England's Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ce-of-God.html




Edit: BTW, Craig is going to be in England in the fall, and will debate Peter Atkins in October on the existence of God.

lol, nice find. He at least had a leg to stand on before when he wouldn't talk with anyone, but the guy is more than happy to speak with the lowest hanging fruit out there. It is amazing that he is that scared of Craig.

scared of what?

I don't know, ask Dawkins.

I lol'd.

Top of the list in The Atheist Outreach Manual on propaganda practices:

1. Aim low.

What's the point of debates anyway? IRL you can't present or check sources, and it's all about debating skill, not whether the thing you're debating is true or not (hint: it isn't).

Make thread sticky plz. k thx.


Sad but true within:

Tbh, I don't read newspapers, not even my local one (yay, internet). Got this from Craig's latest blog:

http://www.rfmedia.org/blog/index.php?id=114

Is it? Craig's a highly skilled debater who's been doing it as a paid gig for much of his adult life. He is also extremely cautious about the conditions under which he will debate - he won't debate if he does not decide the specific topic, get to speak first and even, according to Harris, decide where the clock is placed.

Dawkins is a barely competent public speaker, IMO. Assuming he's aware of Craig's skill, it makes a certain sense that he'd chicken out.

Naturally some will see it as a 'propaganda victory for theism' or whatever, but presumably Dawkins has weighed the pros and cons and decided refusing to engage is less costly than the bitch-slapping that engaging Craig would likely entail.

How dare you defile our prophet and messiah? Go decapitate yourself!

Its pretty weak admittedly, but I don't think Dawkins is doing this for an intellectual challenge. He wants religion gone. So he will talk only to those he can persuade. Doesn't stand to gain much in this by debating Craig.
Even if Craig's books and arguments are foolish

If Dawkins would admit he's incompetent at debate and doesn't want to give Craig a forum, you might have a point. The problem is Dawkins says a debate with Craig would enhance Craig's resume but not his, thus implying that he is somehow superior to Craig. That Dawkins is being dishonest about that is now being realized by Oxford atheists. I suspect Craig would make quite a few concessions to Dawkins - that Dawkins won't even try to come to an agreement is pretty revealing.

BTW, Craig asserts in the blog above linked that he doesn't set up any debates - he just responds to invitations. Your implication that he's in it for the money is patently absurd - very Dawkins-like.

Nono, you see...Dawkins is our esteemed Messiah, thus when a fellow member of the atheist academic liberal front (AALF) calls him out for Cowardice it shows that there must be atleast one heretic in our midst.

Thus we lose consistency, and when we lose consistency we can't just roam around in the middle of the night moving dinosaur bones to the correct strata...we must realize our intellectual inferiority.

Or something.

I've always felt Shermer does a better job representing my point of view than Dawkins.

First rule of AALF is to not talk about AALF

I repent, I repent.

I shall read the Prophet Darwin (beneficial mutations be upon him) and meditate thereof.

Oh noes...I have sinned?

This is good brother, but I fear I must borrow your axe.

You see, that is where we differ. I am a contended savage.
So screw you guys, I'm gunna go bone some cattle, and make some baby burgers.

And if you would admit that it's largely meaningless that a biologist is not competent to debate a trained philosopher who also happens to have been debating for much of his life... well, forget it. You wouldn't have made this thread if you were prepared to admit that.

Oh unbunch your panties. I didn't say he was "in it for the money", I said he does the debates as a paid gig, and he does. My implication was that he is skilled enough to command significant compensation for his time.

Source.

As someone who debated in HS for 4 years and was in the top 10 of debaters in my format in College, I cringe when I see how WLC actually debates. I've seen his strategy so many times before, and it works well in an academic debate setting verses relatively new debaters. He does what you call a topic dump.

Basically, you bring up a bunch of points and just mention very little about them. The points have to be answered in depth by the opponent, and if he doesn't answer one of them, thats what you attack him on, then declare yourself the winner and pat yourself on the back. This is exactly what WLC does. Watch any debate of his and you will see.

Using this strategy, you may win a debate, but you really add nothing to the discussion. This is the problem with timed debates, and when WLC gets to structure the whole thing, the other guy may as well not even show up.

I have noticed the pattern you mention. It's a little frustrating to me because it seems quite exploitable. If someone would review and note the likely points he will raise and claims he will make, they could probably show up at the podium with a ready-made rebuttal. Then we might have a game.

That's why Harris' showing disappointed me, frankly. I was expecting him to prep better, but it didn't look like he had at all.

Or he could just show up prepared It would not be terribly hard to debate against Craig if one was to take the time to study his debates. He says basically the same thing every time. What better position can you be in than knowing what your opponents exact argument!

If one thinks Craig's arguments are lolbad, what's the point of debating with him so he can spew the same crap every time? What does this really gain? And why do you, NotReady, and Concerto giddily think its such a great victory if Dawkins avoids Craig when you know he's going to say the same thing every time anyway? Not like you're going to learn anything new if it happens or not. In short, how did Dawkins "lose ground" when you and he already know what Craig's arguments are whether Dawkins debates or not?

Craig brings several arguments to debates that have issues like the existence of God. When the issue is more narrow, such as the moral argument, he sticks to that topic. It was Harris who trotted out the red herrings in their debate.

Also, if a debater is worried about the number of topics, why doesn't one of them just pick one and focus on it? What they all do is totally ignore ALL the topics. Why should Craig change strategy? And why don't any of them challenge him, since he's hiding nothing?

Why don't you create a thread in RGT for each of Craig's talking points and we'll go through them on here?