What I meant by losing ground is that his refusal costs him with people who are not yet on his side. If religion is as stupid as Dawkins says, if religious people are as stupid as Dawkins says, if religion is as evil as Dawkins says, if he is as smart and public-minded as he claims, and if he is willing to "expose" some religious people, and if Craig is as influential in religion as he appears, then why won't Dawkins debate him, especially when so many are pointing this out, especially atheist Oxford professors?

I think you're right that it's likely a lose-lose position. However, there's no doubt going to be an ongoing loss as long as he refuses, so he should explore the possibilities of a debate. If he enters one with Craig as most do, without preparation and without giving Craig due respect, he will be tossed on Craig's pile of victims. But there are plenty of topics that he could handle, though he would need massive help and coaching. The problem is that once the topic is defined he can't beat Craig. He could hope for a draw or he could do what Harris did - forget debating and preach to the choir. He won't lose anything with theists because we already know he can't win, and he won't convince any undecideds, but those in his camp won't notice what he did anymore than those in Harris', and he will at least have one monkey off his back.

Yay an idiot from one side of intellectual drudgery refuses to debate an idiot from the other.

A question to the WLC fans: why do you want him to debate Dawkins or anybody else on the topic "Does God exist?" You can just play an old debate vs. somebody else and pretend that that somebody is actually Dawkins or whoever else you wish. It's not like WLC is saying anything different in new debates. "I am going to defend two contentions: 1 - there are good arguments (5 of them) that theism is true; 2 - there are no good arguments that atheism is true. But in order to not attack a straw man, I will leave the presentation of arguments for atheism to my opponent". And same old cosmological, teleological, moral, personal experience, resurrection of Jesus stuff follow from there, always in the same order, same words, same stress.

am i the only one who finds debating whether god exists or not pointless? i guess it could be entertaining but it's funny to see people debating about something they have 0 clue on.

I mean do they realize they are talking about something that trascends the universe and even the big bang? logic didn't exist before that so it's kinda silly to try and figure it out by logic, logically

From the Wiki:
"Reception

The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[5] and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages.[6]"

pretty good representation how WLC works...

Amen, brother.

Jib doesn't even have the time to respond to half the replies made to his posts (being generous with that number) so there's no way he has time to do this.

That said, it's a great idea.

I think for a lot of them, it's because they are continually searching for reassurance that their belief about God is true. And for the smarter ones, they need for it to be in some sort of academic setting.

I still don't see how not debating WLC loses ground in a PR war. To lose ground, there have to be more net people who are now more likely to reject (or at least doubt) Dawkins' arguments in favor of Craig's. I don't see that happening. It just gives WLC's already fervent fans a reason to puff their chests out (no net loss/gain), disappoints a few atheists who still don't buy Craig, pleases a few atheists who think debating WLC is just playing into his schtick to hock some more DVDs to his fans and spread bad logic, and everyone else doesn't give a ****. Count me in the "pleased atheists" camp, but I think these debates are almost universally pointless. (But then again, so is RGT, and here I am...)

Agreed. And WLC is their last hero.

It reminds me very much of religious-types who only read and only listen to those who promote their own beliefs.

The debate about God isn't close. Most people arguing in favour just obfuscate everything or try to switch the burden of proof. Nobody is ever going to produce a convincing argument for the existence of "god", but they can sure as hell kick and scream while they try to justify believing what they believe.

Most debates about anything on 2p2 turn into "prove that my argument is false or I win!". It becomes less about actually figuring out truth, and more about getting someone to admit they're wrong.

What is 'it'?

The conversation that directly preceded the pronoun.

'This' would have been more specific.

Don't tell me you are one of those who has WLC as a personal hero...

I read it as Aaron agreeing with us. Could be wrong I guess.

What's the difference if I tell you or don't tell you what I think of WLC?

'This' sounds like a continuation of the 'it' from a couple posts ago.

I'm agreeing in multiple ways, not all of them favorable to you (and not all of them unfavorable to you).

As usual, Aaron makes things crystal clear.

/s

Well, we're all just guessing, of course. Nonetheless, I imagine there are a number of smart Christian's who may now be happy to dismiss The God Delusion on the grounds that "this smart guy Craig says it's rubbish and Dawkins is too scared to debate him".

Dawkins rubs many up the wrong way and comes across as arrogant and ivory-towerish (in the apatheist circles I move in) and I think it's situations like this which contribute to their poor judgement of him.

You are confusing someone who disagrees with Dawkins with someone who realizes "that Dawkins is being dishonest."

Is it so hard to imagine that Dawkins truly does not like WLC's message, and truly believes that appearing across from him in a debate would merely give WLC a wider audience? Far from being a lie on the part of Dawkins, I would argue that it is undeniably true.

I'm not convinced it would be as easy as you suggest. Surely it could be done, but the thing to remember is that when Craig speaks first and dumps all his pre-packaged points, and then declares himself the winner if/when his opponent fails to address those points, something really insidious is going on. Not only is Craig demanding that his opponents frame the debate as he wishes to frame it, or else lose by failing to address his points, but Craig is not personally "proving" his points; he is just listing them, and will actually say in a debate that he has expanded on them elsewhere but for purposes of the debate he is just essentially going to list the names of the arguments. So his opponent is essentially being required to make Craig's argument for him, and then disprove it, if he wants to play that game.

Or, they could do what virtually every debater has done so far, and make a smallish attempt at directly refuting some of what Craig says, and then go on and try to make the points that seem interesting and relevant to them, and hope to "win" by appealing more to crowd overall.

Have you ever seen a debate? Maybe you should check out some of the debates by Dawkins and Craig on the internet. Your comment strikes me as saying that which ever basketball team is the most accurate at shooting freethrows should win the game, and ignoring the fact that a basketball game involves running, jumping, blocking, endurance, fouls, and whatever else a basketball game actually involves.

Being vague is the key to remaining unfalsifiable. That way you can't lose no matter what. As a response to criticism, you can always say "Oh, I was agreeing favorably on that point! (But not on some others)"

Craig uses mostly the same arguments in debates where the issue is the same. It may seem that's all he argues, but that's because he argues the same issue fairly often - the existence of God. What's he supposed to do? Especially when his opponents never address those same issues. Craig does other issues though, such as his debates on morality and the I.D. debate with Ayala.

Also, he correctly declares himself the winner when he addresses the debate issue and his opponent doesn't. This is an auto win by any standard of debate judging. Furthermore, he answers his opponent when and if that most rare of all events occurs, his opponent actually addresses the debate issue. Meanwhile, his opponent is making some ludicrous, irrelevant and false emotional appeal to his good buds in the audience so he can commiserate with them over a beer later and brag about how he put it to the dumb theist and how the dumb theist used the unfair tactic of actually debating the issue.

I dismissed TGD before I ever heard of Craig. And you don't have to be smart to do so.