Dawkins accused of cowardice!

[Rum]

From:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... f-God.html

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor 9:58AM BST 14 May 2011

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do we need a rehash of the Thunderf00t/Comfort debate?

[Rum]

Why do we need a rehash of the Thunderf00t/Comfort debate?

Well we don't. Dawkins has nothing to prove...literally.

[odysseus]

Dawkins has said many times that he's 'done all that' as far as debating fundies is concerned, and like the OP hinted at, it would lend the dickheads a form of credibility by giving their ill-conceived bullshit the time of day....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do we need a rehash of the Thunderf00t/Comfort debate?

Well we don't. Dawkins has nothing to prove...literally.

Lane just wants to be able to quote mine that debate to further his agenda.

[Bella Fortuna]

It's like having to keep killing zombies... no matter how many times you do it, they keep mindlessly trudging forward...

[Santa_Claus]

I would offer to settle it with a duel.

Him with the Bible and the love of Jesus. Me with a Pistol.

[Tero]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

[Rum]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

Quite. Which is why I don't do more than pay lip service personally to threads which Gawd, Seth and one or two others participate in. Neither I nor they are going to suddenly go 'Doh - how could I have been so so wrong'!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

They presume they'll gain bragging rights, a slight bit of legitimacy by being seen on the stage with an actual scientist. On the other hand, Dawkins knows the rule, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

Quite. Which is why I don't do more than pay lip service personally to threads which Gawd, Seth and one or two others participate in. Neither I nor they are going to suddenly go 'Doh - how could I have been so so wrong'!

If you did say that, they'd immediately take the other side.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

Quite. Which is why I don't do more than pay lip service personally to threads which Gawd, Seth and one or two others participate in. Neither I nor they are going to suddenly go 'Doh - how could I have been so so wrong'!

That's why I've never understood perpetually debating some topics, either in a forum scenario or in real life... I suppose some people like argument for argument's sake, but I find conversations where positions are not so firmly entrenched more interesting. Otherwise it ends up being the same pontificating dance over and over, and who cares?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't get this debate thing and philosophy thing with these religiz academics. What's the point of proof? Simple Baptists just believe, they do not need no stinking philostopher.

Exactly. It's not as if their minds are open to revising their thoughts or that they're really listening.

Quite. Which is why I don't do more than pay lip service personally to threads which Gawd, Seth and one or two others participate in. Neither I nor they are going to suddenly go 'Doh - how could I have been so so wrong'!

That's why I've never understood perpetually debating some topics, either in a forum scenario or in real life... I suppose some people like argument for argument's sake verbal wanking, but I find conversations where positions are not so firmly entrenched more interesting. Otherwise it ends up being the same pontificating dance over and over, and who cares?

[Bella Fortuna]

Indeed.