Or, you could actually read what Dawkins has actually written on this subject: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119 There is no more reason for Dawkins to "debate" a clown like Craig than there is for him to "debate" someone like Phillip Garrido, particularly when Craig has already said in the past that the evidence is irrelevant to him, because he already "knows" what he wants to "know", and that if he was offered evidence to show that your imaginary "god" was simply a figment of the imagination, he would IGNORE it (you can see him saying this yourself if you google "dealing with doubt" on youtube).
There is no more reason for Dawkins to "debate" a clown like Craig
This tells you all you need to know about Dawkins's supporters; they'll gladly stoop to any level to deride their opposition.
Dr. Craig is an accomplished and respected philosopher, with publications in prestigious philosophical journals and presses (He has a few with Oxford University Press).
If he's a clown, pray tell what are Dawkins's followers? Circus animals?
"Dr. Craig is an accomplished and respected philosopher"
Sure, just like Hossein Nasr is "an accomplished and respected philosopher" in Islam; the fact that his area of study is entirely IMAGINARY is completely beside the point, right? And, if you'd care to look at the video I referenced earlier, you'll see that Craig doesn't CARE about reality, because he is convinced that his "feelings" about your imaginary "god" are all the "proof" that he needs. "Clown" is entirely appropriate in this case, and probably understates the matter. And if Craig earns a degree in a subject that is not entirely imaginary, Mr. Ball, then they might be worth something.
If you want even more detail on the story of Dawkins' incoherent refusals and the accusation of cowardice from his fellow atheist Don, this video is for you:
"the fact that his area of study is entirely IMAGINARY is completely beside the point, right?"
SDC, are you referring to Craig's Professorship in philosophy too? If so, then why are A C Grayling and Daniel Dennett wasting their lives with such study?
And to call it "imaginary" is simply to beg the question. Still, with the kind of zeitgeist Dawkins is promoting, this kind of fallacious thinking shouldn't be a surprise any longer among his "Brights" (who need a serious lightbulb change btw).
Dawkins is to atheism what McDonalds is to fine dining. You all need to wake up and realise your house is made of straw.
Don't be an atheist because you've read The God Delusion, be an atheist because you've read beyond it.
Whenever I think of Dawkins I think of some Victorian aristocrat that thinks way too highly of himself.
I picture Dawkins sitting in his study busily dismissing the reports of a world famous explorer.
Says the explorer, "I have seen a great beast that has a long nose that it uses to pick the grass off the ground and the leaves off the trees. It sucks water up its nose and squirts it in its mouth."
Says Dawkins, "You're a fool man no such beast exists." And all Dawkins sycophants reply, "Amen. Great and wise is our Dawkins".
Image via Wikipedia
8 comments:
Or, you could actually read what Dawkins has actually written on this subject: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119 There is no more reason for Dawkins to "debate" a clown like Craig than there is for him to "debate" someone like Phillip Garrido, particularly when Craig has already said in the past that the evidence is irrelevant to him, because he already "knows" what he wants to "know", and that if he was offered evidence to show that your imaginary "god" was simply a figment of the imagination, he would IGNORE it (you can see him saying this yourself if you google "dealing with doubt" on youtube).
There is no more reason for Dawkins to "debate" a clown like Craig
This tells you all you need to know about Dawkins's supporters; they'll gladly stoop to any level to deride their opposition.
Dr. Craig is an accomplished and respected philosopher, with publications in prestigious philosophical journals and presses (He has a few with Oxford University Press).
If he's a clown, pray tell what are Dawkins's followers? Circus animals?
Thanks, Cory. William Lane Craig has two earned PhDs, in two different academic disciplines. How many people in the world have two PhDs?!
"Dr. Craig is an accomplished and respected philosopher"
Sure, just like Hossein Nasr is "an accomplished and respected philosopher" in Islam; the fact that his area of study is entirely IMAGINARY is completely beside the point, right? And, if you'd care to look at the video I referenced earlier, you'll see that Craig doesn't CARE about reality, because he is convinced that his "feelings" about your imaginary "god" are all the "proof" that he needs. "Clown" is entirely appropriate in this case, and probably understates the matter. And if Craig earns a degree in a subject that is not entirely imaginary, Mr. Ball, then they might be worth something.
If you want even more detail on the story of Dawkins' incoherent refusals and the accusation of cowardice from his fellow atheist Don, this video is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE
Enjoy!
"the fact that his area of study is entirely IMAGINARY is completely beside the point, right?"
SDC, are you referring to Craig's Professorship in philosophy too? If so, then why are A C Grayling and Daniel Dennett wasting their lives with such study?
And to call it "imaginary" is simply to beg the question. Still, with the kind of zeitgeist Dawkins is promoting, this kind of fallacious thinking shouldn't be a surprise any longer among his "Brights" (who need a serious lightbulb change btw).
Dawkins is to atheism what McDonalds is to fine dining. You all need to wake up and realise your house is made of straw.
Don't be an atheist because you've read The God Delusion, be an atheist because you've read beyond it.
:-)
Whenever I think of Dawkins I think of some Victorian aristocrat that thinks way too highly of himself.
I picture Dawkins sitting in his study busily dismissing the reports of a world famous explorer.
Says the explorer, "I have seen a great beast that has a long nose that it uses to pick the grass off the ground and the leaves off the trees. It sucks water up its nose and squirts it in its mouth."
Says Dawkins, "You're a fool man no such beast exists." And all Dawkins sycophants reply, "Amen. Great and wise is our Dawkins".
Sscience itself rests on a philosophical base. Philosophy – either formal, or informal, good or bad – underlies all we do as cognitive human beings.
Post a Comment