BTS, XJW4EVER: To be fair, William Lane Craig wont debate John W Loftus. Why are you not calling WLC out on that as well?
Richard Dawkins gets interview with Revelation TV, a religious network!
by dark angle 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
botchtowersociety
-
bohm
BTS: So WLC wont debate loftus because loftus does not have sufficient credentials, meanwhile, dawkins wont debate craig because (amongst other things) WLC does not have sufficient credentials in science.
So both men has a standard which exclude some people based on their credentials. I dont understand why this is so controversial.
On the other hand, if you or XJW4EVER believe WLC make sufficient arguments for the existence of god i would like to see what they are.
-
botchtowersociety
I've already done so dozens of times in the past. Check my post history and his website.
-
bohm
It is against my principles to do that kind of work on a friday after working hours!
-
-
XJW4EVR
Bohnm, I don't know why Craig won't debate John W. Loftus. I have never heard of this person before today, but I will look into him. I do know that Craig won't debate other Christians, for reasons that I find less than satisfying. However, I am not a Craig groupie. I have serious issues with some of Craig's theology and his apologetic method. So my question is why don't you go to Craig's own and ask them?
I am not a fan of Craig for a number of reasons. But the facts are that Dickie Dawkins said that he wanted to discuss the issues, yet he won't "put up" so he really should, "shut up." Craig's reason for belief in God are all over the internet. If you were really interested in educating yourself with opposing viewpoints you copuld easily find them. Sadly, I don't think you will, based on the lame statement you made.
Now, Dickie claims that he won't debate someone who defends the "genocide" of the Promised Land. Funny, if none of these people actually existed, as so many of the internet and "New" atheist preach, why would this be a point of contention? It's rather silly and irrational.
Regarding "running like a girl" I was not casting aspersions at all girls, but rather at Dickie Dawkins, and his lack of a backbone to debate against someone that is at least his intellectual equal (yes, atheists will scoff at that one, but that says more about you than it does about me), or at best, someone who will clean the floor with Dawkins' own arguments. Secondly, I was using a figure of speach. You do know what that is don't you?
As far as the elephant vs. the ant analogy goes, it doesn't work. Craig has only said that he wants the debate. Dickie is the one running scared. Further, it is not just Christians that want the debate, but also fair-minded atheists want it too. Especially after Craig's recent series of debates against some of the leading atheists in Great Britain.
Further I am currently reading a book and a paper on the Canaanite "genocide", and if what I am reading is true, it is not the Israelites and YHWH that you should be calling immoral, but the Canaanites. Between their sexual practices and their religious practices, how anyone could defend them, which is what atheists are doing, is beyond me. Then again I find it odd that if an atheist believes that the accounts described in the Bible are fiction they would use it to beat Christians. Then again I no longer expect rational responses from the emotional New Atheists.
-
bohm
XJW4EVR:
I am not a fan of Craig for a number of reasons. But the facts are that Dickie Dawkins said that he wanted to discuss the issues, yet he won't "put up" so he really should, "shut up." Craig's reason for belief in God are all over the internet. If you were really interested in educating yourself with opposing viewpoints you copuld easily find them. Sadly, I don't think you will, based on the lame statement you made.
There is a couple of things here.
1. it is highly presumpteous of you to claim as a fact i i am not interesting in educating myself on WLCs viewpoint. I have read several hundred pages written by WLC and listened to several of his debates. Needless to say i think his arguments are very unpersuasive, but that does not mean i am unfamiliar with them as you strongly suggest, nor that i wont educate myself on an opposing viewpoint as you directly write. Since you claims are counterfactual, i wonder if you will retract them.
2. what "lame statement" have i made?
3. His name is richard dawkins not dickie dawkins.
Now, Dickie claims that he won't debate someone who defends the "genocide" of the Promised Land. Funny, if none of these people actually existed, as so many of the internet and "New" atheist preach, why would this be a point of contention?
1. His name is still Richard.
2. Which atheists claim there was no canenites?
3. The point richard dawkins is making is that IF there was an genocide on men, women and children as described in the bible, THEN that would be immoral. Notice the "if"-part which make your objection entirely irrelevant.As for WLC, Richard Dawkins disagree with WLCs justification for the genocide which he believe took place. Again, the existence of the event is entrely irrelevant.
4. I think it is quite silly If you establish a standard where one is "running like a little girl" if one is unwilling to participate in one particular medium for exchane of ideas. I think debates are quite pointless because you basically get to hear the same arguments again and again, and that richard dawkins prefer only to debate people which has made scientific contributions is in my oppinion up to him. Articles and books are in my oppinion a much better medium to explain ones viewpoint and Dawkins has written plenty of those.
5. Finally, in my oppinion what matters is the evidence and strength of arguments which WLC, Dawkins, etc. are advancing, not how and when they run or who they debate or not. if you feel the same i dont see the point, if you feel different i hope you will elaborate a bit on that.
Secondly, I was using a figure of speach. You do know what that is don't you?
1. good on you. And yes i know what a figure of speech is.
Further I am currently reading a book and a paper on the Canaanite "genocide", and if what I am reading is true, it is not the Israelites and YHWH that you should be calling immoral, but the Canaanites.
1. If you do figure out a strong case for slaughtering women and children, please let us know. But be aware you will not be in good company in thinking an ethnic cleansing is the answer.
-
simon17
How does one actually run like a girl away from a discussion. Do you mean like Florence Griffith-Joyner in the 100m dash or like Julie Andrews in the "Sound of Music"? Or is this rejoinder a reflection of a particular belief/view of the female gender? Oh, Man up and stop crying.
-
NewChapter
Between their sexual practices and their religious practices, how anyone could defend them, which is what atheists are doing, is beyond me. Then again I find it odd that if an atheist believes that the accounts described in the Bible are fiction they would use it to beat Christians
Well this is simple. Most atheists would not think that ethnic cleansing and genocide are viable options in this case. You see we are talking babies and children along with other innocents. Now I know it is quite effective to simply wipe a population off the earth---you certainly would get the baddies. Oh by the way---which sexual practices did you find deserving of death? Oh and what religious practices? Just curious. Surely you wouldn't have a problem with human sacrifice for the sake of religion, since you are not against slaughtering an entire race for YOUR religion.
Was the account of the Canaanites ficticious? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it. But the important point is that this character believes it, and so do you. That's good enough. If you really believe it is true, AND you defend it, you really aren't worth talking to. Because it is disgraceful.
Dawkins should not elevate this character or validate any of his hateful rantings by granting him a debate. As he pointed out, it would be great for Craig, but not so great for Dawkins. Besides, Craig is just seeking to ride on the coat tails of Dawkins by sucking up some of the attention that Dawkins naturally brings and trying to get it focused on himself. Poor form---but hey---it's all for a god. Right?
NC
-
dark angle
That vid is hilarious! hehehehhe.
So he has no compassion whatsover for the slaughtered children, but worries about the soldiers that did the slaughtering. Who in the world can take this loon seriously? Dawkins should in no way elevate or validate this moron by agreeing to any debate.
Agree! debating with a morron is vain endevour.