My comment was in response to Stu Pidasso's apparent incredulity that anyone would think of Craig as a nobody. It seems you agree with me - he's a total nobody and Dawkins is firmly within the mainstream (even if somewhat on the fringe).

impressing you and luckyme wouldn't help him one bit. Nobody goes to those debates with an open mind, they are pure tribalism. Why participate if you're not advocating a tribe?

I never said that it implied he was lying in any sort of logical sense. Only that it gave us good reason to question his reasoning as truthful.

If you said that you did not believe in violence and then went out and constantly picked fights with people, we would have good reason to disbelieve that you were actually against violence.

The world isn't made up of just two extremes. There always people on the fence which is why we have debates in the first place.

Those people don't go. This issue is not prevalent in mainstream discourse at all. These debates are about bragging rights (and book sales).

Be that as it may, your extrapolation by quoting the "helps my CV, yours not so much" as an admission by Dawkins that he would suffer from losing a debate to WLC is entirely unjustified. It may be true that he would suffer, but the reasons given was WLC's disgusting apologetics and the fact that WLC stood to gain more than he did. Twisting the wording to be some hidden admission is pretty disingenuous imo.

you called Dawkins unintelligent and then said it wasn't because you thought he was unintelligent but because you were "making a point". This is inconsistent with your goal of high content RGT posts, where we are clear and articulate about what we are saying and why we say it.

I have good reason to doubt your honesty then?

I don't have a problem with Joe Shmoo claiming they don't know Craig is. For Dawkins to do it and use it as an excuse for not debating is like Obama refusing to debate McCain on the grounds McCain wasn't worthy/is a poor excuse for a human being.

The excuse just doesn't sound credible to me. Bunny if Obama did make that excuse...I suspect you'd take his word for it without question(especially if you thought McCain was a poor excuse of a human being).

Excellent - how long do you need to dig up that quote where Dawkins claimed he doesn't know who Craig is?

Wait....more ESP, right? Or is this more of those "fourth order credible" calculations?

While there is a crowd (such as this forum) that pays attention and will watch multiple religious debates, read multiple books etc, there is also a much much much larger crowd who is only superficially aware. For instance, much of the millions of people who have bought the four horsemen's books....which seem to be perpetually on various displays near the front of the two books stores I usually peruse. Hitchens sure is more popular because he writes about more than just religion, but even Harris has been on things like the Daily Show which had an enormous audience. I would submit that as far as authors go, they are pretty damned well known with the possible exception of Dennet

Now you're not even thinking.

Obama and McCain are both known in the broader community (the target audience). Dawkins is and Craig is not.

This is not a high content thread. Also, who said that my point was not high content? I did not say that I said to troll did I?

Let's also not forget that whether or not I am guilty of the same thing that I accused Dawkins of in no way means that my point was not valid

Maybe I was unclear. My point is that, just because your stated reason seems inconsistent to me, I am not entitled (and shouldn't) jump to the conclusion you are being dishonest. I should assume there is some further clarifying position to which I am not privy. I should always presume in the first instance you are both rational and honest, no matter how it appears. I need extremely good reason to dismiss another thinker's stated perspective.

You should extend Dawkins the same courtesy.

What do we think is larger, the scientific community or religious community? Is anyone willing to claim that the scientific community is significantly larger?

Just to be crystal clear. This was your post I objected to:

Claiming Craig is a nobody is not claiming he doesn't know who Craig is (LDO - how do you refer to an unknown entity by name?)

You misspoke and leapt to a nonsensical defense. Rare in your case and excusable, but nonetheless silly.

Po.

The defense is not shocking at all imo.

The fact that Dawkins perceives WLC's defense as morally reprehensible shows his lack of acquaintance with Christian beliefs.

People today including many Christians have lost touch with the idea that "to die is to gain." I'm glad to see WLC hasn't lost touched with it.

In the past I mentioned the same scripture WLC did. It seems most people aren't aware of it.

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

I don't know what that means

I reject the premises implicit in the question (namely that the size of those relative communities has anything to do with Dawkins' veracity, the relative fame of either person, the relevance of theological debates, or any other topic of this thread).

If you wish to change the topic and this is something new, my answer is for you to define each and I'll take a stab at guesstimating.

I'm off, by the way. Australia has lots of dead Internet space and I have 600 km to drive.

I'll nominate luckyme as my proxy - given this is a political question anyhow, we need very good grounds to not just concede to his greater knowledge and experience.

I really don't see why this should have to keep being repeated.... It isn't realy all that difficult.

Well, IMO, Dawkins entire reasoning process is a non-sequitur:

The belief that human beings are nothing more than survival machines for genes is a morally reprehensible belief because it deprives human beings of human dignity.
Richard Dawkins believes as such.
Richard Dawkins is a morally reprehensible person.

huh? that sequits just fine, it's problem is a false premise. Not that it matters for this threads purpose. The question is " Is Dawkins a lying coward?" and the request for evidence.

My guess is that most professional philosophers don't know who Craig is, while almost all of them have at least heard of Dawkins.

Are you kidding? Just look at the terrible arguments he makes in his book, and how he always argues about God with the low-hanging fruit, North American Creationists (the ones that believe the world is 6000 years old).

Rigorous, formal debates aren't popularity contests, but Dawkins maybe politicking this so that WLC doesn't get too much attention.

What does Dawkins "losing ground" even mean? Do you guys even perceive debates of this sort as being intellectual "tests" of the validity of religion(s)/the lack thereof? I can understand why it would be interesting or entertaining to watch, but does it actually accomplish anything and either can the two participating really feel like they are accomplishing anything?