They said within seconds its not that theyre too smart, its just that the other guy is is trying to defend something that cant be defended. way to show you cant even sit through a few seconds of talking without warping what you hear to suit you. Hope you dont have authority over people, your inability to listen when you dislike the other party would probably make you abusive in that position.
@@JM-st1le Theyll never think about it unless someone says it directly. Even then, they'll almost certainly not think about it. Religious people will pretty often have kids, because most religions push it, & this one is obviously religious. So theyll eventually have someone to bully with their reinventing what was said scenarios. Also my last bit ruined it? The whole comment was a comment on how they were dumb & wrong for changing what he heard to fit what they wanted to hear, a common thiest issue, but not exclusive to them. I spent no time thinking about what I wrote, like them, so it wasnt gonna be great in the first place. Like theirs. Great comments should be left off corperatetube anways.
@@DarkFlamesDarknessatheist can’t defend their own points because it’s simply unknown whether god exists or not. Making either claim is solely based on faith. Most atheist are arrogant losers who care way too much about theists ideas.
As an atheist I don't think Richard Dawkins is our "Messenger" or something. Why are people sort of acting like Dawkins is the main guy of Atheism? He's just a popular guy with ofc alot of knowledge but he isn't the Face of Atheism. Hitchens proudly debated Craig.
I have never heard anyone call Dawkins like the atheist prophet or anything except for religious people because they can't understand just thinking for yourself. That is why they say things like even Darwin said this or that. Hitchens this and the other thing.
he is too antagonistic to be our main guy. There are so many ways to make an argument against religion without being so disrespectful and hateful like Dawkins.
I suppose that 'there is no meaning to be found at all beyond what you see in the things around you', @@Alexander4332. My conviction is that people see ideas attached/imbibed in things that they sense (with their five senses); things that when elaborated on (perhaps with metaphor and experience) they inevitably get a sort of meaning out of it. If anything, Spiritualism, or mayhaps, Agnosticism in the most basic sense would be closer to not need a messenger in this regard.
@@thomascarroll9556 He didn’t mention flowers I don’t think. But he did say and I quote “I don’t respect him” ( referring to Craig ). This doesn’t mean he’s going to be rude or impolite to him. It just means he doesn’t respect him as an intellectual and possibly as a person, due in part to his gross justifications of genocide.
Dawkins "lack of respect" for Craig is obviously an excuse for his fear of debating one of the top 10 philosophers in the world of the last 30 years (as ranked by "Academic Influence"). Anyone can disagree with William Lane Craig on his points of view, but there's no doubt that he's a top intellectual. Dr. Daniel Came is an atheist philosopher formerly at Oxford and currently at the University of Lincoln. He had this to say to Dawkins about his refusal to debate Craig: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. “I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.” (Edit: I had originally written "The Best Schools" which had Craig in their list of "The 50 most influential living philosophers". I then instead referenced the "Academic Influence" list, which had Craig as one of the top ten philosophers from 1990-2020.)
Well he's English as well as an intellectual and professional. They tend to sound like that. 🤷♂️ Whereas Americans with the voice and speaking style that Craig possesses, are often pretentious snobs.
It WOULD be an argument except that Craig refuses to accept that it's NOT a premise, but an assertion. A premise requires that it be either proved true OR that it's provably true. Premise 1, for example could be true (in the Kalam) if it were analytic (like all bachelors are unmarried). Otherwise it's both unproved and unprovable. That's been pointed out REPEATEDLY to Craig and he doesn't care. At that point, it ceases to be a premise and becomes a joke.
@@PhrontDoorpremises are assertions. They are offered to be true to lead to a conclusion. Thus, how you defeat the conclusion is by attacking the premises, showing that they either are untrue or fail to comprehend something necessary for the conclusion. If someone fails to attack a premise and only attacks the conclusion, they are misguided. Syllogisms are formulated in a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.
@@grindhardlio7814 Craig smashed every single Dawkins' "argument" and he knows very well. Perfectly understandable that he doesn't want to go near Craig. He wouldn't stand a chance.
Dawkins is brain dead, you can see his speech starting to slow. He was never one for very intellectual matters, so he makes claims in a british accent and people like you buy it. Truth is, the smartest man in the world thinks God exists, but good ol Dawkins here thinks his daddy Darwin and his passionate hatred for christianity will synthesize into some sort of coherent argument.
Yeaaa because Alex would TOTALLY agree there are *no* good points on the other side, it’s not like he said verbatim that the contingency argument is strong or anything. He is too much of a coward to call Dawkins on it though.
The irony of admitting you don't have any good arguments for your world view. There's only two positions, either God exists or he doesn't, if you admit you don't have any good arguments for your view, you admit by default that the evidence supports the opposite, regardless of whether or not you like the arguments. Dawkins has always argued from incredulity, a simply unwillingness to believe
@@nathanaeldavidAZThat is fallacious. There are four options if you and I have different opinions about a topic. Either you are right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both right, or we're both wrong. In the case of Christian and atheist beliefs, they are mutually exclusive, so we can't both be right... but we CAN both be wrong. Maybe the Jews have it right, maybe Islam is accurate, maybe it's Zoroastrianism or Jainism or any number of other religions being practiced around the world. Maybe the truth is found in a dead religion that is no longer practiced or even one that hasn't been founded yet. Just because I can't definitively prove that I'm right, that doesn't automagically prove that you are.
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you” - C.S. Lewis
Good thing, I suppose, that C.S.Lewis constantly looked up to his sky daddy and forgot to look down for much longer, or else we'd have had more of his badly written books.
I think he was using it as an expression not a literal lack of time. Here in Australia (and I presume the UK too) if you say you don't have time for something it's akin to saying you don't care for it/ can't be bothered with it etc.
Love Dawkins and his search for truth and his work on evolutionary biology he made it understandable to me especially when he went into a museum with all the animal skeletons it was a big moment in my life
I'm no Christian, nor a fan of William Lane Craig, but Dawkins sounds SO arrogant here. He is so close-minded that he is unwilling to debate someone because "they're beneath him." From what I remember, Alex really enjoyed his convo with William Lane Craig, and is likely a better thinker because of it. Dawkins, you're not some omniscient noble King with other people "below" you. Do some original thinking. If people shouldn't debate or host others on their show because they are beneath them, then Alex shouldn't be hosting you.
Sometimes you need to realise it's not worth arguing with a person that is completely deadened to any sort of common sense or consistent thinking. For religious discussions to even take place you have to grant a whole bunch of concessions to the religious side just to indulge it. Dawkins is probably just at an age where he's had this same conversation over a thousand times. I'd say Craig is beneath him. Why waste time on it?
Man what a strawman, I agree Dawkins can be close minded at times but he doesn't think Craig is "beneath him", he thinks he tries too hard to justify immoral acts from the bible that makes him sound like a horrible person
He invented the word "meme", and has some original thinking written down in some books all them smarties I know like to read. Marry a woman. Then you'll understand how it could be, that there is NO point debating some people. (sarcasm). I had a guy "employ" me. Started off with a "salary" of "150" because I was in "training". I trained myself, got better, faster, more productive over a few weeks. He started paying me "100", he told me I have to get better and faster and more productive. Even though the evidence showed I was, he could not be convinced to pay more than "100". And seemed to forget that he was now paying me less than at the beginning.... At the end of this clip, Dawkins mentions Craig's statement "the Medianites had it coming" and God's will as an excuse for slaughter of little ones. There's something deeply wrong with that, I'm sure you can agree. Especially when considering at other genocides, God is commanding that the children be kept as slaves, sometimes ONLY if they are female AND virgin. Sounds like ice iss. Wanna debate them? Not much point, they just fall back on dogma since nothing they say or think is truly original, seldom logical.
@@sdpearshaped831 20 years ago I about 95%+ retired from debating "Christians" for the reasons you mention here. "The same conversation [excuses] over a thousand times". These days I point out that all the good parts of Christianity come from the same place all the good things come from: Cooperation in order to survive.
It's impossible for Richard Dawkins to not be arrogant. I feel like if you ask him to pass the butter, he'll somehow turn it into a rant about why transgenders are a detriment to going to the moon.
@@lealvazquezosvaldo8431 Apparently, someone - that's you, to avoid (your) confusion - can't make an argument so resorts to logical fallacies. Figures.
@@antreasAnimations hahahahahahaahahaahahaah what? Well one was attempting to make incredibly airtight arguments and directly addressing the fallacies of his opponent's arguments. The other went on pseudo-elequoent rants about spaghetti monsters and literally went the entire debate without addressing his opponent's argument - only individual premises in bad faith
@@bman5257 I find that to be a lacking argument. His wife is not some being can be debated if she exists. And if we're talking about faith in her faithfulness, it still doesn't apply. If she isn't faithful, there will be physical evidence (whether it is discovered or not) and if she is then there won't be evidence to prove she is not faithful. But just because there is no evidence we shouldn't always without a smidgen of a doubt assume a partner is cheating because that defeats a very fundamental element of a relationship which is trust. You're free to believe in whatever God you want without any scientific evidence for his existence. In a relationship however, you should be able to trust your partner and if there is reasonable doubt then you see if you can get to the bottom of it. Talk to your partner, look for giveaways for cheating or whatever it is you suspect. Meaning at some point you might need to abandon blind faith and think logically about the situation. Not sure if I said all I wanted to, but to me that argument doesn't hold up at all
@howeffingridiculous he doesn't have an argument other than he doesn't see any evidence. He doesn't see it because he doesn't want to see it. Whatever evidence you give him he just says, I don't accept it.
anyone with sound mind who saw Alex's interview with WLC, about his defense of genocide of cannanite, would not give him any respect. The way he framed the situation is so self serving yet so morally "wrong."
@@pluntchgunster6156 I think it would do you good to do some research. Keep an open mind, find good sources, and try to understand why God would make a such a decision. Instead of just saying “You’re defending genocide. I’m not listening to you.” At that point you might as well be covering your ears like a child.
Dawkins choosing to wipe his debate with Lennox from memory, is funny to me. And he wants to convince people he won't debate Craig for the reasons he himself demonstrates. How very intelligible of him😂
He actually said he doesn't respect Craig because he advocates for genocide on a biblical basis, not because of how he sounds, it's sad you couldn't finish the video before commenting although I have a vibrant working theory of why that is.
Okay some people have silly points, or none at all. But to say that *no one* EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me
"no one EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me" Almost a strawman there mate No one has ever made him think twice about what amounts to a magician in the sky Please be honest and finish the quote
Has anyone ever made good points to you about Australia not being real? The moon landing being fake? The Earth being flat? If what the other person is saying is just fundamentally false and built on total irrationality, you're never going to consider any of their points as good. Ultimately, theists are arguing from a disadvantaged position because what they're arguing is untrue, while atheists are just arguing the obvious the truth that is backed up by science.
If you're a follower of science then there's no reason to ever believe in magic. Theism is magic and Dr. Dawkins has been doing this for decade so he's heard it all and any argument for a belief in god is just trying to get someone to believe in magic. Besides, all "scientific" appeals to belief ultimately rely on trying to give unverifiable claims for "holes in scientific theory" or something else completely insubstantial.
@@stravinskyfan i guess but I'm used to being continously condescended to by them sometimes bordering on pathological belligerance. 🤷♀️ exceptions of course i have sympathy for those persecuted outside the us too
@@allebasaiadartse3951 I would encourage you to read my comment again. I said it was his first reason... not his only reason as you said. Also he has debated several Christians who hold the same view as WLC so go figure.
@@gueyenono Yes. #1 typically refers to a rank in this context, while "first" is an order in time (here: discourse time). You would communicate better if you take this into account in the future. The more important (criterion for rank order) point is about slaughter and stuff.
@@guitarflori I appreciate the clarification in the difference between the use of "#1" and "first". I really do. But still, I hardly see how any reader would think that I meant that the "voice tone" argument was his only argument as clearly stated by someone earlier. This is indeed the "first" argument he gave. Also, he has debated many Christians who hold the views stated in his second argument. So why not WLC? The "voice tone" argument appears to be the differentiator.
Dawkins shouldn’t be used as a spoke person for atheism or rationality. Dude’s a good biologist with very specific domain knowledge, outside of that he’s incredibly disappointing
True, Dawkins is weak when it comes to philosophy but he's still well beyond your average Christain. I think the problem that many of us have is that, while philosophers may sneer at a scientist like Dawkins for not being able to comprehend advanced philosophical arguments, the fact is that your average Christain isn't even that capable and they don't understand science either, so they are literally believing on blind faith.
He's not approaching the question of god from a philosophical perspective, but rather an empirical scientific one - which is reasonable as the scientific method is the only model we have to accurately and reliably predict reality. He's a scientist not a philosopher.
@@roro-mm7ccWell, he should because the god debate is philosophical. And empiricism is a self refuting epistemology. Empirical investigation is only part of the story.
Dawkins’ ability to hand wave away philosophical arguments with comments about his opponent’s voice and his opponent’s moral opinions is indicative of the pathetic nature of the new atheist movement as a whole. Stay in the lane of biology if you won’t engage Philosophy, it’s that simple.
"new atheist movement " Silly rabbit. Wax and wank philosophically all you want The premise of a magician in the sky is one that a 8 year old child will laugh at Getting 2 PhDs in mythology is about as useful as a paper bag in a torrential rain storm Lame makes money making his sheep feel good about the nonsense they believe in,and all he ever produces is the "possibility" Why not have Lame debate on something like the hard science of his god? lol
The thing is, he's done that already for decades. At a certain point you don't need to engage in a debate anymore, especially if the opposition is just being ridiculous about it.
Awww religious entitlement is so fragile. I don't agree with Dawkins on trans issues but i know he's just trying to find common ground with the endless harassment from religious people. He already said any "decent theologan" ie he acknowledges they exist. Funny how one trans persons counterintuitive idea about their own body is so offensive to the vast herd of religious cattle who embrace an invisible puppetier 😊
Are you slow? He just said why he doesn’t want to debate him Cause he believes in the barbaric nonsense in old testament You people are just in another level of stupidity
He advocates for biblical genocide of most brutal kind, he said it in the video, Craig sounding the way he does has nothing to do with why he won't debate him, you're being dishonest, same as Craig.
He has heard "MY religion is obviously the real religion, because MY religious book says it's the truth" or "look around at the beauty of the world, there's my proof of Gods existence" thousands of times. Christianity unapologetically plagiarized and stole off of Judaism and is correctly defined as mythology.
@willt3982 Moral relativists cannot posit any definitive moral statement. Dawkins has no claim that a moral system based around liberal values is any better then say a moral system based around Islamic values.
@@untoldhistory2800I’ll have a watch. Won’t matter to my religious beliefs though as Dr Lennox has no evidence of god otherwise you would have presented it, but I may say Dawkins isn’t a great debater. I’ll let you know
@@HalifaxViewers you won’t find evidence if you don’t want to find evidence. I think there are more things involved than evidence like pride, humility, surrender, etc. Enjoy the debate by the end of it you will wish John Lennox was your grandad
I recently had the pleasure of deconstructing Craig's moral argument for God's existence in an essay. His reasoning for the existence of objective moral value (no joke) was "it just feels like it exists". Edit: Thanks for the interesting debate in the replies, and to everyone who's not being a complete knobhead on either side
Intuition is what he means I think. The fact that consciousness remains a conundrum, and yet most people have an intuition of them being the result of a higher mind, an intuition of there being something more. And this intuition comes straight from the conscious experience, suggesting it be a hint or indication God is there.
@@fireside9503 I respect anyone who believes in God because of intuition. What Craig does, though, is attribute the existence of God to another abstract concept he can only attribute to intuition, and claim that he's proven God's existence. All he's done is just add a middleman.
@@fireside9503 the claim that most people feel as if we come from a higher mind is tripe. The only reason such nonsense is asserted is because theism has enjoyed quite a lucrative and privileged position within civilization for far too long. Also, consciousness does not hint at the existence of any sort of "god", let alone the Abrahamic "god". Additionally, the concept of consciousness is only confounding to those who have a very limited understanding of the brain. Clearly, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain given the fact that literally everything that has a brain also possesses consciousness unless damaged or corrupted, and the sheer fact that no source of disembodied consciousness or minds can be exhibited or demonstrated, let alone shown to be even a plausible or feasible idea.
The thing is if someone presented a good (formally) logical argument for the existence of a god, then that argument would be famous. The famous ones that exist have already been debunked.
@niclasjohansson5992 how about the creation of the universe required divine intervention at the big bang. Just right amount of nuclear, gravitional, and electromagnetic forces
@potatopeelee not in my opinion. See stephen meyer who contends that fine tuning likely requires a creator. Who coded dna? Matter does not create life.
@@antetony83 you have just changed the argument because DNA is not mentioned in the fine tuning argument. Also the divine fallacy is being committed (arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.)
imagine debating someone and he says there is this magical dog poo that governs the whole universe , youd would be sounding pretentious too to the dog poo believers
He's a "proper" English gentleman. You may not like his upper crust demeanor, but he is correct when criticizing religions. You are unable to show otherwise.
@@menacetosociety6825Sorry, but we don't have to prove things are "wrong"; those who make claims about the existence of something have to show how they know, and we get to examine the case they make. All of them fail miserably so far, and crackpots like Craig don't warrant responses from Dawkins. Many others have debated him, and though they have routinely destroyed his arguments, debates are mostly performances. Why give crackpots a stage? Why the interest in where I am from?
@@chikkipop Dawkins literally is afraid to debate William Lane Craig because he knows he is unable to win that debate. His excuses are utterly ridiculous and obviously dishonest, with himself and his audience. And his followers are in these comments uttering nonsense in support of that sheer delusional dishonesty.
WLC is a compulsive liar, an academic fraud, an intellectual charlatan, and a fallacious logician. I could take him in a debate with my prefrontal cortex tied behind my back.
Nah man. Take the argument that Dawkins talks about here. Craig's defense is "God said it was OK to kill the innocent kids so it must've been OK". That is not logic and is easily rebuked in so many ways
"I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my opposition has no good points to be made and their leader's voice is annoying." That's basically a walking definition of arrogance. He sounds like Donald Trump talking about any political opponent.
More like "the opposition's points are not based on any evidence and yet claim them as true, and their leader uses big words and intentionally sounds pompous to impress the audience, instead of actually using valid arguments"
@@leperlord7078 He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. By saying that he doesn't see any good points in the opposing side, he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble, and all he can say about Craig is that this is an indictment of the way he speaks. Dawkins has confirmed this many times before, that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle.
@@FireMarekPL1 "He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. " Yes,he lives in reality. He is a hard scientist and has contributed a lot to that field Craig is an expert in his field, based on philosophically debating the possibility of a sky magician, who just happens to love genocide,and playing mind/word games/experiments Who has contributed more of worth? "he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble," AKA reality.Real-world understanding and solutions "that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle." And i ask, wtf does he continue to debate outside his expertise. We agree there And i hope you can be as honest as i? and answer why Craig so desires to debate those outside his expertise and refuses to debate those experts within his circle? Loftus and Matt D.?
@@leperlord7078 How much Thomas Aquinas have you read lately? Possibly the most rational thinker in the Western tradition. You clearly know nothing about the very tradition you claim to oppose LOL
@@leperlord7078 Let me remind you that there is a debate about the existence of God. We are not dealing here with a debate on scientific issues, and Dawkins clearly has no willingness to look at philosophical arguments, which is true of the entire New Atheism movement. Atheists often lock themselves only within the naturalistic worldview and are unwilling to step outside of it or hear the arguments of the other side, and even when they do, they insist that all answers must be simple and consistent with their vision of God, even though they themselves do not believe in God. Dawkins lost most of his debates, and that's because they weren't debates at all just presenting his view and zero thought for over 20 years. In comparison, Craig debated with Sam Harris, Hitchens or Krauss, i.e. the new atheists.
@@smith46695 I would but they're dead. Einstein wasn't really religious in the colloquial sense(he believed in Spinoza's god which essentially uses an alternate definition), newton lived in a time when theism was an extreme norm in England.
@@GreatApe0 thanks for the update I had no idea they were dead but point is they both are smarter then these guys and one was agnostic the other Christian I don’t care when the lived that doesn’t change anything have we gotten less proof there is a god in the past 300 years answer is no.
@@D3nchanter did I say I was Christian no lol but I am and he was agnostic not a an atheist that’s my point but Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and he was much smarter than Einstein for his time
I’m not a theist, but I think Dawkins sounds pompous himself here to suggest that there’s not a single argument for the existence of god that’s the least bit compelling. Funnily enough, there’s actually a video of him having a conversation with Francis Collins from about a year ago in which he acknowledged that the fine tuning argument has at least some merit even if it’s not enough to convince him.
But the Fine Tuning argument is not compelling, and that was the test used here. Fine Tuning is essentially an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Dawkins is being generous to damn it with faint praise. Assuming the premise of Fine Tuning is correct - that the fundamental constants of the observed universe are arbitrary and rare, something we in fact don't know to be the case, since we have no other universes with which to compare them - all we can reasonably say is that WE DON'T KNOW how they came to have these values. When we don't know something, it's NEVER reasonable to infer that we therefore know something else. To offer any such inference is a Argument from Ignorance.
@@tomarmstrong3297 it's kinda ironic that in fiction the multiverse is often used as a narrative device to show the problems of avoiding the consequences of agency.
Dawkins won’t debate Craig because he is a coward, pure and simple. For a moment, I thought Dawkins had grown a little bit as a person from fifteen years ago, but this interview has shown that he really hasn’t. It’s also extremely arrogant to suggest that there aren’t any good theist debaters, just as it would be for a theist to say there aren’t any good atheist debaters.
Well if that's true then it must also be true that Craig is a coward because he won't debate Matt Dillahunty, who would utterly demolish his silly arguments.
@@davidarbogast37Why would he want to debate someone who runs away like a coward from a debate when he gets his feelings hurt? Matt is probably one of the worst debaters I have ever seen. Craig doesn’t debate internet popularizers, but only people who have contributed to academic literature or have written books fleshing out what they believe. Dillahunty, as far as I know, has done neither.
@@batman5224 Craig IS a popularizer… And if he has any new arguments for his god that haven’t been refuted decades ago then I am sure that someone will spend a few hours refuting those new arguments. No need for Dawkins to waste his precious time with the same old irrelevant arguments of Low Bar Bill.😂
@@batman5224 A bit excessively elitist to say that only people with PhD's are worthy of your attention, no? And does Alex O'Connor have a PhD? Because Craig spoke with him.
@@alaron5698 It’s not elitist to suggest that someone needs to express their thoughts cogently in writing. Alex does have a theology degree, if I’m not mistaken, and their conversations haven’t been formal debates.
@@MrTheclevercat Dawkins has consistently said that he won't debate Creationists, and that's reasonable to me. But William Lane Craig isn't arguing for Creationism, he argues for theistic evolution. Dawkins has made philosophical assertions with his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit and keeps inviting people to debate him and "point out it's flaws", yet has declined to debate the single most person heralded as having good responses on four occasions. His stated reason is that he doesn't want to give Craig a platform and keeps attacking his character as disingenuine and as trying to gain popularity despite already being wildly popular.
WLC is a creationist. He believes the universe was created by magic specifically so humans could have a relationship with a god. He's a potato.@@WillGaylord
@@MrTheclevercat Doesn't change the fact that Craig isn't trying to argue about Creationism with Dawkins anyway, he wants to tell him why his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is flawed but Dawkins won't have it
I mean he’s basically just insulting the guy instead of addressing anything he says. I don’t know why people are applauding this like it’s some sort of logical stance
It wasn't the time/place to - he wasn't debating WLC. But he immediately gave an example anyway addressing something WLC has said. Re: Israelites/Midianites. Were you watching another video?
There is no logical point to be made for the existence of God. Also he isn't debating him. He is discounting his character and saying why he doesn't care for him. And hopefully it devalues him in other people's eyes.
@@neinnononit is about how he has debated many people, and learned nothing form them. Not a single good argument? Piece of evidence? Philosophical/theological thought process? Not one? When arguing something that is an exact 50/50 with no provable evidence on either side? That is pure ignorance and malice, that is not intellectual
It is written that there was a man who used his supernatural power to fight evil, and then was killed by evil. Later, he rose from the dead. It is written that many people saw these events and they would not lie about it. The man's name was Harry Potter.
Dawkins is spitting in the face of philosophy of religion. Saying there isn’t a single good point for the other side is a clear indication of arrogance and lack of understanding. Otherwise, why would 18% of philosophers be theists and why are there so many powerful arguments for God? I’m not a theist, but to wave away philosophical arguments as a whole as unimpressive instead of actually making objections to them is ridiculous and disrespectful to the subject.
In regard to Craig's voice, I completely understand where Dawkins is coming from. Craig's voice and speaking style are not only pompous, but they also reek of pretentious snobbery especially when he utilizes emotional intonations. He also sounds like a child when he does that.
@@aurelian771 yeah, not quite. Getting angry at an interlocutor's dishonesty and disingenuousness is not quite the same as desperately exhibiting childish emotions of wanting something to be true even if only a one in a million chance. "I don't raise the bar for Christianity. I, I lower it!" -'Low Bar' Bill Craig
To me, and I have heard him speak live in an auditorium, Craig first and foremost sounds smug. He always has the tone of voice of a teacher who needs to make sure everyone gets how right and well-read he is and how silly and poor the arguments contradicting him are.
@@alaron5698 Dawkins has a posh accent, but does his tone of voice usually come across as smug or pompous? To me, he mostly sounds either intrigued or amused.
I adore Dawkins. I have watched every debate and own all his books. His eloquent and firm way of speaking makes the debates enjoyable. And while some of his opponents do rub him the wrong way, I've always admired him for how he went to get dinner with one of them after a pretty heated debate. It's what I base all my life conflicts on - that even if I disagree with someone, it doesn't make us enemies.
The amount of people who clearly don’t understand WLC arguments is incredible. Someone said Dr.Craig is afraid of debating Matt the bald dude. Absolutely incredible
What's to understand? A lot of apologetics arguments aren't terribly difficult to understand. And yeah, a trained philosopher is ideal to go up against someone like WLC. Not Dawkins, not Dillahunty. I am now reading Shelly Kagan's new book "Answering Moral Skepticism", which is much better and more useful than Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". Etc.
@@Vespa123 JL just used word play and as knowledgeable and accomplished as RD is, he is not the nimblest debater. JL produced not one shred of evidence that there is a God. But I do like they are civilised to each other. I also love that people talk about "John Lennox" or "Craig" like he is their mate whereas they turn the argument ad-hominem by shouting "Dawkins" as they froth at the mouth.
Dawkins is the most pompous of them all, yet he uses that as an excuse that he “has no time for” Craig. I have a hard time taking Dawkins seriously. There are much better atheist debaters than Dawkins, even if I don’t agree with them.
@@ramigilneas9274 ‘it’s an English accent?’ No, no it’s not. There is no such thing as an ‘English accent’ You can drive 15 minutes down the road and barely understand the person you are talking to sometimes. 99% of the English population do not speak like Dawkins at all. The average Englishman would think Dawkins belonged to the aristocracy if they didn’t know his background
Dawkins' accent is Received Pronuciation or The King's English. This has become rare and it to younger people it sounds old-fashioned and snobbish now. But when Dawkins was young, it was expected from Oxbridge students who wanted to get into public speaking.
It’s wild to me that Dawkins says he has no time for Craig because he has a pompous voice. Firstly, that’s a pompous thing to say. Secondly, someone’s voice has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
@@outermarker5801it’s the first and arguably main reason given. He was saying Craig was arrogant, pompous and contemptible because of his defense of the OT story
@@samramos310 I would argue that the main point is OBVIOUSLY the one which follows after he says "I find him contemptible because..." That being Craig's typical utter sophism in defense of a biblical _genocide_ which includes children and infants. The business of Craig's pomposity is merely a minor preamble.
@@outermarker5801 it sounded more like a justification honestly. His knee-jerk reaction and first reason given was how Craig speaks or lays things out. Then he mentioned his point about the OT story, which frankly there are some valid arguments on both sides for. That along with some other points I’ve seen Dawkins dismiss, but never really refute when it comes to Craig and Turek. Also something that just came to my mind, he of course has been caught off guard by an argument before as it happened during a debate with John Lennox on wether faith was blind or not. Which was a funny but very telling exchange.
@@samramos310 Imo there are no valid justifications for a grown man running down a 3 year old to brutally end her life because a god says her tribe 'sinned' - none. This is the lunacy of dogma grading a god on a curve because of it's supposed 'sovereignty'. Regarding Lennox - is that the one where he asks whether Dawkins' has 'faith' in his wife? Not only is the question impertinent, it's disingenuous semantics. The literal definition of faith is _"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_ Heb 11. Didn't Jesus tell 'doubting' Thomas that though he believed after seeing the scars, happier are those who believe withOUT seeing? Why do christians continually deny the very basis of their conviction - the FAITH that an invisible god exists and has agency in the world and their own lives?
@evancohen1503 but why debate othe theists and hold others in contempt??? When they all believe the same things. The same can also be said by Atheist, btw. All depends on who you're asking.
Yes, you must be profoundly arrogant if you can't find one justification or positive argument for ncest or child molestation.... wait.... Some arguments don't have any valid points. The fact you think everything does merely show the lack of your own intelligence
Indeed, the question on whether or not rainbow farting unicorns exist sure has arguments with merit on the "yes they exist" side. This is just absurd, it's either an "enlightened" centrist position trying to equate both sides of an argument or a position from the side with only meritless arguments. Not all opposing sides in particular topics need to have any arguments with merit, acknowledging that fact does not necessarily make the other side profoundly arrogant, especially if in all these years there have not been put forward any arguments with merit on the theist side.
@Glitch_II he's own words contradict his own experience when we admitted the elements of the fine tuning argument had some merrit in a previous debate. At best, he's having a memory lapse here.
@@ezramiller8936 Fine tuning is easily disproven by most natural disasters, and disease and massive flaws in our own biology as well as astronomy and mutiple facts like dark holes, no oxygen in space, etc.
WLC is a good debater, whether you agree with him or not. He’s made his opponents sweat a lot. Dawkins just attacked his voice for being pompous. That was pretty poor
Made his opponents sweat? lol Over what exactly? Was his god proven? lol Sweating over how good Lame Craig makes already believing sheep feel good that they can continue to believe in magic because Lame says it is after all "possible"
@@leperlord7078 from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig): In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do." So I do think @divatalk9011 is right.
@@leperlord7078Hitch literally pretended his mic wasn’t working and Dawkins wouldn’t dare debate him. I don’t agree with a lot WLC says, but he’s a formidable opponent
@@divatalk9011 Opponent for what? lol What has any of his philosophical waxing and wanking ever accomplished? i will stick with the reality that Dawkins deals in any day. A huge advocate for fact-based science & influencer in the world of science/reality, and sharing a stage with an apologist for genocide and child slaughter would only diminish Dawkins and boost Lame Craig Kinda like how Trump foolishly validated Kim Jong and saluted Jung's generals(Spelling?) All Lame does is study really hard,get a Ph.D., and a polished skit to make Xians feel good about the nonsense they believe in WTF is he an expert in? A PhD so he can fight over the "Reasonable faith" of believing in fairytales? i will repeat,if he is as FORMIDABLE as y all claim he is,he needs to debate and stop his 15-year dodge of John Loftus and Matt D. Esp Loftus,a former Craig student,who told Loftus class "My former students are the ones I would fear to debate) So whats he do,he slanders Loftus saying "Loftus is addicted to porn" lol i admit,for over 20 years i have been into this debating with theists stuff, i would tune into every debate available,but man it got tiring. Same old schtick,it is like they never listen Even ken Ham debates more reality than Lame Craig ffs.At least he tries his hand at science lol Or debate Dawkins on the science Dawkins is an expert in Why does Lame always have to control topics and formats ?
Best one I’ve heard from a scientist was “the evidence tells me there is no god, every road leads there . Except me, every fathom of my being resists the idea and wants to believe there is a god, that there is meaning”
Am I the only one who laughed when he said Dr Craig had a pompous voice? Dawkins LITERALLY has the most pompous, arrogant and snobby voice I’ve ever heard
DAWKINS doesnt respect the field of philosophy. He presupposes science not acknowledging that science is built on philosophical arguments and assumptions.
I saw the debate between William Lane Craig and the late great Christopher Hitchens at Biola years ago. William Lane Craig follows the standard script he uses in all his “debates”. This formula that never changes no matter who he is talking to is (I believe) what Dawkins is referring to. It would be a waste of his time.
Dr. William Lane Craig essentially said God was playing God. Like it or hate it , but it makes sense. That point aside, this is a cowards way out. So many other atheists have not been ‘ so offended to not debate WLC’. He just knows Dr.WLC levels his opponents.
Being honest I find WLC to be a terrible debater when it comes to the arguments he brings. He's quite skilled at skipping supporting his arguments in debate and instead appealing to the intuition and emotion of the audience. He starts and argument adds emotion in the middle and then jumps to a conclusion leaving the audience with a false feeling of a full belly like they've been served food full of sand.
This coming from the same man that declared we should publicly mock those with religious views. I think that does show arrogance. I’m praying for Richard Dawkins, and I admire his intelligence and conviction to stick to what he believes, but on this matter, he’s no theologian or philosopher, he has no good argument to ultimately make, just ad hominem and complaints about the character of God, as they don’t fit into what he personally determines, entirely subjectively, as good.
William Lane Craig has always been (from what i’d seen of him) a respectful and insightful guy. He never struck me as pompous or snobby. Dawkins was describing himself here
It's rather disingenuous to label someone like Craig as merely an apologist regardless of one's personal feelings toward him, when he has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today). Dawkins can scoff at Craig all he wants. He knows he couldn't handle him in a debate with his limited understanding of philosophy and theology. He can go back to debating evangelical pastors again to make him look good.
" has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today" So he is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology, but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol May as well have PhDs in Spiderman His sole job is to give magical thinkers a thread to hold onto in a ridiculous belief system of zero-proof Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D's challenge to a debate? What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology, when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky Man). This is not the field Rich is an expert in, but Matt D., and Loftus are experts in that field, but he denies them the time lol They have him in sus,
@@Gokulosestoavirus I would love to see this debate tbh. Matt is a good debater and would fare much better than Dawkins. I'm pretty sure the reason Craig hasn't debated him is that he's not a scholar. Could be wrong about that though.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since. "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig The moral of the story is that if you're a scared teenager in need of a warm blankie, you can live off it for the rest of your life provided you know how to sell it to others who need it as much as you do.
Dawkins has only engaged with the materialist, literalist Christianity of the late 1800s that was pronounced dead at the time by Nietschze. Seriously grappling with the Christian traditions and what they mean is not something Dawkins has ever done. At least people like Nietschze and Jung took Christianity seriously.
That's the only version of Christianity worth discussing, and that was ultimately the version understood by most Christians throughout history. Once you relegate your holy book to mere fables and metaphors, it's hardly worth entertaining. These "figurative" readings of the scripture maim Christianity beyond recognition.
@@skooma103Ah. Are you in the business of telling "Theistic Evolutionists" that they can't be true Christians? There's meaningful or practical way you can make that argument without making yourself look like a Bible Belt fundamentalist. Fundies want a monopoly on scripture, atheists want a monopoly on science. Both are empirically wrong in their insistence on this kind of exclusion.
Not believing in things that no one has taken even the first step in demonstrating is not "empirically wrong" by any stretch of those words. It is, in fact, the only empirical choice.@@Thagomizer
I agree, a religious person will most likely never be changed to an atheist especially if they are debating, and an atheist will never be converted to a religious person. As a religious person myself, I never shy away from the fact that debates are solely participated in to find out what it right am not who is right, and with debates about religion unfortunately a lot of (mostly) religious debaters get very personal - inherently due to the fact that religion is a personal thing and therefore debating an atheist who is barely moved by an argument based on personal factors is almost pointless. I feel like the question ‘does God exist’ should he answered by one’s-self and shouldn’t need to be debated as progress is very rarely made.
Dawkins was avoiding William Lane Craig before he ever discovered Craig’s article about the Canaanites, and even after that Dawkins “forgot” about the article for about 3 years and gave multiple other excuses.🤨
Lame Craig is an expert in mythological fantasies What is there to debate with an evolutionary biologist who has given so much to hard science/reality? So Lame is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology,but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol May as well have PhDs in Spiderman Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D challenge to a debate? What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology,when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky man). This is not the field Rich is an expert in,but Matt D.,and Loftus are experts in that field,but he denies them the time lol They have him in sus,
is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for… more than one reason? i don’t know that it’s ever happened in history before, but we can’t discount it! more experiments must be performed to get to the truth…
@@tonoornottono "is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for" i would guess that shaking the hand of the same man who says "Well children die every day,god made us and can do anything he wants with us" Special pleas for genocide,kinda a turn off innit.
@@leperlord7078if you actually watch Craig's debates... and well, read the Bible to understand, you'd realise that is just one part of the whole argument. Not even the take away
There is no possibility of seriously defending any religious position without opening oneself up to psychoanalysis. Simply, the atheist position does not incorporate a 'Big Other' -the Lacanian Object A. The theist's position in defending a big other "God" is necessarily a psychological confession expressing the unconscious need to repair or heal poor object relations and attachments with their parents.
I'm sorry, but Dawkins complaining about snobbery and pomposity is laughable.
Glad someone pointed that out.
yes he is that kind of clown he complained about, what double standard
Your wrong, because Dawkins is speaking the truth whereas William Lame Craig is talking absolute
B O L L O C K S.
Lool thank you
@@thomascarroll9556that, of course, is a matter of debate, which is why this video exists.
New atheism :
“The other guy is dumb”
“I’m too smart to talk to you”
They said within seconds its not that theyre too smart, its just that the other guy is is trying to defend something that cant be defended. way to show you cant even sit through a few seconds of talking without warping what you hear to suit you.
Hope you dont have authority over people, your inability to listen when you dislike the other party would probably make you abusive in that position.
@@DarkFlamesDarknessI agree with you initial point. But you ruined the comment with the authority stuff
@@JM-st1le Theyll never think about it unless someone says it directly. Even then, they'll almost certainly not think about it.
Religious people will pretty often have kids, because most religions push it, & this one is obviously religious. So theyll eventually have someone to bully with their reinventing what was said scenarios.
Also my last bit ruined it?
The whole comment was a comment on how they were dumb & wrong for changing what he heard to fit what they wanted to hear, a common thiest issue, but not exclusive to them.
I spent no time thinking about what I wrote, like them, so it wasnt gonna be great in the first place. Like theirs.
Great comments should be left off corperatetube anways.
As a matter of fact, he is too smart for a debate with a theist.
@@DarkFlamesDarknessatheist can’t defend their own points because it’s simply unknown whether god exists or not. Making either claim is solely based on faith. Most atheist are arrogant losers who care way too much about theists ideas.
As an atheist I don't think Richard Dawkins is our "Messenger" or something. Why are people sort of acting like Dawkins is the main guy of Atheism? He's just a popular guy with ofc alot of knowledge but he isn't the Face of Atheism. Hitchens proudly debated Craig.
I have never heard anyone call Dawkins like the atheist prophet or anything except for religious people because they can't understand just thinking for yourself. That is why they say things like even Darwin said this or that. Hitchens this and the other thing.
No atheist thinks so, it's religious people who are obsessed with these ideas of Dawkins being the "pope" of atheists, wake up boy.
he is too antagonistic to be our main guy. There are so many ways to make an argument against religion without being so disrespectful and hateful like Dawkins.
Athieism does not need a messenger, religion needs one.
If you think Athieism requires a messenger, then what's the message?
I suppose that 'there is no meaning to be found at all beyond what you see in the things around you', @@Alexander4332.
My conviction is that people see ideas attached/imbibed in things that they sense (with their five senses); things that when elaborated on (perhaps with metaphor and experience) they inevitably get a sort of meaning out of it.
If anything, Spiritualism, or mayhaps, Agnosticism in the most basic sense would be closer to not need a messenger in this regard.
One of the buttons on his shirt is unbuttoned and now I can’t unsee it
Why did you share????? :(
That's how some culture show they're single lol.
you're fired.
oh that's just "natural selection".
To dumb to do his buttons properly.
I respect his lack of respect for Craig
Absolutely 😂
I’m not aware he did show a lack of respect to Flowers, although he did show distain and contempt for his childish beliefs.
@@thomascarroll9556 He didn’t mention flowers I don’t think. But he did say and I quote “I don’t respect him” ( referring to Craig ). This doesn’t mean he’s going to be rude or impolite to him. It just means he doesn’t respect him as an intellectual and possibly as a person, due in part to his gross justifications of genocide.
Dawkins "lack of respect" for Craig is obviously an excuse for his fear of debating one of the top 10 philosophers in the world of the last 30 years (as ranked by "Academic Influence"). Anyone can disagree with William Lane Craig on his points of view, but there's no doubt that he's a top intellectual.
Dr. Daniel Came is an atheist philosopher formerly at Oxford and currently at the University of Lincoln. He had this to say to Dawkins about his refusal to debate Craig:
“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.
“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”
(Edit: I had originally written "The Best Schools" which had Craig in their list of "The 50 most influential living philosophers". I then instead referenced the "Academic Influence" list, which had Craig as one of the top ten philosophers from 1990-2020.)
@@kevindiamant415 WLC is a complete joke.
RICHARD DAWKINS calling someone else’s voice pretentious
You got a point, the man sounds incredibly posh
Blokes had his head up his own arse for years now.
Richard Dawkins does not sound pretentious at all.
Well he's English as well as an intellectual and professional. They tend to sound like that. 🤷♂️
Whereas Americans with the voice and speaking style that Craig possesses, are often pretentious snobs.
He does make a good point at the end though. Craig's completely okay with the suffering of innocents because they to "heaven". Guy is insane
“Oh he’s always saying things like PREMISE ONE”
Yeah Richie, that’s called an argument.
If you actually speak in lists you are fuckin in deeeep
Lmao ur retarded
Except they never provide a reasonable premise.
It WOULD be an argument except that Craig refuses to accept that it's NOT a premise, but an assertion. A premise requires that it be either proved true OR that it's provably true.
Premise 1, for example could be true (in the Kalam) if it were analytic (like all bachelors are unmarried). Otherwise it's both unproved and unprovable.
That's been pointed out REPEATEDLY to Craig and he doesn't care. At that point, it ceases to be a premise and becomes a joke.
@@PhrontDoorpremises are assertions. They are offered to be true to lead to a conclusion. Thus, how you defeat the conclusion is by attacking the premises, showing that they either are untrue or fail to comprehend something necessary for the conclusion. If someone fails to attack a premise and only attacks the conclusion, they are misguided. Syllogisms are formulated in a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.
“Premise 1 deduction 2”
In other words, he formulates his arguments really well
No he doesn't not if you've ever read anything he's done,l he's a charlatan.
lol fax
No it’s just the fact that it’s an i falsifiable hypothesis, mixed with an argument from ignorance. it’s very semantics based not any substance
If God were real that kind of argument shouldn't be necessary in proving its existence, plus the arguments are flawed but made to sound intelligent
@@grindhardlio7814 Craig smashed every single Dawkins' "argument" and he knows very well. Perfectly understandable that he doesn't want to go near Craig. He wouldn't stand a chance.
I like that Dawkins doesnt attribute the good points to himself, but just the reality of there not being good arguments on the other side.
Dawkins is brain dead, you can see his speech starting to slow. He was never one for very intellectual matters, so he makes claims in a british accent and people like you buy it. Truth is, the smartest man in the world thinks God exists, but good ol Dawkins here thinks his daddy Darwin and his passionate hatred for christianity will synthesize into some sort of coherent argument.
Yeaaa because Alex would TOTALLY agree there are *no* good points on the other side, it’s not like he said verbatim that the contingency argument is strong or anything. He is too much of a coward to call Dawkins on it though.
@@ILoveLuhaidanYep, decreased the value of these two speaking, pretty pointless watching the full debate.
The irony of admitting you don't have any good arguments for your world view. There's only two positions, either God exists or he doesn't, if you admit you don't have any good arguments for your view, you admit by default that the evidence supports the opposite, regardless of whether or not you like the arguments. Dawkins has always argued from incredulity, a simply unwillingness to believe
@@nathanaeldavidAZThat is fallacious. There are four options if you and I have different opinions about a topic. Either you are right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both right, or we're both wrong.
In the case of Christian and atheist beliefs, they are mutually exclusive, so we can't both be right... but we CAN both be wrong. Maybe the Jews have it right, maybe Islam is accurate, maybe it's Zoroastrianism or Jainism or any number of other religions being practiced around the world. Maybe the truth is found in a dead religion that is no longer practiced or even one that hasn't been founded yet.
Just because I can't definitively prove that I'm right, that doesn't automagically prove that you are.
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you”
- C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis had some gold!
Super good
Good thing, I suppose, that C.S.Lewis constantly looked up to his sky daddy and forgot to look down for much longer, or else we'd have had more of his badly written books.
@@AA-yc8yr edgy
@@AA-yc8yr”Sky daddy! Sky daddy! Sky daddy! Sky daddy!”
David Wood, Apologetics Roadshow
He has no time to debate WLC, but he has time to sit down for podcasts to explain why he has no time to debate.
Debates are different than podcasts sir🤦🏾😑yall don’t use your brains at all
@@doughboyjojofgc4401yes, time passes differently during debates. It's fundamental physics
I think he was using it as an expression not a literal lack of time. Here in Australia (and I presume the UK too) if you say you don't have time for something it's akin to saying you don't care for it/ can't be bothered with it etc.
"I have no time" is OBVIOUSLY "I'm not going to waste my time."
But why am I explaining inference to a f*ckstick like you?
@@doughboyjojofgc4401Why do black people always use sir in their comebacks?
Love Dawkins and his search for truth and his work on evolutionary biology he made it understandable to me especially when he went into a museum with all the animal skeletons it was a big moment in my life
I'm no Christian, nor a fan of William Lane Craig, but Dawkins sounds SO arrogant here. He is so close-minded that he is unwilling to debate someone because "they're beneath him." From what I remember, Alex really enjoyed his convo with William Lane Craig, and is likely a better thinker because of it. Dawkins, you're not some omniscient noble King with other people "below" you. Do some original thinking.
If people shouldn't debate or host others on their show because they are beneath them, then Alex shouldn't be hosting you.
Sometimes you need to realise it's not worth arguing with a person that is completely deadened to any sort of common sense or consistent thinking. For religious discussions to even take place you have to grant a whole bunch of concessions to the religious side just to indulge it. Dawkins is probably just at an age where he's had this same conversation over a thousand times. I'd say Craig is beneath him. Why waste time on it?
I get the feeling Alex was cringing inside when Dawkins said that
Man what a strawman, I agree Dawkins can be close minded at times but he doesn't think Craig is "beneath him", he thinks he tries too hard to justify immoral acts from the bible that makes him sound like a horrible person
He invented the word "meme", and has some original thinking written down in some books all them smarties I know like to read.
Marry a woman. Then you'll understand how it could be, that there is NO point debating some people. (sarcasm).
I had a guy "employ" me. Started off with a "salary" of "150" because I was in "training". I trained myself, got better, faster, more productive over a few weeks.
He started paying me "100", he told me I have to get better and faster and more productive. Even though the evidence showed I was, he could not be convinced to pay more than "100". And seemed to forget that he was now paying me less than at the beginning....
At the end of this clip, Dawkins mentions Craig's statement "the Medianites had it coming" and God's will as an excuse for slaughter of little ones.
There's something deeply wrong with that, I'm sure you can agree. Especially when considering at other genocides, God is commanding that the children be kept as slaves, sometimes ONLY if they are female AND virgin.
Sounds like ice iss. Wanna debate them? Not much point, they just fall back on dogma since nothing they say or think is truly original, seldom logical.
@@sdpearshaped831 20 years ago I about 95%+ retired from debating "Christians" for the reasons you mention here.
"The same conversation [excuses] over a thousand times".
These days I point out that all the good parts of Christianity come from the same place all the good things come from: Cooperation in order to survive.
"I don't want to sound arrogant..." mission failed lol
It only sounds that way because he's correct.
To a religious zealot, any rational person sounds arrogant.
@@Bokonon999Apparently everything that comes out of his mouth is correct. He truly is a deity in some peoples eyes.
It's impossible for Richard Dawkins to not be arrogant. I feel like if you ask him to pass the butter, he'll somehow turn it into a rant about why transgenders are a detriment to going to the moon.
@@lealvazquezosvaldo8431 Apparently, someone - that's you, to avoid (your) confusion - can't make an argument so resorts to logical fallacies. Figures.
Richard Dawkins is one the best non fiction writers today. Thank you for all of your amazing works
His reasons for not debating Craig get increasingly strange 😂. Guess he saw what happened with Hitchens and Harris and figured he best duck for cover.
How did WLC beat hitchens?
Or Sean Carrol. Oh wait, he absolutely steam rolled WLC.
@@antreasAnimations hahahahahahaahahaahahaah what? Well one was attempting to make incredibly airtight arguments and directly addressing the fallacies of his opponent's arguments. The other went on pseudo-elequoent rants about spaghetti monsters and literally went the entire debate without addressing his opponent's argument - only individual premises in bad faith
WLC was destroyed by Hitchens and Harris. 😂
Lol pleeeez. Not one religious person has ever made a skeptic nervous lol. Cute tho. But blatantly false.
John Lennox has stumped this man several times. It's a shame he can't admit that.
how
Yes, please do elaborate on what these alleged stumpers were.
@@memeticistWhen Dawkins said faith by definition meant lacking in reason and evidence and Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife. 😂
Dawkins, stumped? Nope. He's just bored with theists and thier arrogance.
@@bman5257 I find that to be a lacking argument. His wife is not some being can be debated if she exists. And if we're talking about faith in her faithfulness, it still doesn't apply. If she isn't faithful, there will be physical evidence (whether it is discovered or not) and if she is then there won't be evidence to prove she is not faithful. But just because there is no evidence we shouldn't always without a smidgen of a doubt assume a partner is cheating because that defeats a very fundamental element of a relationship which is trust.
You're free to believe in whatever God you want without any scientific evidence for his existence. In a relationship however, you should be able to trust your partner and if there is reasonable doubt then you see if you can get to the bottom of it. Talk to your partner, look for giveaways for cheating or whatever it is you suspect. Meaning at some point you might need to abandon blind faith and think logically about the situation.
Not sure if I said all I wanted to, but to me that argument doesn't hold up at all
"I don't want to sound arrogant. I just can't help it."
I like Dowkins very much, very intelligent, thinking person, great mind.
@@bibastarmedia9650 and if you don't believe that, just ask him...
Your silly insults would sound better if you could refute his arguments
@howeffingridiculous he doesn't have an argument other than he doesn't see any evidence. He doesn't see it because he doesn't want to see it. Whatever evidence you give him he just says, I don't accept it.
@@KN-ul5xe you're talking in generalities, be specific and tell us which evidence he is unfairly rejecting. Otherwise your statement is worthless
So his unwillingness to engage with William is based on emotions. "I disapprove of what he says and how he says it."
I mean if you say that mass genocide is okay is that really engaging with humanity?
anyone with sound mind who saw Alex's interview with WLC, about his defense of genocide of cannanite, would not give him any respect. The way he framed the situation is so self serving yet so morally "wrong."
EVERYTHING is based on emotions you know.
@@pluntchgunster6156 I think it would do you good to do some research. Keep an open mind, find good sources, and try to understand why God would make a such a decision. Instead of just saying “You’re defending genocide. I’m not listening to you.” At that point you might as well be covering your ears like a child.
@@Victorrevvs There you go trying to justify genocide, good job, just like your cult leaders taught you.
Prof.Dawkins has been one of the heros to humanity, no doubt about it. 👏👏👏👏👏
Dawkins choosing to wipe his debate with Lennox from memory, is funny to me. And he wants to convince people he won't debate Craig for the reasons he himself demonstrates. How very intelligible of him😂
Only because it was like humiliating a child
Honestly. He was like a stroppy toddler in that debate. Embarrassing. Dawkins is incredibly unconvincing to me.
How very... intelligible? Not sure you understand the word.
Dawkins is correct that he's beneath him.
He actually said he doesn't respect Craig because he advocates for genocide on a biblical basis, not because of how he sounds, it's sad you couldn't finish the video before commenting although I have a vibrant working theory of why that is.
Dawkins is honestly a delusional loser.
This is just awful to watch. What a dishonest and bitter person, and his atheist followers cheer him on.
He is complaining about someone else having a pompous voice? 🤣
He has the most pompous attitude and voice than anyone i have ever seen!
It's his accent, not a voice he puts on 🙄
How has he got a pompous voice?
You're not used to the accent, that's all.
You're not used to the accent, hick.
Atheists are usually the epitome of irony.
Such a nice way to say "I'm too scared to debate with him".
I love his honesty 🙏 and willingness to share his opinions 👏 🙌 🌼 🌸 🌻 🌹.
Okay some people have silly points, or none at all. But to say that *no one* EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me
"no one EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me"
Almost a strawman there mate
No one has ever made him think twice about what amounts to a magician in the sky
Please be honest and finish the quote
Has anyone ever made good points to you about Australia not being real? The moon landing being fake? The Earth being flat?
If what the other person is saying is just fundamentally false and built on total irrationality, you're never going to consider any of their points as good. Ultimately, theists are arguing from a disadvantaged position because what they're arguing is untrue, while atheists are just arguing the obvious the truth that is backed up by science.
@@leperlord7078haha and referring to theism as belief in a sky magician is definitely honest framing
...he is very specifically being described as in heaven, above, in the skies, etc. He "works wonders."
Pretty honest to me.@@petergeddes6652
If you're a follower of science then there's no reason to ever believe in magic. Theism is magic and Dr. Dawkins has been doing this for decade so he's heard it all and any argument for a belief in god is just trying to get someone to believe in magic. Besides, all "scientific" appeals to belief ultimately rely on trying to give unverifiable claims for "holes in scientific theory" or something else completely insubstantial.
Funny that Dawkins calls someone ELSE pompous lmao.
You're unfamiliar with the accent, hick.
It really depends on who you are doesn't it. Religious people so used to being entitled.
@@BlanBonco that's only your prejudice
@@stravinskyfan i guess but I'm used to being continously condescended to by them sometimes bordering on pathological belligerance. 🤷♀️ exceptions of course i have sympathy for those persecuted outside the us too
pompus voice, define.....self importance, just because hes posh dont mean hes pompus, read a dictionary plz
Sounds like he’s a little scared. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.
More than a little. Thus, the lame excuses.
It's just you.
@@Tulanir1umm and me
He doesn't sound scared in the least.
I mean, how? I don't see even a little fear in there
Damn William Lane Craig is based af
haha i like how Alex is having fun by interviewing Richard
Few things beat bearded AND laughing Alex.
“No one is good enough to debate me”
“I won’t debate him because he’s too pompous”
😂
Totally not what he said.
He never said the first part, stop lying
What he actually said "It's not that I've got great points'.
Why am I surprised though, religious zealots have never loved the truth.
No Atheist should waste a second debating any Theist... Belief is nothing but empty belief
@@michaelbraga905 and a belief in theism is more empty than a belief in atheism because…?
Best way to win in a debate is to chose your opponent.
Totally agree with Dawkins’ point about genocide apologists.
I find it odd that the #1 reason a scientist gives for not willing to debate someone is the tone of his voice. How reasonable!
He just said that William justified the death of millions of people, including children... and you think it was just for the voice? Ok.
@@allebasaiadartse3951 I would encourage you to read my comment again. I said it was his first reason... not his only reason as you said. Also he has debated several Christians who hold the same view as WLC so go figure.
@@Ai.Narrative "Number 1" and "first" mean different things to you?
@@gueyenono Yes. #1 typically refers to a rank in this context, while "first" is an order in time (here: discourse time).
You would communicate better if you take this into account in the future. The more important (criterion for rank order) point is about slaughter and stuff.
@@guitarflori I appreciate the clarification in the difference between the use of "#1" and "first". I really do. But still, I hardly see how any reader would think that I meant that the "voice tone" argument was his only argument as clearly stated by someone earlier. This is indeed the "first" argument he gave. Also, he has debated many Christians who hold the views stated in his second argument. So why not WLC? The "voice tone" argument appears to be the differentiator.
Dawkins shouldn’t be used as a spoke person for atheism or rationality. Dude’s a good biologist with very specific domain knowledge, outside of that he’s incredibly disappointing
Well said
And that is why Lame craig refuses to debate Loftus or Matt,and focuses on Dawkins
True, Dawkins is weak when it comes to philosophy but he's still well beyond your average Christain. I think the problem that many of us have is that, while philosophers may sneer at a scientist like Dawkins for not being able to comprehend advanced philosophical arguments, the fact is that your average Christain isn't even that capable and they don't understand science either, so they are literally believing on blind faith.
He's not approaching the question of god from a philosophical perspective, but rather an empirical scientific one - which is reasonable as the scientific method is the only model we have to accurately and reliably predict reality. He's a scientist not a philosopher.
@@roro-mm7ccWell, he should because the god debate is philosophical. And empiricism is a self refuting epistemology. Empirical investigation is only part of the story.
@@anteodedi8937 I wouldn't waste you time
“Only idiots refuse to change their minds.” Brigitte Bardot
This guy immediately discredited himself with these comments.
Dawkins’ ability to hand wave away philosophical arguments with comments about his opponent’s voice and his opponent’s moral opinions is indicative of the pathetic nature of the new atheist movement as a whole. Stay in the lane of biology if you won’t engage Philosophy, it’s that simple.
"new atheist movement "
Silly rabbit.
Wax and wank philosophically all you want
The premise of a magician in the sky is one that a 8 year old child will laugh at
Getting 2 PhDs in mythology is about as useful as a paper bag in a torrential rain storm
Lame makes money making his sheep feel good about the nonsense they believe in,and all he ever produces is the "possibility"
Why not have Lame debate on something like the hard science of his god? lol
Well said
The thing is, he's done that already for decades. At a certain point you don't need to engage in a debate anymore, especially if the opposition is just being ridiculous about it.
Why is philosophy = religion or theology? Dawkins focuses purely on truth claims and what people believe in as a definite as followers of a religion.
Awww religious entitlement is so fragile. I don't agree with Dawkins on trans issues but i know he's just trying to find common ground with the endless harassment from religious people. He already said any "decent theologan" ie he acknowledges they exist. Funny how one trans persons counterintuitive idea about their own body is so offensive to the vast herd of religious cattle who embrace an invisible puppetier 😊
So he won't debate Craig because he doesn't like his voice and does not agree with him? What a weak reason.
No because he's dishonest
Are you slow? He just said why he doesn’t want to debate him
Cause he believes in the barbaric nonsense in old testament
You people are just in another level of stupidity
No, because Craig is a dishonest bullsh*tter like all apologists, and at his age Dawkins has had enough of indulging them
He advocates for biblical genocide of most brutal kind, he said it in the video, Craig sounding the way he does has nothing to do with why he won't debate him, you're being dishonest, same as Craig.
Dawkins is bored with theists, as we all are.
If he doesn’t want to sound arrogant, then perhaps he should stop being arrogant.
He has heard "MY religion is obviously the real religion, because MY religious book says it's the truth" or "look around at the beauty of the world, there's my proof of Gods existence" thousands of times. Christianity unapologetically plagiarized and stole off of Judaism and is correctly defined as mythology.
@LawsAndCultureDictateBehavior Dawkins is just a coward. It's funny how he resorts to a moral argument despite being a moral relativist.
@@AryanManIammoral relativists cant have personal opinions and morals?
@willt3982 Moral relativists cannot posit any definitive moral statement. Dawkins has no claim that a moral system based around liberal values is any better then say a moral system based around Islamic values.
Strange: I've never actually seen Richard Dawkins dominate ANY debate against ANY of the best Christian apologists.
probably because you only see what you want to see.
Name a debate with a believer in God that you think Dawkins lost?
@@HalifaxViewersDr John Lennox
@@untoldhistory2800I’ll have a watch. Won’t matter to my religious beliefs though as Dr Lennox has no evidence of god otherwise you would have presented it, but I may say Dawkins isn’t a great debater. I’ll let you know
@@HalifaxViewers you won’t find evidence if you don’t want to find evidence. I think there are more things involved than evidence like pride, humility, surrender, etc. Enjoy the debate by the end of it you will wish John Lennox was your grandad
I recently had the pleasure of deconstructing Craig's moral argument for God's existence in an essay. His reasoning for the existence of objective moral value (no joke) was "it just feels like it exists".
Edit: Thanks for the interesting debate in the replies, and to everyone who's not being a complete knobhead on either side
Fuzzy indeed. Lol
Intuition is what he means I think. The fact that consciousness remains a conundrum, and yet most people have an intuition of them being the result of a higher mind, an intuition of there being something more. And this intuition comes straight from the conscious experience, suggesting it be a hint or indication God is there.
It therefore stands to reason….
That’s all he says.
@@fireside9503 I respect anyone who believes in God because of intuition. What Craig does, though, is attribute the existence of God to another abstract concept he can only attribute to intuition, and claim that he's proven God's existence. All he's done is just add a middleman.
@@fireside9503 the claim that most people feel as if we come from a higher mind is tripe. The only reason such nonsense is asserted is because theism has enjoyed quite a lucrative and privileged position within civilization for far too long. Also, consciousness does not hint at the existence of any sort of "god", let alone the Abrahamic "god". Additionally, the concept of consciousness is only confounding to those who have a very limited understanding of the brain. Clearly, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain given the fact that literally everything that has a brain also possesses consciousness unless damaged or corrupted, and the sheer fact that no source of disembodied consciousness or minds can be exhibited or demonstrated, let alone shown to be even a plausible or feasible idea.
That's a lazy and arrogant answer by Dawkins
The thing is if someone presented a good (formally) logical argument for the existence of a god, then that argument would be famous. The famous ones that exist have already been debunked.
@niclasjohansson5992 how about the creation of the universe required divine intervention at the big bang. Just right amount of nuclear, gravitional, and electromagnetic forces
@@antetony83the fine tuning argument has already been debunked plenty of times
@potatopeelee not in my opinion. See stephen meyer who contends that fine tuning likely requires a creator. Who coded dna? Matter does not create life.
@@antetony83 you have just changed the argument because DNA is not mentioned in the fine tuning argument. Also the divine fallacy is being committed (arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.)
Dawkins: Religion is irrational.
Dr. Craig: premise one, deduction two...
Also Dawkins: I have no time to debate someone who uses tools of logic.
Always wondered what happened to the emperor when darth Vader threw him down - he’s here
Like he hasn't been a pretentious professional debater on religious issues for many years.
Dismissing ridiculous arguments doesn't make him pretentious
imagine debating someone and he says there is this magical dog poo that governs the whole universe , youd would be sounding pretentious too to the dog poo believers
@@bencohen496it makes him ignorant.
@@mostlysunny582 Nope,. Just someone who has better things to do with his life.
He calls Craig pompous while you can literally see the pretentiousness dripping from his mouth.
He's a "proper" English gentleman. You may not like his upper crust demeanor, but he is correct when criticizing religions. You are unable to show otherwise.
@@chikkipop If Christianity is so irrefutably wrong, then Richard should debate William and prove it.
Also, where are you from?
@@menacetosociety6825Sorry, but we don't have to prove things are "wrong"; those who make claims about the existence of something have to show how they know, and we get to examine the case they make. All of them fail miserably so far, and crackpots like Craig don't warrant responses from Dawkins. Many others have debated him, and though they have routinely destroyed his arguments, debates are mostly performances. Why give crackpots a stage?
Why the interest in where I am from?
@@chikkipop Dawkins literally is afraid to debate William Lane Craig because he knows he is unable to win that debate.
His excuses are utterly ridiculous and obviously dishonest, with himself and his audience.
And his followers are in these comments uttering nonsense in support of that sheer delusional dishonesty.
@@menacetosociety6825did you not watch the video? Bro doesnt want to debate someone who supports genocide
Dawkins is wise to avoid debating William Lane Craig. Craig uses logic as his main method, not ad hominem..
WLC is a compulsive liar, an academic fraud, an intellectual charlatan, and a fallacious logician. I could take him in a debate with my prefrontal cortex tied behind my back.
Ouch... Tough but fair
Logic and William in the same sentence is wild
Nah man. Take the argument that Dawkins talks about here. Craig's defense is "God said it was OK to kill the innocent kids so it must've been OK". That is not logic and is easily rebuked in so many ways
@@ovaloctopus8very flimsy straw man, sir
Professor Lennox wiped the floor with him
"I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my opposition has no good points to be made and their leader's voice is annoying."
That's basically a walking definition of arrogance. He sounds like Donald Trump talking about any political opponent.
Nah
It's just the obvious truth. We need to stop to act as if there is any kind of value or validity to their bullshit.
U really rxtxxd enough to think religious snob has any good point? Good grief
If it’s true is it still arrogance?
More like "the opposition's points are not based on any evidence and yet claim them as true, and their leader uses big words and intentionally sounds pompous to impress the audience, instead of actually using valid arguments"
Dawkins avoids people he can't answer to, and thus reduces all Christian responses to his own simplistic vision of Christianity.
" own simplistic vision of Christianity."
So is there a complex elaborate, intricate? sophisticated
@@leperlord7078 He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. By saying that he doesn't see any good points in the opposing side, he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble, and all he can say about Craig is that this is an indictment of the way he speaks. Dawkins has confirmed this many times before, that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle.
@@FireMarekPL1 "He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. "
Yes,he lives in reality. He is a hard scientist and has contributed a lot to that field
Craig is an expert in his field, based on philosophically debating the possibility of a sky magician, who just happens to love genocide,and playing mind/word games/experiments
Who has contributed more of worth?
"he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble,"
AKA reality.Real-world understanding and solutions
"that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle."
And i ask, wtf does he continue to debate outside his expertise. We agree there
And i hope you can be as honest as i? and answer why Craig so desires to debate those outside his expertise and refuses to debate those experts within his circle?
Loftus and Matt D.?
@@leperlord7078 How much Thomas Aquinas have you read lately? Possibly the most rational thinker in the Western tradition. You clearly know nothing about the very tradition you claim to oppose LOL
@@leperlord7078 Let me remind you that there is a debate about the existence of God. We are not dealing here with a debate on scientific issues, and Dawkins clearly has no willingness to look at philosophical arguments, which is true of the entire New Atheism movement. Atheists often lock themselves only within the naturalistic worldview and are unwilling to step outside of it or hear the arguments of the other side, and even when they do, they insist that all answers must be simple and consistent with their vision of God, even though they themselves do not believe in God.
Dawkins lost most of his debates, and that's because they weren't debates at all just presenting his view and zero thought for over 20 years. In comparison, Craig debated with Sam Harris, Hitchens or Krauss, i.e. the new atheists.
same energy as: "I could play qb in the NFL I just don't want to"
There’s no real debate when the argument is nonsense
Tell that to Einstein and Isaac Newton
@@smith46695 I would but they're dead. Einstein wasn't really religious in the colloquial sense(he believed in Spinoza's god which essentially uses an alternate definition), newton lived in a time when theism was an extreme norm in England.
@@GreatApe0 thanks for the update I had no idea they were dead but point is they both are smarter then these guys and one was agnostic the other Christian I don’t care when the lived that doesn’t change anything have we gotten less proof there is a god in the past 300 years answer is no.
@@smith46695 einstein himself called christianity a most primitive superstition... probably not the guy you wanted to lead with XD
@@D3nchanter did I say I was Christian no lol but I am and he was agnostic not a an atheist that’s my point but Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and he was much smarter than Einstein for his time
I’m not a theist, but I think Dawkins sounds pompous himself here to suggest that there’s not a single argument for the existence of god that’s the least bit compelling. Funnily enough, there’s actually a video of him having a conversation with Francis Collins from about a year ago in which he acknowledged that the fine tuning argument has at least some merit even if it’s not enough to convince him.
But the Fine Tuning argument is not compelling, and that was the test used here.
Fine Tuning is essentially an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Dawkins is being generous to damn it with faint praise. Assuming the premise of Fine Tuning is correct - that the fundamental constants of the observed universe are arbitrary and rare, something we in fact don't know to be the case, since we have no other universes with which to compare them - all we can reasonably say is that WE DON'T KNOW how they came to have these values.
When we don't know something, it's NEVER reasonable to infer that we therefore know something else. To offer any such inference is a Argument from Ignorance.
given that we are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent one, it's 'the existence of God'; otherwise it's 'a god' or 'gods'.
@@starfishsystemsit's reasonable given what we know so far. if we find and study more universes and fine tuning proves to be wrong, so be it.
@@foolfetherseems recent popularity and appeal of the (evidence challenged) multi universe idea is as a way to try to rebut fine tuning
@@tomarmstrong3297 it's kinda ironic that in fiction the multiverse is often used as a narrative device to show the problems of avoiding the consequences of agency.
Dawkins won’t debate Craig because he is a coward, pure and simple. For a moment, I thought Dawkins had grown a little bit as a person from fifteen years ago, but this interview has shown that he really hasn’t. It’s also extremely arrogant to suggest that there aren’t any good theist debaters, just as it would be for a theist to say there aren’t any good atheist debaters.
Well if that's true then it must also be true that Craig is a coward because he won't debate Matt Dillahunty, who would utterly demolish his silly arguments.
@@davidarbogast37Why would he want to debate someone who runs away like a coward from a debate when he gets his feelings hurt? Matt is probably one of the worst debaters I have ever seen. Craig doesn’t debate internet popularizers, but only people who have contributed to academic literature or have written books fleshing out what they believe. Dillahunty, as far as I know, has done neither.
@@batman5224
Craig IS a popularizer…
And if he has any new arguments for his god that haven’t been refuted decades ago then I am sure that someone will spend a few hours refuting those new arguments.
No need for Dawkins to waste his precious time with the same old irrelevant arguments of Low Bar Bill.😂
@@batman5224 A bit excessively elitist to say that only people with PhD's are worthy of your attention, no? And does Alex O'Connor have a PhD? Because Craig spoke with him.
@@alaron5698 It’s not elitist to suggest that someone needs to express their thoughts cogently in writing. Alex does have a theology degree, if I’m not mistaken, and their conversations haven’t been formal debates.
If you weren't taught a religion......you would never come up with the same story twice.
"I don't want to debate him because I don't like his voice."
Kinda easy to never hear any good points when you admit to not wanting to debate anyone who can actually hold their own in a debate
Like who? That's a cute way of saying Dawkins has never lost a debate and just insulting those who were brave enough to try.
@@MrTheclevercat Dawkins has consistently said that he won't debate Creationists, and that's reasonable to me. But William Lane Craig isn't arguing for Creationism, he argues for theistic evolution. Dawkins has made philosophical assertions with his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit and keeps inviting people to debate him and "point out it's flaws", yet has declined to debate the single most person heralded as having good responses on four occasions. His stated reason is that he doesn't want to give Craig a platform and keeps attacking his character as disingenuine and as trying to gain popularity despite already being wildly popular.
WLC is a creationist. He believes the universe was created by magic specifically so humans could have a relationship with a god. He's a potato.@@WillGaylord
@@MrTheclevercat Doesn't change the fact that Craig isn't trying to argue about Creationism with Dawkins anyway, he wants to tell him why his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is flawed but Dawkins won't have it
I mean he’s basically just insulting the guy instead of addressing anything he says. I don’t know why people are applauding this like it’s some sort of logical stance
It wasn't the time/place to - he wasn't debating WLC.
But he immediately gave an example anyway addressing something WLC has said. Re: Israelites/Midianites. Were you watching another video?
There is no logical point to be made for the existence of God. Also he isn't debating him. He is discounting his character and saying why he doesn't care for him. And hopefully it devalues him in other people's eyes.
I don’t know, excusing child murder feels like a decent reason to have contempt for someone.
He literally refutes one of his points in this video...did you not watch the whole thing?
@@neinnononit is about how he has debated many people, and learned nothing form them. Not a single good argument? Piece of evidence? Philosophical/theological thought process? Not one? When arguing something that is an exact 50/50 with no provable evidence on either side? That is pure ignorance and malice, that is not intellectual
It is written that there was a man who used his supernatural power to fight evil, and then was killed by evil.
Later, he rose from the dead.
It is written that many people saw these events and they would not lie about it.
The man's name was Harry Potter.
the sad thing is a lot of folks would think all the things dawkins just said are quite logical and valid
Dawkins is spitting in the face of philosophy of religion. Saying there isn’t a single good point for the other side is a clear indication of arrogance and lack of understanding. Otherwise, why would 18% of philosophers be theists and why are there so many powerful arguments for God? I’m not a theist, but to wave away philosophical arguments as a whole as unimpressive instead of actually making objections to them is ridiculous and disrespectful to the subject.
Except Theists have no good points, and he's right.
There isn’t a single good point. Name one.
@@liftedmarco4976Aquinas' five proofs. There's five for you.
@@evancohen1503 you are under 30 years old aren't you ?
@@evancohen1503you are arrogant
In regard to Craig's voice, I completely understand where Dawkins is coming from. Craig's voice and speaking style are not only pompous, but they also reek of pretentious snobbery especially when he utilizes emotional intonations. He also sounds like a child when he does that.
sounds more like dillahunty
@@aurelian771 yeah, not quite. Getting angry at an interlocutor's dishonesty and disingenuousness is not quite the same as desperately exhibiting childish emotions of wanting something to be true even if only a one in a million chance.
"I don't raise the bar for Christianity. I, I lower it!"
-'Low Bar' Bill Craig
To me, and I have heard him speak live in an auditorium, Craig first and foremost sounds smug. He always has the tone of voice of a teacher who needs to make sure everyone gets how right and well-read he is and how silly and poor the arguments contradicting him are.
I don't know if Dawkins is the one who should be calling others out for sounding pompous voice. He's not exactly Joe Everyman himself in that regard 😅
@@alaron5698 Dawkins has a posh accent, but does his tone of voice usually come across as smug or pompous? To me, he mostly sounds either intrigued or amused.
Dr. Craig would wipe the floor with Dawkins in a debate. It would be an intellectual smackdown.
I adore Dawkins. I have watched every debate and own all his books. His eloquent and firm way of speaking makes the debates enjoyable. And while some of his opponents do rub him the wrong way, I've always admired him for how he went to get dinner with one of them after a pretty heated debate. It's what I base all my life conflicts on - that even if I disagree with someone, it doesn't make us enemies.
The amount of people who clearly don’t understand WLC arguments is incredible.
Someone said Dr.Craig is afraid of debating Matt the bald dude. Absolutely incredible
What's to understand? A lot of apologetics arguments aren't terribly difficult to understand. And yeah, a trained philosopher is ideal to go up against someone like WLC. Not Dawkins, not Dillahunty. I am now reading Shelly Kagan's new book "Answering Moral Skepticism", which is much better and more useful than Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". Etc.
William Lame Craig’s arguments don’t get him anywhere near theism (let alone xtianity) he’s just a snake oil salesman.
John Lennox abosutely slaughtered Dawkins, but I guess he chose to forget that.
you are deluded
@@Vespa123 JL just used word play and as knowledgeable and accomplished as RD is, he is not the nimblest debater. JL produced not one shred of evidence that there is a God. But I do like they are civilised to each other. I also love that people talk about "John Lennox" or "Craig" like he is their mate whereas they turn the argument ad-hominem by shouting "Dawkins" as they froth at the mouth.
No he didn't 😅😅😅😅
I watched that and felt embarrassed for the old Lennox
yes. in a first debate Dawkins was an atheist and in second already he was agnostic. if there will be a third debate Dawkins will became a christian.
The dogmatic fury of atheists like Richard Dawkins unmatched.
We all must thank Dawkins for bring so much new people to the Church.
Dawkins is the most pompous of them all, yet he uses that as an excuse that he “has no time for” Craig. I have a hard time taking Dawkins seriously. There are much better atheist debaters than Dawkins, even if I don’t agree with them.
Yes, Graham Oppy, is an example.
People tend to hate most something that they themselves have
Dawkins calling somebody else’s voice pompous? Pot kettle pot kettle!
It’s his English accent.
But Craig trained for years to sound as pompous and smug as he does.
@@ramigilneas9274 ‘it’s an English accent?’ No, no it’s not. There is no such thing as an ‘English accent’ You can drive 15 minutes down the road and barely understand the person you are talking to sometimes.
99% of the English population do not speak like Dawkins at all. The average Englishman would think Dawkins belonged to the aristocracy if they didn’t know his background
It’s not being pompous it’s the frustration with the stupidity he has to deal with.
Dawkins' accent is Received Pronuciation or The King's English. This has become rare and it to younger people it sounds old-fashioned and snobbish now. But when Dawkins was young, it was expected from Oxbridge students who wanted to get into public speaking.
@@pb5640"frustration with the stupidity you have to deal with" sounds very pompous, almost like you're better than them.
Design implies a designer.
Bad design implies a bad designer
An atheist arguing for objective morality whilst not having justification for it.
It’s wild to me that Dawkins says he has no time for Craig because he has a pompous voice. Firstly, that’s a pompous thing to say. Secondly, someone’s voice has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
That isn't all he said. In fact it's not even the main reason given.
@@outermarker5801it’s the first and arguably main reason given. He was saying Craig was arrogant, pompous and contemptible because of his defense of the OT story
@@samramos310 I would argue that the main point is OBVIOUSLY the one which follows after he says "I find him contemptible because..."
That being Craig's typical utter sophism in defense of a biblical _genocide_ which includes children and infants.
The business of Craig's pomposity is merely a minor preamble.
@@outermarker5801 it sounded more like a justification honestly. His knee-jerk reaction and first reason given was how Craig speaks or lays things out. Then he mentioned his point about the OT story, which frankly there are some valid arguments on both sides for. That along with some other points I’ve seen Dawkins dismiss, but never really refute when it comes to Craig and Turek.
Also something that just came to my mind, he of course has been caught off guard by an argument before as it happened during a debate with John Lennox on wether faith was blind or not. Which was a funny but very telling exchange.
@@samramos310 Imo there are no valid justifications for a grown man running down a 3 year old to brutally end her life because a god says her tribe 'sinned' - none. This is the lunacy of dogma grading a god on a curve because of it's supposed 'sovereignty'.
Regarding Lennox - is that the one where he asks whether Dawkins' has 'faith' in his wife?
Not only is the question impertinent, it's disingenuous semantics. The literal definition of faith is _"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."_ Heb 11.
Didn't Jesus tell 'doubting' Thomas that though he believed after seeing the scars, happier are those who believe withOUT seeing?
Why do christians continually deny the very basis of their conviction - the FAITH that an invisible god exists and has agency in the world and their own lives?
He doesn't want to debate William Lane Craig because he knows he'll look foolish.
Just like him debate with Lennox.
Debating a liar will look silly yes
@@JCs_saved_girl😅😅😅😅
Hardly. Theists are boring. I wouldn't do it, either.
@evancohen1503 but why debate othe theists and hold others in contempt??? When they all believe the same things.
The same can also be said by Atheist, btw. All depends on who you're asking.
People don't think about the children that died horrible deaths in Sodom.
There is a purely pragmatic debate. We were better with it and worse without it.
Only the profoundly arrogant, on either side, is blind to the merit of at least one argument of the opposition.
Yes, you must be profoundly arrogant if you can't find one justification or positive argument for ncest or child molestation.... wait....
Some arguments don't have any valid points. The fact you think everything does merely show the lack of your own intelligence
True, those in favor of flat earth do have some arguments of true merit
Indeed, the question on whether or not rainbow farting unicorns exist sure has arguments with merit on the "yes they exist" side. This is just absurd, it's either an "enlightened" centrist position trying to equate both sides of an argument or a position from the side with only meritless arguments. Not all opposing sides in particular topics need to have any arguments with merit, acknowledging that fact does not necessarily make the other side profoundly arrogant, especially if in all these years there have not been put forward any arguments with merit on the theist side.
@Glitch_II he's own words contradict his own experience when we admitted the elements of the fine tuning argument had some merrit in a previous debate. At best, he's having a memory lapse here.
@@ezramiller8936 Fine tuning is easily disproven by most natural disasters, and disease and massive flaws in our own biology as well as astronomy and mutiple facts like dark holes, no oxygen in space, etc.
WLC is a good debater, whether you agree with him or not. He’s made his opponents sweat a lot.
Dawkins just attacked his voice for being pompous. That was pretty poor
Made his opponents sweat? lol
Over what exactly?
Was his god proven? lol
Sweating over how good Lame Craig makes already believing sheep feel good that they can continue to believe in magic because Lame says it is after all "possible"
Keep telling yourself that haha
@@leperlord7078 from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig):
In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do."
So I do think @divatalk9011 is right.
@@leperlord7078Hitch literally pretended his mic wasn’t working and Dawkins wouldn’t dare debate him. I don’t agree with a lot WLC says, but he’s a formidable opponent
@@divatalk9011 Opponent for what? lol
What has any of his philosophical waxing and wanking ever accomplished?
i will stick with the reality that Dawkins deals in any day.
A huge advocate for fact-based science & influencer in the world of science/reality, and sharing a stage with an apologist for genocide and child slaughter would only diminish Dawkins and boost Lame Craig
Kinda like how Trump foolishly validated Kim Jong and saluted Jung's generals(Spelling?)
All Lame does is study really hard,get a Ph.D., and a polished skit to make Xians feel good about the nonsense they believe in
WTF is he an expert in?
A PhD so he can fight over the "Reasonable faith" of believing in fairytales?
i will repeat,if he is as FORMIDABLE as y all claim he is,he needs to debate and stop his 15-year dodge of John Loftus and Matt D.
Esp Loftus,a former Craig student,who told Loftus class "My former students are the ones I would fear to debate) So whats he do,he slanders Loftus saying "Loftus is addicted to porn" lol
i admit,for over 20 years i have been into this debating with theists stuff, i would tune into every debate available,but man it got tiring.
Same old schtick,it is like they never listen
Even ken Ham debates more reality than Lame Craig ffs.At least he tries his hand at science lol
Or debate Dawkins on the science Dawkins is an expert in
Why does Lame always have to control topics and formats ?
Best one I’ve heard from a scientist was “the evidence tells me there is no god, every road leads there . Except me, every fathom of my being resists the idea and wants to believe there is a god, that there is meaning”
People like Williams and Dawkins are why meaningful discussion is impossible
Am I the only one who laughed when he said Dr Craig had a pompous voice? Dawkins LITERALLY has the most pompous, arrogant and snobby voice I’ve ever heard
Not even close to WLC.
No you’re not the only one, many fools think like you.
why? because he has a British accent? He sounds perfectly normal to me.
@@jdelorenzod2725 that's a factor in it but even among British accents, he has a certain attitude about him.
Because you're not used to the accent, ya hick.
DAWKINS doesnt respect the field of philosophy. He presupposes science not acknowledging that science is built on philosophical arguments and assumptions.
Science is built on observation and evidence. It's built on facts and experiments, which can be proven and repeated.
That's complete nonsense.
@@nroskothat's an interesting bit of philosophy you've got there...
@@4jgarner It is a fact.
@@nrosko Dawkins is a perfect example of an intellectual falsely believing that his expertise in one area qualifies him to speak about another.
That's a strong argument right there "William Craig's voice is so pompous"
I saw the debate between William Lane Craig and the late great Christopher Hitchens at Biola years ago. William Lane Craig follows the standard script he uses in all his “debates”. This formula that never changes no matter who he is talking to is (I believe) what Dawkins is referring to. It would be a waste of his time.
Craig also did a full podcast with Alex and was much better faith and less arrogant than Dawkins.
And extremely interesting
Dr. William Lane Craig essentially said God was playing God. Like it or hate it , but it makes sense. That point aside, this is a cowards way out. So many other atheists have not been ‘ so offended to not debate WLC’. He just knows Dr.WLC levels his opponents.
Go watch Sean Carroll dismantle WLC then come back and tell me that
Being honest I find WLC to be a terrible debater when it comes to the arguments he brings. He's quite skilled at skipping supporting his arguments in debate and instead appealing to the intuition and emotion of the audience. He starts and argument adds emotion in the middle and then jumps to a conclusion leaving the audience with a false feeling of a full belly like they've been served food full of sand.
This coming from the same man that declared we should publicly mock those with religious views. I think that does show arrogance. I’m praying for Richard Dawkins, and I admire his intelligence and conviction to stick to what he believes, but on this matter, he’s no theologian or philosopher, he has no good argument to ultimately make, just ad hominem and complaints about the character of God, as they don’t fit into what he personally determines, entirely subjectively, as good.
William Lane Craig has always been (from what i’d seen of him) a respectful and insightful guy. He never struck me as pompous or snobby. Dawkins was describing himself here
It's rather disingenuous to label someone like Craig as merely an apologist regardless of one's personal feelings toward him, when he has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today). Dawkins can scoff at Craig all he wants. He knows he couldn't handle him in a debate with his limited understanding of philosophy and theology. He can go back to debating evangelical pastors again to make him look good.
" has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today"
So he is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology, but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol
May as well have PhDs in Spiderman
His sole job is to give magical thinkers a thread to hold onto in a ridiculous belief system of zero-proof
Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D's challenge to a debate?
What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology, when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky Man).
This is not the field Rich is an expert in, but Matt D., and Loftus are experts in that field, but he denies them the time lol
They have him in sus,
Craig refuses to debate Dillahunty and has admitted it would be a tough debate for him.
And Dillahunty exposed Peterson in wonderful ways.
Ffs Christianity is man made nonsense like every other religion. So arguing it is true is just nonsense and I don’t respect any PhD in nonsense.
@@Gokulosestoavirus I would love to see this debate tbh. Matt is a good debater and would fare much better than Dawkins. I'm pretty sure the reason Craig hasn't debated him is that he's not a scholar. Could be wrong about that though.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig
The moral of the story is that if you're a scared teenager in need of a warm blankie, you can live off it for the rest of your life provided you know how to sell it to others who need it as much as you do.
Dawkins has only engaged with the materialist, literalist Christianity of the late 1800s that was pronounced dead at the time by Nietschze. Seriously grappling with the Christian traditions and what they mean is not something Dawkins has ever done. At least people like Nietschze and Jung took Christianity seriously.
That's the only version of Christianity worth discussing, and that was ultimately the version understood by most Christians throughout history. Once you relegate your holy book to mere fables and metaphors, it's hardly worth entertaining. These "figurative" readings of the scripture maim Christianity beyond recognition.
@@skooma103Ah. Are you in the business of telling "Theistic Evolutionists" that they can't be true Christians? There's meaningful or practical way you can make that argument without making yourself look like a Bible Belt fundamentalist. Fundies want a monopoly on scripture, atheists want a monopoly on science. Both are empirically wrong in their insistence on this kind of exclusion.
What new Bible books have shown up in the past two hundred years? What new Christian info do we know that was not known two millennia ago?
Not believing in things that no one has taken even the first step in demonstrating is not "empirically wrong" by any stretch of those words. It is, in fact, the only empirical choice.@@Thagomizer
"I don't want to sound arrogant" sounds very arrogant
Agreed. Its silly to argue how Santa Claus is real. Same difference.
This is the one area where I really think debate won’t make a difference, so I agree with Dawkins.
I agree, a religious person will most likely never be changed to an atheist especially if they are debating, and an atheist will never be converted to a religious person. As a religious person myself, I never shy away from the fact that debates are solely participated in to find out what it right am not who is right, and with debates about religion unfortunately a lot of (mostly) religious debaters get very personal - inherently due to the fact that religion is a personal thing and therefore debating an atheist who is barely moved by an argument based on personal factors is almost pointless. I feel like the question ‘does God exist’ should he answered by one’s-self and shouldn’t need to be debated as progress is very rarely made.
‘If a man objects to truths that are all too evident, it is no easy task finding arguments that will change his mind.” - Epictetus
If you think no ones mind has been changed on athiesm or christianity from a debate you need your head checked.
@@freneticness6927 cool
@@all-caps3927 You nailed it. "Does God exist?" isn't an objective question, but rather a subjective one.
Translation: Dawkins is scared to debate someone who actually knows what they’re talking about
Do tell us what they are talking about?
Never heard of low bar bil?
@@UziPeters Troll
@@tennicksalvarez9079 I’ve never heard of something you just made up, no,
I didn’t know “Actually Knowing what they’re talking about.” Means spouting of excuses for one of the most vile and evil slaughters ever committed.😑
You can debate anyone on any topic unless they refuse to approach the topic honestly. Then, debate becomes futile.
Like St Thomas Aquinas said"For those with faith no evidence is required and for those without faith no evidence will suffice!"
Dawkins was avoiding William Lane Craig before he ever discovered Craig’s article about the Canaanites, and even after that Dawkins “forgot” about the article for about 3 years and gave multiple other excuses.🤨
Lame Craig is an expert in mythological fantasies
What is there to debate with an evolutionary biologist who has given so much to hard science/reality?
So Lame is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology,but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol
May as well have PhDs in Spiderman
Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D challenge to a debate?
What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology,when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky man).
This is not the field Rich is an expert in,but Matt D.,and Loftus are experts in that field,but he denies them the time lol
They have him in sus,
is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for… more than one reason? i don’t know that it’s ever happened in history before, but we can’t discount it! more experiments must be performed to get to the truth…
@@tonoornottono "is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for"
i would guess that shaking the hand of the same man who says "Well children die every day,god made us and can do anything he wants with us"
Special pleas for genocide,kinda a turn off innit.
@@leperlord7078if you actually watch Craig's debates... and well, read the Bible to understand, you'd realise that is just one part of the whole argument. Not even the take away
It shows that Dawkins will use whatever excuses he can. @@tonoornottono
Chris Langan would destroy Dawkins.
Imagine that level of arrogance
There is no possibility of seriously defending any religious position without opening oneself up to psychoanalysis. Simply, the atheist position does not incorporate a 'Big Other' -the Lacanian Object A. The theist's position in defending a big other "God" is necessarily a psychological confession expressing the unconscious need to repair or heal poor object relations and attachments with their parents.