Madeline,
John Dawkins never worrie me at any time.I for one am grateful to him for helping to destroy alot of the wolly thinking of theists. I applaud him.
Was he right?
No.
Did he ever have the right data to make his comments on and evaluate as a scientist?
NO!!
So he couldnt have done any harm.
No one has the relevant information to make any comment on God.

Pericles, don't forget that it was you who said "If judged as a schoolgirl's essay, I'd probably mark it quite well for her use of language. But as a rational evaluation of an event on the other side of the world, it is far too soaked in self-importance to be an effective contribution."

And while I'm at it, the author's "As a young Australian who has an interest in both science and intelligent debate over the existence of God" infers an element of inquisitiveness, wouldn't you say? Credit where credit's due. The article's about Richard Dawkins, not a treatise on the author's understanding of the universe and everything in it.

I quite enjoy some of the observations you make in your posts, but I haven't said so up til now, partly because it's always useful to have an Angry Young Man around the place to keep the nutters honest when nobody else can be bothered and I wouldn't want to diminish you. But also partly because your tendency to project, selectively interpret, and employ bad faith is obvious to all except yourself seemingly, hence it's a bit difficult to have a serious conversation with you.

Age and maturity being as they are mutually exclusive, I'd suggest you've got a bit of growing up to do.

Socratease, The worrying thing I remember John Dawkins' having done was to raise the tax on wine. Bastard!

The question does God exist or does God not exist is not subject to empirical evidence. Therefore no amount of debate can ever settle the argument. Nobody is capable of producing evidence that can be verified one way or the other. This in many ways makes the whole argument a waste of time.

Religious people turn to faith or revelation to support their beliefs. But since this is really subjective judgment not surprisingly different people come up with grossly divergent views. To take one example is God a single identity (viewpoint of Jews or Muslims) or is he three in one (the problem of the ‘trinity’ of most Christian sects). One can only say either one or the other or both are wrong.

I take my stand on plausibility. The concept of a God the creator conducting the human orchestra on earth, and assisted according to some sects by a host of heavenly creatures such as angles, archangels etc. is to my mind highly implausible. So implausible are the ideas of religion as not to be worth debating.

I am aware that scholars have built up extensive theological systems on the assumptions of the existence of a deity or deities. However, it is my view that no matter how learned the theological systems are, in the absence of empirical and verifiable evidence they have as much structural integrity as a house of cards.

Excellent essay for one, not so much young as inexperienced.

i see all the usual communazi international socialists are here barracking for their favourite ANTIchrist.

i will try to make your "loss of faith" easy for you all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism which = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism which = mass murder of millions of innocent people for the glorious revolution.

Atheism = ANTIhumanism or the deliberate, premeditated destruction of society, or ANTIsocialism so that 1% of the world's population can own/control 100% of the "capital" & the other 99% of the population/slaves.

We all knew this half a century ago but still the blind followers of the old/new religion continue proseletising it.

read these books, articles & WAKE UP, before you end up in a "rehabilitation resource" with hard labour for life, see how easy it is to use "newspeak" when you are familiar with the PC, Thought Police.

http://www.torrents.net/torrent/324389/The-Naked-Capitalist-ocr'd-pdf/

http://www.downloadweb.org/search.php?acode=2d6cfcc00b464c7ee4408add5d864738&q=The%2520naked%2520communist

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/at-last-a-thorough-probe-into-what-drives-the-greens-machine/story-fn59niix-1226095160826

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

enjoy, ladies & gentlemen, PROTESTANT christianity is the real revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Civil_War you counter revolutionaries need to WAKE UP to yourselves before it is too late to REPENT.

Queen Juliar Dillhard is dead or a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE , long live King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter , the http://www.ausparty.org.au/ & the royal commission on Closet Communazism.

It is not about what you believe, we all agree to disagree on the existence of a God or gods. It is simply an issue of freedom and democracy. It is about the societal structures that allow a varieties of beliefs to co-exist without fear of persecution or favouritism. Secularism allows this over any other system.

Secular detractors have not convinced me that society is reasonably better with one prevailing and influencing dogma when blind freddy can see the effects of this overseas.

The comments make me wonder about the agenda of some religious people given one OLO contributor has already called for the death of people whose views do not match his own. Clearly Christian principles are not doing much for him. If this is the sort of loony fascist society one aspires to we may as well go back to burning non-existent witches.

John,

Big shout-out for all the Hunter Skeptics: consistently the best contributors on this website... now on to your argument, specifically this bit: "Craig indulges in twists and turns that make sensible debate impossible so why bother."

Sensible debate is never impossible. Craig is good at rhetoric... but his logic is appalling. I'm pretty sure there are people in our camp who are not only better at logic than Craig, but also rhetorically gifted - sufficiently so to out-rhetoric Craig.