its moral codes.

Point #3, when that does not work you "refuse to give them oxygen", how "getting in touch with your feminine side of you", or "lateral thinking", ignore the linear logic, facts & slither sideways, http://www.google.com.au/search?q=sheela+na+gig&hl=en&biw=1104&bih=621&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ar2gToSVMom4iQeR6-HtBg&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQsAQ perhaps you prefer pre-christian, tribal celtic religion.

World war, oppression & poverty over the last few centuries all have 4 plain, simple causes. There are 4 completely, totally & utterly evil religious cults in the world, all with a tradition of telling deliberate, premeditated lies or "manufacturing consent" among the sheeple.

CULT #1, international banksters/satanists/luciferians/atheists (in that they promote atheism to the sheeple while continuing to worship their DARK LORDS) rothschild=6redsigns & 1 single family owning half of all the worlds wealth as far back as 1850.

CULT #2, Zionism, is not judaism, http://www.savethemales.ca/000482.html but worshipping the devil, mamon, contains many joint members of the 1st CULT.

CULT #3, Islamism, Taqiyya in both the koran & hadith means lie to the infedel to further jihad whether it is violent or non violent & you will still go to heaven/paradise because "all is fair in love & war". And hey presto also contains many prominant persons holding joint membership of the first 2 CULTS, please tell me arab oil money is NOT "oiling" the wheels of wall street.

CULT #4, ANTIcommunazi, international ANTIsocialism, materialism, nietzsche, dialectical materialism, atheism (NO morals to get in the way of the glorious revolution), & hey presto the usual suspects are joint members of all the other CULTS, EG trotsky was a zionist friend of the rothschild/6redsigns family who got the early USSR into crippling debt for the sheeple/slaves to pay off, that is the REAL reason why stalin PURGED him.

Shadow, Dawkins may well have decided "on evidence to hand to accept that there is no god", but the major criticism that many atheists and theists alike have made is that he doesn't give the best evidence and arguments for God a fair shake in his book.

The Guardian article would've been a perfect introduction to Richard Dawkins for any of the uninitiated. The man can flat out write. Very rarely do I actually enjoy reading when I'm reading someone whose views I disagree with, and much less so on a topic which is close to my heart. However, Dawkins is a pleasure, he has fantastic command of the English language.

His problem though, is that his logic trails far behind his writing skill and rhetoric. This was even more clear in the Guardian article than in his book, again making it a good introduction for the uninitiated! What a laughable, inaccurate and poor set of excuses for not debating the man!

Eliphaz, Zophar, Bildad, Elihu - where are you now? Why so silent?

Never mind, I can tell you that things work out OK in the end.

Job

I've never heard of the "Gish Gallop" before, but would agree that many on this forum use versions of it - those long posts with cut and paste links to articles and videos that the commenter never seems to be able to summarise.

But it's a pretty simple thing to deal with in a rhetorical sense. You just keep to one or two points and keep bringing them back to it.

If that is Dawkins reason for not refusing the debate McReal, then it is an impoverished one.

Poirot, if Dawkins doesn't want to dignify Craig by debating him, why on earth did he dignify Christianity, and other world religions, by attacking them? The logic does not hold up. Either you venture into the field or you don't. And if you venture in, then you might as well take on someone with better than average credibility on the other side.