Dawkins and those in the atheist community have no belief in God or other supernatural interference in the real world, and to this end debate with Craig would like debating with someone that fervently believes that the earth is flat. It doesn't matter how articulate or knowledgeable the flat earther is, his opinion is flawed and worthless.

If Ms Kirk - or anyone else here for that matter - is wondering why William Lane Craig is not worth debating, then here it is in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ

‘nuff said.

There is no point in spruiking Craig’s PhD in philosophy when he so readily abandons (or conveniently forgets) basic agreed-upon philosophical principals in order to fool and baffle the credulous.

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

The guy is an unprincipled sophist and who earns a living by deceiving those who were never going to question what he said to begin with and should be regarded with contempt.

Well, if you're all so sure Craig is so wrong, then it should be even more reason for Hitchens to debate him. Should be a walk over and therefore a convincing demonstration of how poor the religious argument is.

The first post sums up the hypocrisy and foolish nature of the new atheist religion. Jon J writes

'OK, Madeleine, how do YOU think Dr Dawkins should regard people who fly planes into buildings full of people, mutilate children's genitals, cover up child sexual abuse in their organisations, and send mentally disabled women into crowded marketplaces to set off explosives strapped to their bodies? '

Suddenly the new atheist don't believe in moral relativism anymore. They are happy to pronounce absolutes which make them look very silly indeed. Are you sure flying planes in a building is wrong Jon J? I am sure there are millions of Muslims who disagree. Oh that's right the new atheist now make up the absolutes when they suite their arguement.

GrahamY,

This is undoubtedly the most intelligent thing you've ever said. Try to keep up the good work!

Thank you for reminding me of my opening lines, Sam Jandwich. I stand by both of them.

The language employed is of a high standard for one who self-describes as a "young Australian", writing "from the perspective of [a] sixteen year old". (I assume she incorporated that information for a reason).

However, to flatter the presentation of her thoughts merely because of her youth, is to do her a grave disservice. Encouraging sloppy, even lazy thinking, simply because she is still at school is, I would suggest, the height of patronising behaviour. "Such a clever girl".

Incidentally, having "an interest in both science and intelligent debate over the existence of God" is not, in my experience, particularly unusual in sixteen year-olds. But to use this interest as the basis of a piece that is manifestly driven by the need to display her already rusted-on belief system by slagging off a handy atheist-figure, is hardly praiseworthy.

There is, she should quickly learn, no such thing as an "intelligent debate" about the existence or non-existence of God, despite what Graham suggests. If you are a believer, you believe, despite a complete lack of evidence. If you don't believe, then you simply don't. Quite probably, because you regard that lack of evidence as an impediment. Any attempt by either party to dissuade the other from their position is pointless, providing nothing more than a platform for their own self-regard, whether atheist author or Doctor of Theology.

On the subject of "Doctors of Theology", I'm pretty sure Johann Becher would have drawn adoring crowds for his "discovery" of phlogiston. As, no doubt, did a whole lot of his disciples, all brandishing the equivalent of their PhD in phlogiston theory.

Hmmmm. Theology as twentyfirst-century phlogiston. A firm, unwavering belief in something that doesn't exist.

I suspect there may be a best-seller in that.