It's not been mentioned on this site yet but a couple of weeks back Richard Hawkins, well known atheist had seemingly, and cowardly, opted out of a debate with well known theologist William Craig Lane a man with a big reputation in arguing the existence of god. Although not religious myself, watching Craig Lane debate the usually equipped Christopher Hitchens really showed me why Dawkins decided not to go head to head with William Craig Lane. Craig Lane admittedly made Hitchens look and sound rather unconvincing - the only time I've seen Hitchens taken down like that. For those interested here's that debate. Rather startling how Hitchens was taken apart.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8]Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube[/ame]

 

 

Sadly we'll not get that Craig Lane v Dawkins debate because it's clear that Dawkins doesn't feel up to the task. Which is a shame. Forever known as a coward it seems.

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg&feature=related]Oxford Atheist Calls Richard Dawkins "Coward" for Not Debating William Lane Craig - YouTube[/ame]

Let me first of all say that I have met Richard Dawkins and have had the pleasure to discuss with him with a few of my classmates for around an hour. He was incredibly kind and courteous and conducted himself in a way that I have only seen very few people top. Despite talking to someone such as I, who is quite devout, he was incredibly compassionate and curious towards my medical studies, my background and my world view. I like the man a lot. I don't agree with any of what he says about God, but I do respect him.

 

Richard Dawkins is not a coward at all. He is a very smart man. His work with biology is nothing short of amazing, and as a very keen biologist I respect him immensely. He does not have to debate someone if he does not want to.

 

I myself would not debate Richard Dawkins. Why? Because I already know his opinion about God and I already know I don't agree with it. What good would debating do? Does this make me a coward?

 

I assume Mr Dawkins feels the same way. He's debated people for a very long time, and he has recently said he feels no desire to continue to do so. There is only so far you can beat a dead horse. You don't have to act like a dick and call him a coward. That's a mighty claim to call a man who you do not even know and have not connected with.

 

I'll leave this here:

 

First and foremost among these favors, which the almighty hath conferred upon man is the gift of understanding. His purpose in conferring such a gift is none other except to enable His creature to know and recognise the one true God. This gift giveth man the power to discern the truth in all things, leadeth him to that which is right in his heart, and helpeth him to discover the secrets of creation.

 

Mr Dawkins only uses the tools God gave him to analyse and connect with creation. He has made numerous breakthroughs in science and has contributed greatly towards the field of biology.

 

Just because you disagree with his world view does not give you the right to stir up juvenile attacks and to personally insult him. You do no good to your self or your family in doing so.

What? I never said I disagree with his views! I like him am a strictly non religious man. This is a man who has debated complete dunces (Archbishop of Canterbury) and unlike Chris Hitchins hasn't had the balls to square up against the real intellects. Dawkins is one of the finest biologists but he is no religious scholar. Even good friends of Dawkins' like Melvyn Bragg said he can spout utter shite at time.

 

Sorry if I offended you but I'll stick by my word - he's a coward.

 

And I didn't know my family was involved in this either!

What? I never said I disagree with his views!

 

I apologise.

 

I like him am a strictly non religious man. This is a man who has debated complete dunces (Archbishop of Canterbury) and unlike Chris Hitchins hasn't had the balls to square up against the real intellects. Dawkins is one of the finest biologists but he is no religious scholar. Even good friends of Dawkins' like Melvyn Bragg said he can spout utter shite at time.

 

Sorry if I offended you but I'll stick by my word - he's a coward.

 

And I didn't know my family was involved in this either!

 

Declining a debate does not make a man a coward.

 

You are calling a man you do not know a coward over reasons you have no details of. You are merely parroting your opinion off the back of other people calling him a coward.

 

You don't know the ins and outs of a situation. You don't know exactly why Dawkins declined. I highly doubt he declined because he was scared of this man. I think that is a remarkable stretch to make, and is a stretch that disrespects you immensely.

 

You should not call someone a coward over such petty reasons.

 

I suggest you read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

 

Hopefully that will shine some light on both sides of the story, and hopefully you will realise exactly what you are defending and exactly what you are attacking here.

 

I personally would not wish to debate with anyone who has said words that sound remarkably like advocating genocide. I also would not wish to debate with anyone who would do something as childish as leave an empty chair in the debate hall with my name on it once I refused.

I think Dawkins is right, but then God is truth, the Universe connected with strings, and there's ample ways truth keeps revealing itself to us, and our cultural creativity helps along the way. Religion too, when it adds to our compassion for one-another, when it acts as a force for good on earth, when its essence is in comfort and healing.

But I disagree with Dawkins on one issue: Dawkins thinks we evolved from fish. Well that's understandable, Dawkins is British, we all know the British love fish and chips, so that seems natural. But for we Americans, it's Amphioxus. :P [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UtHYiXpKh8]It's A Long Way From Amphioxus - YouTube[/ame]

:laugh3: We're simply the more primitive primates here.

I apologise.

 

 

 

Declining a debate does not make a man a coward.

 

You are calling a man you do not know a coward over reasons you have no details of. You are merely parroting your opinion off the back of other people calling him a coward.

 

You don't know the ins and outs of a situation. You don't know exactly why Dawkins declined. I highly doubt he declined because he was scared of this man. I think that is a remarkable stretch to make, and is a stretch that disrespects you immensely.

 

You should not call someone a coward over such petty reasons.

 

I suggest you read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

 

Hopefully that will shine some light on both sides of the story, and hopefully you will realise exactly what you are defending and exactly what you are attacking here.

 

I personally would not wish to debate with anyone who has said words that sound remarkably like advocating genocide. I also would not wish to debate with anyone who would do something as childish as leave an empty chair in the debate hall with my name on it once I refused.

 

That gaurdian article made him look all the more foolish as proved in the telegraph blog in the first post.

I would much rather read a logical debate, where both debaters could sit and reason, then respond in written form or at least independent of needing to be present at a debate floor; I believe we are at our most logical when allowed to reflect in a comfortable setting, and consider without adrenaline and time constraints the questions being raised.

But aside from that, I missed this important discovery! New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life

Although the article doesn't mention how the nucleotides hook up, and so I wonder, if simply clay or decomposing feldspar provides the template from which the replicator molecule gets it's chain?

Hm, my first reaction was in the line of Kiame. I don't like the biased tone you utter in the thread title and in your posts. But then again, maybe that’s just your way of stirring up the discussion and expressing your opinion.

I also agree with Kiame that Darwin shouldn't be called a coward just like that. For reasons already given by Kiame and because I think that he left enough options open for people such as Graig Lane to debate with him. Like Chuck says, there's always the option of debating in written form. Darwin writes and so Chuck can reply to that. Darwin just didn’t want to take on this debate with Graig Lane, but he’s free of choice to debate with whoever. Just saying no to something doesn’t make you immediately a coward.

 

I think this whole thing wasn’t mentioned before on coldplaying because it is really not such a big deal.

 

I have however, some problems with how Darwin expresses himself in written form. I have no concrete example, but I can remember reading things that were not respectful towards believing religious people and he can sound so harsh which doesn’t make his work accessible for believers I think. (I have a thing nowadays against the word believers. Not because I have a thing against believers, but because in my head it’s always pronounced as beLIEBers and it makes me think of silly Justin Bieber fans :bigcry:)

It's A Long Way From Amphioxus - YouTube[/url]

:laugh3: We're simply the more primitive primates here.

omg, hahaha!

 

People that argue about what a bullsh*it it is that we evolve from apes and fish ... have my sympathy, even though I am a die-hard evolutionist. Because let's face it, it IS nonsense from an evolutionary perspective as well. We didn't evolve from the apes and fish that are around. According to the theory of evolution we just have the same ancestors. This is a huge difference that people never seem to realize.

 

(disclaimer: I call myself a die-hard evolutionist not because I am such a believer, but because I made my job out of it - I write reviews/articles about it and do experiments with keeping the theory in mind - I am a professional evolutionary ecologist :smug:)

I think its hilarious/ridiculous that you almost present this as a news story. But just to sum up, as I'm not going to watch a 2 hour long debate, just give me a few examples of where Hitchens was DEBATE PAWNED in that video you watched.

Reilly, you clearly skipped the part of the debate where Jesus himself appeared before the crowd and declared his existence, while giving Hitchens cancer.

 

I'd tell you the exact timestamp, but you really should watch the whole thing, it's informative outside of that one "miracle moment".

I think its hilarious/ridiculous that you almost present this as a news story. But just to sum up, as I'm not going to watch a 2 hour long debate...

 

Surprisingly enough to myself I did watch the 2 hour debate, and I saw the debate topic "Does God Exist?" turned consistently by Lane Craig into a debate about the lack of proof that god doesn't exist, at least 3 times by my count. I saw Hitchens unravel over the topic, you could see him get frustrated and sweaty over it, probably because of the insane nonsense that he had to deal with.

 

I can completely understand why Dawkins wouldn't want to waste his time on this total crap. But howyousawtheworld, if you've watched that and genuinely believe that Hitchens was 'defeated', then by all means put forth any argument that Lane Craig made into this thread, every single one of them are either explainable or beyond comprehension.

 

The only main driving force behind Lane Craig's debate was the ideal of morality, Hitchens said firstly that this has nothing to do with the belief of a deity, and then later had to clearly spell out that whether or not morality does exist or whether we are animals has nothing to do with the existence of god. Of course Lane Craig went on to basically say that an atheist has no moral obligation towards his buzzword, rape, which is just petty.

 

I completely enjoyed the clip at some ground levels of when Hitchens re-iterated some of his most basic ideals, a highlight being a quote along the lines of "You have free will because the boss commands you to have it." I really think that Hitchens was often holding back his frustration, and that did creep out at points and was even joked about that he may start a war among Christians. You have to remember that especially in a mainly Theist university he wants to remain respectable as a debater and not regarded as purely antagonistic and outspoken.

 

As far as the morality of an atheist, I don't think Dawkins would have much of a problem expressing himself on that subject, at least in terms of comparison of atheisms belief of an evolved morality with the guidebook of religion.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpqeZirDqU]Richard Dawkins destroys muslim on morality - YouTube[/ame]

 

I doubt Dawkins would be able to control himself in this same type of debate as Hitchens, but I'm also not an atheist idiot thinking that Dawkins would cause some form of a riot, he would just undermine his credibility having to waste his time debating with a total moron.

 

Honestly, did you watch the debate?

Q; Wyrd:

 

"People that argue about what a bullsh*it it is that we evolve from apes and fish ... have my sympathy, even though I am a die-hard evolutionist. Because let's face it, it IS nonsense from an evolutionary perspective as well. We didn't evolve from the apes and fish that are around. According to the theory of evolution we just have the same ancestors. This is a huge difference that people never seem to realize.

 

(disclaimer: I call myself a die-hard evolutionist not because I am such a believer, but because I made my job out of it - I write reviews/articles about it and do experiments with keeping the theory in mind - I am a professional evolutionary ecologist :smug:)

 

>> Obviously so, but for simplicity sake, one can extrapolate to the nearest living relative of the organism from which we evolved, and in some cases, not much has changed with certain organisms over millions of years - so how do you know if we did or didn't evolve from Amphioxus? :P Have you pulled down their genes? ;) Just simple gill slits and a notochord, but in a few million years, just you wait and see!:laugh3:

I often wonder about the before forms, which intrigues me because it gets a bit blurry when one goes back and back.. a mystery to be solved, lost to the mists of time.. But I still love the idea that we evolved from something similar to Tarsiers, tree shrews of a sort actually, but the image is so fascinating, like some little Yoda sitting in a tree... waiting to leap at a moth!:laugh3:

But I think what Dawkins is saying is that we evolved from a similar ancestor to the lobed-finned fishes of eons ago. And I think about fish and fish fries and chips and the English traditions.. Naturally these fish wore suits and ties, they were proper types! ;)

But that being said, I agree with Dawkins, I just think in terms of pre-walking stage organisms. Dry land is overrated, I think more like the dolphins and whales, back to the sea!:mudkip:

And you know, when one thinks of it, I'm sure Jesus would have agreed. He and his disciples were fishermen, they served up fish and bread (no chips in those days), and must have had an understanding of the role of questioning and investigation about things - he wanted people to think, the parable of the mustard seed was all about getting people to think. Scientific inquiry is much that same - question things, observe things, consider the real meaning of things.

On the other hand chuck, if you want to sleep in tomorrow morning, do you want to keep popping up over the duvet for air? I'd either want gills or to walk on land, the other option sounds horrible.

On the other hand chuck, if you want to sleep in tomorrow morning, do you want to keep popping up over the duvet for air? I'd either want gills or to walk on land, the other option sounds horrible.

Hey Reilly, I'll evolve - once you get the right design, it's smooth sailing on the high seas! ;) Sleep - well, whatever produces a best fit for the niche, that's all one really needs; sleep is for dreamers, perhaps one can evolve to have a snorkel? Ah, you traditionalists, where's your sense of adventure? Let natural selection and a desire for seafood drive you in your evolutionary quest!!

Be one with the sea, as Cousteau is.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7aM3nCqC0]Calypso - YouTube[/ame]

Hey Reilly, I'll evolve

 

No you won't, but I admire your enthusiasm.

No you won't, but I admire your enthusiasm.

 

Whether by chance mutation, jumping genes, viral genes (non-jumping ones), or man-made genetic alterations, I just might a little bit - it's all on a roll of the roulette wheel.;)

But perhaps I'll just dream the impossible dreams, for with imagination comes the evolution of thought, patterns of equal merit in human survival and success as any modification of our DNA could offer.

We are not birds, yet we fly; we are not fish, yet we dive; we are not celestial objects, yet into space we go!!:sunny:

Great video on morality with Richard Dawkins!

 

So true. There is no such thing as "absolute morality". Just like there's no such thing as "intrinsic value" in economics. It's all felt-out and decided-on over time by millions of people acting on their own values and interests.

 

This fact scares some people. But when you think about it, it's beautiful: it means that humanity isn't being rewarded and punished by a sky God. We're actually doing things because WE want to do them! We can take full responsibility for our actions.

 

Now I don't have to wonder if my friends are nice to me because they want to get to heaven.

Whether by chance mutation, jumping genes, viral genes (non-jumping ones), or man-made genetic alterations, I just might a little bit - it's all on a roll of the roulette wheel.;)

 

No you won't a little bit, and no it isn't on the roll of the roulette wheel. But I admire your enthusiasm.

Hahaha, Reilly is right. Chuck, you won't be the one evolving when mutations occur or by crossing-overs or other alterations in your genetic make-up. Your offspring might, or most of your genome (if you like to think about offspring in such a way), but you yourself? Not according to the theory of evolution :P

 

I know that Dawkins probably meant a similar ancestor of the fish (which might have been fish as well), but that’s why I tried to distinguish between nowadays species and ancestors. Dawkins knows the difference when he mentions fish, but many people who listen to him don’t. And yes, you’re right that some species seems to have mutated/changed a lot during millions of years and some species haven’t. Mutations are most likely to change species when there’s enough selective pressure. Offspring of the same make-up will keep on surviving if environmental conditions are good for them and coexisting species. But when the beetle keeps on eating most of a plant’s seeds, then offspring that evolves toxicity will live on and reproduce more and more offspring than the offspring without this defense towards the beetle. In time there will be only toxic plants left when the beetles have eaten all the susceptible plants or the susceptible offspring will end up somewhere where no such beetles exist but where deer like to eat it. Now the offspring that will evolve traits to defend itself against the deer will have a bigger chance to survive, right? Extrapolating these defended plants to a human and a fish might seem far-fetched, but that’s what a lot of evolutionists do. Maybe the Amphioxus is the offspring of the non-defended plant in this story that lived somewhere where there was not much selective pressure while the human is the defended plant.

So, I think there is the possibility that we evolved from the ancestors of the Amphioxus, but do I know for sure? Nope.

I can't say I care either way but I admire that enthusiasm.

Surprisingly enough to myself I did watch the 2 hour debate, and I saw the debate topic "Does God Exist?" turned consistently by Lane Craig into a debate about the lack of proof that god doesn't exist, at least 3 times by my count. I saw Hitchens unravel over the topic, you could see him get frustrated and sweaty over it, probably because of the insane nonsense that he had to deal with.

 

I can completely understand why Dawkins wouldn't want to waste his time on this total crap. But howyousawtheworld, if you've watched that and genuinely believe that Hitchens was 'defeated', then by all means put forth any argument that Lane Craig made into this thread, every single one of them are either explainable or beyond comprehension.

 

The only main driving force behind Lane Craig's debate was the ideal of morality, Hitchens said firstly that this has nothing to do with the belief of a deity, and then later had to clearly spell out that whether or not morality does exist or whether we are animals has nothing to do with the existence of god. Of course Lane Craig went on to basically say that an atheist has no moral obligation towards his buzzword, rape, which is just petty.

 

I completely enjoyed the clip at some ground levels of when Hitchens re-iterated some of his most basic ideals, a highlight being a quote along the lines of "You have free will because the boss commands you to have it." I really think that Hitchens was often holding back his frustration, and that did creep out at points and was even joked about that he may start a war among Christians. You have to remember that especially in a mainly Theist university he wants to remain respectable as a debater and not regarded as purely antagonistic and outspoken.

 

As far as the morality of an atheist, I don't think Dawkins would have much of a problem expressing himself on that subject, at least in terms of comparison of atheisms belief of an evolved morality with the guidebook of religion.

 

Richard Dawkins destroys muslim on morality - YouTube

 

I doubt Dawkins would be able to control himself in this same type of debate as Hitchens, but I'm also not an atheist idiot thinking that Dawkins would cause some form of a riot, he would just undermine his credibility having to waste his time debating with a total moron.

 

Honestly, did you watch the debate?

 

William Craig Lane is a master in spinning a debate and making the guy opposite look rather poor. For sure he may not offer much wealthy debate on his side but he's clearly got the tricks of the trade in how you debate well. I don't think for one second Dawkins said no because he would be defeated by the "yes god exists" argument but rather he would be a victim of Craig Lane's technique. What I've highlighted for you though is clearly just a personal assumption from yourself and doesn't offer anything to how Hitchens reacted. I don't think Chris Hitchens goes into a debate thinking 'hmmm I better hold back here'.

William Craig Lane is a master in spinning a debate and making the guy opposite look rather poor. For sure he may not offer much wealthy debate...

 

How isn't that a contradiction? I know what you mean but for me winning a 'debate' isn't about bullshitting your way through using spin, that's what's wrong with the world, that's what makes people blindly follow evil (To put it dramatically). I don't think there was a particular winner of this debate, I felt Hitchens indeed held back, about halfway through he realised none of his more pressing points would be answered, and his opponent would continue down this idiotic moral high ground trail of repetitiveness, claiming that Atheism claims there is no such thing as ethics and using buzzwords like saying RAPE is just fine from Atheist theory (Hitchens had to repeat himself about the evolution of morals at different levels for any social creature- and yet Craig Lane not only did not acknowledge this but repeated the same argument AGAIN- so Hitchens just let it go because what else can he do? Repeat himself over and over?).

 

Anyway, back to my point, a debate should be based on logic and reasonability, not just created to discover 'Whos right?' but to at the very least better our knowledge, views and understanding of eachother. I felt Hitchens at least attempted to approach this in that sense, because of course we were never going to come to a definitive answer in a few short hours, but the only thing that amazed me about Craig Lane is his complete lack of ability to understand a point and argue it. I wish everyone could see through the complete bullshit of a good public speaker.

 

To me the winner of a debate isn't necessarily the better speaker (Which Craig Lane admittedly is- but not by a huge margin or anything) but who is more convincing, we obviously see things very differently, because apart from his opening statement which was concise and clearly thought out, logically speaking his arguments from after that point onwards were poorly structured and all over the place.

 

But he talked well. Because that's all that matters eh?