Page 1 of 3
#1
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113687293779

Please show your support for there to be a debate between William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins.

William Lane Craig has been called "the finest Christian apologist of the last half century" (J. P. Moreland), while Richard Dawkins is the foremost spokesman for atheism; furthermore, Dr Craig has already expressed interest in debating Dr Dawkins. Whether you are theist or non-theist, please join this de facto petition for a debate on the existence of God between Craig and Dawkins.

Dr Craig's website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
#2
I'm now the seventh member of that group :/ power to the people...
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
#3
Hmmm sounds interesting, but isn't mass debating sort of useless? How do you know who wins?
Catch the Dragon
Quote by hriday_hazarika
This thread is as terrible as music, which sucks balls.
#4
Quote by Funky_Fresh91
Hmmm sounds interesting, but isn't mass debating sort of useless? How do you know who wins?

First blood.
#6
Quote by Funky_Fresh91
Hmmm sounds interesting, but isn't mass debating sort of useless? How do you know who wins?


These two are both the top of their fields, it would help settle which is the strongest position. Atheism or Theism.

Dawkins appears to only really debate fundamentalists and idiots, he is yet to debate someone as distinguished as William Lane Craig.

Christopher Hitchens said 'i was warned to watch myself whilst debating Dr Craig, as he is an exceptional scholar.'
#8
Are you ****ing serious? There's a reason dawkins don't debate idiots like craig: Because he's a fundamentalist bag of fail.

And I'm guessing you're biased towards his point of view, considering you linked to craig's website and not dr. dawkin's.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#10
Quote by Kensai
Are you ****ing serious? There's a reason dawkins don't debate idiots like craig: Because he's a fundamentalist bag of fail.


From what I've seen so far, he doesn't seem all that fundamentalist. And if he really were a self contradicting, bigoted, ranting fundamentalist, then Dawkins would have debated with him a long time ago, because he would have been easy to defeat.
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
#11
Quote by Kensai
Are you ****ing serious? There's a reason dawkins don't debate idiots like craig: Because he's a fundamentalist bag of fail.

And I'm guessing you're biased towards his point of view, considering you linked to craig's website and not dr. dawkin's.

I saw Dawkins on a British talk show where there was a man who KNEW, not thought, KNEW his daughter was possessed by the devil. Dawkins' face was a wonderful mixture of face palm, head desk, and 'WTF IS THIS SHIT'. Why are morons allowed on these shows for the sake of 'balance'?
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
#12
From Wikipeida:

"[Christian] Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion and other disciplines."

Dawkins might as well bang his head against a brick wall for 3 hours.
#13
Quote by Funky_Fresh91
Hmmm sounds interesting, but isn't mass debating sort of useless? How do you know who wins?


They aren't jousting.

How is it useless?
Evolution 101

Get down Moses - part another sea,
Carve another tablet out of L.S.D.
#14
Quote by Kensai
And I'm guessing you're biased towards his point of view, considering you linked to craig's website and not dr. dawkin's.
He does have the Douglas Adams quote that Dawkins put in the god delusion in his sig
.
#15
Quote by j_hunter_hkr
From Wikipeida:

"[Christian] Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion and other disciplines."

Dawkins might as well bang his head against a brick wall for 3 hours.


Or perhaps 666 hours ...damn that doesn't work we need an "atheist number" lol.

Anyway, yeah. I find these discussions interesting, but the thing is, if theists were going to listen to logic they would've long since abandoned their faith. As much as I enjoy such discussions myself, I find that inevitably theists retreat to the "you can't prove he doesn't exist therefore he does exist because this book says so, so nah-nah-ne-nah-nah" etc.

Ahhh theists
#16
Quote by freddaahh
From what I've seen so far, he doesn't seem all that fundamentalist. And if he really were a self contradicting, bigoted, ranting fundamentalist, then Dawkins would have debated with him a long time ago, because he would have been easy to defeat.


I drew the conclusion from his website, which looks just like all the other fundamentalist website. Topics like "Yeah god obviously exists, here's why", "how can christians save the world from all you other saps?", "Science and theology can co-exist. Sure they contradict eachother inherently but what the hell, let's bring some bible into these ****ty classrooms".

Basically he's just a more eloquent fundamentalist.

I urge you to watch a scientist vs. fundamentalist debate if you think they're easy to defeat. It's like talking to a wall because they don't let anything in, and if they do it's just so they can change subject, confuse the hell out of everyone, then go back to the subject where they've been defeated, ignore they've been defeated, change the subject, repeatedly regurgiate whatever view they have on the current subject without actually providing proof for it, change the subject e.t.c. It's a whole bunch of logical fallacies they're using and it's not possible to have them admit defeat any more than you can convince a cat the world doesn't revolve around them. Or convincing a diehard football fan their team sucks. Like Manchester U fans.

I saw Dawkins on a British talk show where there was a man who KNEW, not thought, KNEW his daughter was possessed by the devil. Dawkins' face was a wonderful mixture of face palm, head desk, and 'WTF IS THIS SHIT'. Why are morons allowed on these shows for the sake of 'balance'?

That is pretty much what the debates look like. Some retard who has never opened a book about any sort of scientific area attempts to debate using bible scripture - which in his world is an absolute truth - people who actually know science.

Quote by Nietsche
He does have the Douglas Adams quote that Dawkins put in the god delusion in his sig


Hm, so he does. I'm still surprised he didn't include the link though.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#18
Quote by VANGELIS!
They aren't jousting.

How is it useless?

Check DieGarbageMan's comment.
I do find it interesting, but in the end no one really would come out as the better.

Edit: First Blood on the other end, that shows who has more passion.
Catch the Dragon
Quote by hriday_hazarika
This thread is as terrible as music, which sucks balls.
Last edited by Funky_Fresh91 at Aug 18, 2009,
#19
Quote by Funky_Fresh91
Check DieGarbageMan's comment.
I do find it interesting, but in the end no one really would come out as the better.


That's not entirely true.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#21
Quote by Kensai
I drew the conclusion from his website, which looks just like all the other fundamentalist website. Topics like "Yeah god obviously exists, here's why", "how can christians save the world from all you other saps?", "Science and theology can co-exist. Sure they contradict eachother inherently but what the hell, let's bring some bible into these ****ty classrooms".

Basically he's just a more eloquent fundamentalist.

I urge you to watch a scientist vs. fundamentalist debate if you think they're easy to defeat. It's like talking to a wall because they don't let anything in, and if they do it's just so they can change subject, confuse the hell out of everyone, then go back to the subject where they've been defeated, ignore they've been defeated, change the subject, repeatedly regurgiate whatever view they have on the current subject without actually providing proof for it, change the subject e.t.c. It's a whole bunch of logical fallacies they're using and it's not possible to have them admit defeat any more than you can convince a cat the world doesn't revolve around them. Or convincing a diehard football fan their team sucks. Like Manchester U fans.



Well, I do actually believe that theology and science can co-exist, but I don't think that's for now.

I see what you mean, and it's excruciating to watch these nutcases just angrily repeat themselves over and over and condemn who argues against them. But, what I meant by 'easy to defeat' is that they're easy targets to an audience. Nowadays most people will side against them with ease, and to Dawkins, that means he's won because he has more support. That's what gets me about him, he chooses his opponents to get a larger crowd of support, instead of having a truly interesting debate.

I wish he would talk to sombody like Dr Rowan Williams or Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, regardless of anyone's religious opinions, it would be more interesting.
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
#23
Quote by Funky_Fresh91
Hmmm sounds interesting, but isn't mass debating sort of useless? How do you know who wins?

so many people didnt get this
#25
I don't really understand these, and neither do I want to watch/listen to them either. Seriously, if you could prove it right or wrong, they would have done it years ago. Give it a break.

Note: I'm not an atheist, agnostic or a "believer". I just don't give it much thought.
I have a ponytail fetish.
..And a labcoat fetish. SCIENCE!
#26
Quote by FallOutBoy07
These two are both the top of their fields, it would help settle which is the strongest position. Atheism or Theism.

No, no it wouldn't.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#27
Quote by FallOutBoy07
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113687293779

Please show your support for there to be a debate between William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins.

William Lane Craig has been called "the finest Christian apologist of the last half century" (J. P. Moreland), while Richard Dawkins is the foremost spokesman for atheism; furthermore, Dr Craig has already expressed interest in debating Dr Dawkins. Whether you are theist or non-theist, please join this de facto petition for a debate on the existence of God between Craig and Dawkins.

Dr Craig's website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

He won't do because Craig is a creationist. Dawkins always automatically refuses debates from creationists because he does not want to give anyone the false impression that there is something to debate.

I don't want to give this an air of pretentiousness, but it's worth others seeing it
Last edited by Craigo at Aug 18, 2009,
#28
Quote by matt_0_5
so many people didnt get this


At first I was disappointed, but then I took this more seriously.
Catch the Dragon
Quote by hriday_hazarika
This thread is as terrible as music, which sucks balls.
#29
Quote by Nafon
Dawkins will **** on him. Yet Craig's argument will be

'The bible said this, so it must be true and you can't disprove that'

It will go on for 50 days

No it won't. Craig is best known for arguing the cosmological kalam argument.
Quote by AntiG3
I don't really understand these, and neither do I want to watch/listen to them either. Seriously, if you could prove it right or wrong, they would have done it years ago. Give it a break.

Note: I'm not an atheist, agnostic or a "believer". I just don't give it much thought.

You're ironically an atheist whether you realise it or not.
#30
This is like a broken pencil: pointless. Both sides will go into this with their beliefs, and will leave with the same beliefs. Two people debating something won't change anyone's opinion. Personally I believe it is a sad state of affairs when an ancient myth born out of fear and superstition still has a stranglehold on society to the point that we have to debate it, and seeing a Christian argue proof of his god will not change my opinion. And if you flip that on it's head, that's how a Christian feels about atheism. I reiterate: this is pointless.
#31


This would get messy.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#32
Quote by Craigo
You're ironically an atheist whether you realise it or not.
Well I can't really explain it. I don't believe there isn't a god, and I believe there is a "god". I suppose it might just be my own consciousness that I believe in, if that makes any sense.
I have a ponytail fetish.
..And a labcoat fetish. SCIENCE!
#33
Quote by pawnshopguitars
This is like a broken pencil: pointless. Both sides will go into this with their beliefs, and will leave with the same beliefs. Two people debating something won't change anyone's opinion. Personally I believe it is a sad state of affairs when an ancient myth born out of fear and superstition still has a stranglehold on society to the point that we have to debate it, and seeing a Christian argue proof of his god will not change my opinion. And if you flip that on it's head, that's how a Christian feels about atheism. I reiterate: this is pointless.

You can say that all you want; I've seen enough cases of people becoming Christians or atheists through argument and discussion.

I fucking hate that line of logic; it is one that is worthy of ridicule and abhor; 'well they'll just walk in the same views'.

Yes. They bloody well do. There's literally about two people I could name who I could be willing to owe up and admit I'm wrong in front of them there. With other people it can take time for reasons including a) it needs further thought or b) I might come around to the idea at a later date. If their argument is good enough, it can affect me at a later date, and thus it was worth it.

And there's plenty of people who will watch this debate and will have either a) faith strengthened, b) be more curious in Christianity, c) their lack of belief strengthened or d) be more curious in non belief. It's not about just those two people; a debate is also about everyone watching.

And some of us enjoy arguing and debates. We take a great about of leisure from it. Don't be a dick.
#34
What the hell is there left to debate? We live in the 21st century, we have advanced science and technology, we put people on the Moon, we took a look at our universe etc. Nowadays, even a 9 year old could provide solid arguments for an atheistic world view. The issue of whether God exists or not should be clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence, aside from the more indoctrinated and narrow-minded diehard Christians. This is a waste of Dawkins' time.
#35
Quote by AntiG3
Well I can't really explain it. I don't believe there isn't a god, and I believe there is a "god". I suppose it might just be my own consciousness that I believe in, if that makes any sense.

You are an atheist. You don't believe in God, therefore you negate the idea of it. Thus, you are an atheist.
#36
Quote by Craigo
You can say that all you want; I've seen enough cases of people becoming Christians or atheists through argument and discussion.

I fucking hate that line of logic; it is one that is worthy of ridicule and abhor; 'well they'll just walk in the same views'.

Yes. They bloody well do. There's literally about two people I could name who I could be willing to owe up and admit I'm wrong in front of them there. With other people it can take time for reasons including a) it needs further thought or b) I might come around to the idea at a later date. If their argument is good enough, it can affect me at a later date, and thus it was worth it.

And there's plenty of people who will watch this debate and will have either a) faith strengthened, b) be more curious in Christianity, c) their lack of belief strengthened or d) be more curious in non belief. It's not about just those two people; a debate is also about everyone watching.

And some of us enjoy arguing and debates. We take a great about of leisure from it. Don't be a dick.


Without trying to come accross as a dick as you so eloquently put it, I still think this is pointless. It's bound to be high profile and full of expectations. That means people will go into it really wanting their side to win and this increases their bias pre-debate. You are perhaps right in that a small percentage of people may convert, but I can't see it being any more than a handful, and I don't think that is worth the hassle this will cause. I suppose the root of my problem with this is that I don't see how it can be a debate - I follow the same lead of thought as Kensai. I still think this will be pointless, even if it produces a lively and interesting argument, but I doubt those arguments will be original, especially given the contempt that seems to emanate from each side regarding the other. This is irrelevant anyway - I doubt Dawkins will debate anyway.
Last edited by pawnshopguitars at Aug 18, 2009,
#37
Quote by Mad Marius
What the hell is there left to debate? We live in the 21st century, we have advanced science and technology, we put people on the Moon, we took a look at our universe etc. Nowadays, even a 9 year old could provide solid arguments for an atheistic world view. The issue of whether God exists or not should be clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence, aside from the more indoctrinated and narrow-minded diehard Christians. This is a waste of Dawkins' time.


This.
#38
Quote by freddaahh
Well, I do actually believe that theology and science can co-exist, but I don't think that's for now.

I see what you mean, and it's excruciating to watch these nutcases just angrily repeat themselves over and over and condemn who argues against them. But, what I meant by 'easy to defeat' is that they're easy targets to an audience. Nowadays most people will side against them with ease, and to Dawkins, that means he's won because he has more support. That's what gets me about him, he chooses his opponents to get a larger crowd of support, instead of having a truly interesting debate.

I wish he would talk to sombody like Dr Rowan Williams or Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, regardless of anyone's religious opinions, it would be more interesting.


Ah I see

I thought you meant the fundamentalists admitting defeat, because that is highly unlikely.

Quote by pawnshopguitars
Without trying to come accross as a dick as you so eloquently put it, I still think this is pointless. It's bound to be high profile and full of expectations. That means people will go into it really wanting their side to win and this increases their bias pre-debate. You are perhaps right in that a small percentage of people may convert, but I can't see it being any more than a handful, and I don't think that is worth the hassle this will cause. I suppose the root of my problem with this is that I don't see how it can be a debate - I follow the same lead of thought as Kensai. I still think this will be pointless, even if it produces a lively and interesting argument, but I doubt those arguments will be original, especially given the contempt that seems to emanate from each side regarding the other. This is irrelevant anyway - I doubt Dawkins will debate anyway.


I only implied it was pointless because creationists are, as we all know, all hapless cretins unable to have the simplest scientific debate without embarassing themselves.

Perhaps this craig will provide some relatively new "material" from the creationist side but it's still inherently false.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#39
Quote by Mad Marius
What the hell is there left to debate? We live in the 21st century, we have advanced science and technology, we put people on the Moon, we took a look at our universe etc. Nowadays, even a 9 year old could provide solid arguments for an atheistic world view. The issue of whether God exists or not should be clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence, aside from the more indoctrinated and narrow-minded diehard Christians. This is a waste of Dawkins' time.

A good point, it's hard to ignore those who take the Bible literally though. They make me want to cry.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#40
Quote by pawnshopguitars
Without trying to come accross as a dick as you so eloquently put it, I still think this is pointless. It's bound to be high profile and full of expectations. That means people will go into it really wanting their side to win and this increases their bias pre-debate. You are perhaps right in that a small percentage of people may convert, but I can't see it being any more than a handful, and I don't think that is worth the hassle this will cause. I suppose the root of my problem with this is that I don't see how it can be a debate - I follow the same lead of thought as Kensai. I still think this will be pointless, even if it produces a lively and interesting argument, but I doubt those arguments will be original, especially given the contempt that seems to emanate from each side regarding the other. This is irrelevant anyway - I doubt Dawkins will debate anyway.

Use paragraphs for God sake. And I didn't say that people would convert. I never used those words. However, I couldn't give a **** if it's a small number of people. It's a number and thus it's something.

But that wasn't the point I put forward. You put forward 'yeah but they'll come out with the same views', which I said earlier is a line of logic which is worthy of ridicule. It's one of the most inanely stupid common nuggets of wisdom polluting every day life which annoys me. By saying 'some people will convert' you're acknowledging this.

With Dawkins and Craig there would definitely be an air of originality about it.

And you completely and utterly missed my final point: it would be enjoyable. It would be a good form of entertainment for those more interested and those who are just playing the spectator. If you think enjoying yourself is pointless, then please go ahead and be boring.
Last edited by Craigo at Aug 18, 2009,
Page 1 of 3