Millitant atheists are coming out; except of course Dawkins, who’s staying in and hiding behind the sofa.
Archbishop Cranmer has an excellent post on the UK tour of William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins refusal to debate with him on Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre.
This really made me laugh:
Yep, there’s buses driving around Oxford with these signs.
Classic.
Quite coincidentally, I came across a proposed film documentary on Richard Dawkins website, with a working title of: ‘Coming Out in America’. It’s going to chart atheist experiences of ‘coming out’ as non-believers.
I can’t believe atheists adopting LGBT terminology to further their cause.
It’s quite clever really, as the term ‘coming out’ is being used to conjure the image of an enfeebled, persecuted, bullied, scared, minority group, taking a courageous and bold step, in the face of religious tyranny.
Militant atheists, what would we do without them…..
October 9th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Isn’t it a sad reflection on modern Christianity that it is reduced to copying the ideas of atheists? Can Christians not think of something original that would have a greater impact by being associated with Christianity itself rather than anything but? All these bus ads seem to do is give further publicity to atheists as the format is already established as promoting atheism.
October 9th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I think it’s a shame for another reason – it apes the rude behaviour of the militant atheists. Christians are called to love Dawkins not vilify him in the way he has a go at them.
October 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I don’t these two posters fully understand what’s going on. This is not “copying atheists” but using satire to make an important point about how 1) Dawkins’ arguments are going to be dismantled by a leading academic, and 2) Dawkins has refused to show up and engage.
Treating people with respect, yes, but that’s not the same as pathetically lying down and failing to rock the boat. And it needs rocking, given the current influence Dawkins has over our culture.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:42 am
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/lets-recap-why-william-lane-craig.html is an interesting article on why Craig ducks yet another debate with somebody who has studied his writings.
Meanwhile, William Lane Craig claims children should be killed if they interfere with his God’s plans. (I think he was watching a Scooby Doo cartoon when he wrote that)
I quote Craig ‘God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Craig’s solution is for his alleged god to have all the children killed.
Then they wouldn’t be able to wreck his plans.’
Suprisingly, Dawkins refuses to give a platform to people who defend genocide.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Gosh, the irony is of course, that Dawkins says that there is no “objective morality, there is no good or evil”.
So why does he contradict himself, and affirms that there are in fact objective morals, of which he wishes to stand by.
October 10th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Funnily enough, just making an observation here, Steven Carr’s comment is identical to the one he posted on Cranmer’s post this morning 10 October 2011 08:46. Any other Christian websites you’re thinking of posting that comment on Steven? lol
October 10th, 2011 at 10:00 am
There’s another one here Tim:
William lane Craig ducks more debates
Ol’ Steven is very prolific and well known in the Christian community
October 10th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Do you really think Dawkins is avoiding a debate with religious types because he is scared? Don’t kid yourselves. More likely he is becoming weary of shooting fish in a barrel.
October 10th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
If Dawkins thinks it is like shooting fish in a barrel, he should just go ahead and debate him then, and he can put Lane Craig apologetics to bed once and for all.
Nah, I didn’t think so either. Dawkins relies on intellectually lazy polemics.
October 10th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!
I think Dawkins made the right decision, however much some people may crow about it. Those of us who have read his books and heard him speak know that Dawkins is not scared in the slightest of opposing the viewpoint that WLC argues.
However, WLC is a very slick and practiced public debater, who wins his arguments by confusion and obfuscation rather than by the validity of his arguments. If Dawkins were to be caught out simply by the way WLC operates, just imagine what the headlines would be in parts of the blogosphere.
Just very sad that people appear to draw the wrong conclusions…
October 10th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Phoebs! Intellectually lazy polemics? Really? No, no, no. You do yourself a disservice. The one thing Dawkins cannot be accused of is intellectual laziness. That his arguments, and those of other atheists, are so well-constructed is why many people are seduced by atheism.
It is certainly no good relying on claims that Christians are just not understood any more. Atheists are becoming organised – and they are well-read. Many atheists, because of arguments of men like Dawkins, are reading the Bible from cover to cover. Indeed they probably read the Bible more than many Christians.
To defeat Dawkins you must read his arguments, understand them and then develop intellectually superior counter-arguments against them.
And do not fall into the trap of attacking Dawkins personally. That way lies derision and defeat.
October 10th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Simian,
Dawkins polemics on religion are completely lazy, he can’t debate’ theology, as he doesn’t know any theology, and what he does know is nugatory.
His outright attack on all religious education, in equating it to child abuse and indoctrination, boils down to quintessential romanticism; how on earth will children ever learn anything if Dawkins had his way, how does one keep a child as a tabla rasa until an age where they can decide for themselves?
The only thing he can do is call out Ken Ham and extremists, due to his love, care and attention towards evolution, and he certainly is not intellectually lazy in that area. I like Dawkins, he is a good communicator when it comes to his own discipline, but he really should stick to his own discipline, and leave theology and philosophy to the professionals and
academics.
October 10th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Regor
“To defeat Dawkins you must read his arguments, understand them and then develop intellectually superior counter-arguments against them.”
Surely the fundamental problem with arguing against atheists is that their arguments will be rational to the end, whereas the case for religion can only use rational argument so far, after which comes the leap of faith, which by strict definition is beyond logic.
I would be delighted to see an “intellectually superior argument” against Dawkins (and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell, and the rest) — then we could have a proper, even-sided debate. But, because of the above, I don’t think one will be forthcoming. Faith is faith, however rational we like to think we are.
October 10th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Regor,
Apologies to both and you Simian for addressing my last comment to him, instead of you.
with regard to atheists reading the bible. So what if it makes them happy, in cherry picking verses and using a rather wooden and literalistic eisegesis to comfort them, and reinforce their own confirmation bias, jolly good luck to them, whatever makes their lives better.
October 10th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“Surely the fundamental problem with arguing against atheists is that their arguments will be rational to the end” LOL!
October 10th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Phoebs
That’s very amusing, accusing atheists of cherry picking from the bible. Where does Christian morality come from, if not from cherry picking the more acceptable standards from the bible while ignoring the unacceptable? If Christian morality is divinely determined, presumably the cherry pickers were divinely inspired. I suppose that’s where they have the advantage over the atheists…
How about someone engaging one of Dawkins’ arguments head-on, instead of sniping from the sidelines.
October 10th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Homo Erectus,
How about someone engaging one of Dawkins’ arguments head-on, instead of sniping from the sidelines.
That’s what William Lane Craig wants to do, but Dawkins’ doesn’t want to come to out from behind the sofa.:)
October 10th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
William Lane Craig can offer no physical evidence – important philosophical arguments maybe – but no evidence (how can he when religion is based on faith – find evidence and religion suddenly becomes a subject liable to investigation by the scientific method) so he is always going to be at a disadvantage when debating with a materialist like Dawkins. I fear Dawkins would allow WLC to rant and rave then floor him with a one-liner, much like Bishop Wilberforce was destroyed by Huxley. I don’t know about Dawkins being scared; I feel that perhaps it’s best they never meet.
October 10th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Homo Erectus, I am not going to change your mind, and you aren’t going to change mine. Been there, seen it, done it, got the T shirt, with other people. Time after time after time. So let’s just have some fun instead.
October 10th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Sacred Scripture is evidence, but of course that is not the ‘type’ of evidence that atheists want.
I agree with Tim, let’s just have some fun, as in the spirit of the blogpost.
And see if Prof Dawkins wants to play peek-a-boo from behind the sofa
October 10th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Tim
Wow! The power of faith! I am truly envious (no irony). It’s hard being responsible for your own morality ; ¬)
Phoebs
Which sacred scripture? Ok, ok, you’ve got the T-shirt.
By the way, on YouTube I’ve just watched Hitchens wipe the floor with WLC, who is a woolly thinker, heavy on sophistry, weak on logic. Dawkins has certainly debated publically with WLC (in Mexico) and won, so I suspect his refusal is not fear. Shame though…
October 10th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
You had me confused with that name at first as ‘wner’ looked like it was Welsh, lol!
I much prefer to discuss things with people face to face these days as it’s far less stressful. Throwing things at my monitor just doesn’t cut it any more as I realise the only damage is to my wallet, and nowhere near as satisfying as being able to pick someone up and throw them through the nearest window instead.
Seriously though, I much prefer to be able to show people what I mean, talk in real time in front of a real person and exchange ideas that way. Much more fun. Plus, neither side gets the chance to secretly Google an answer when they don’t know or can’t remember it
October 10th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
And now tis late…
‘To bed, to bed’ said Sleepy Head.
‘Tarry a while’ said Slow.
‘Put on the pan’ said Greedy Nan ‘Let’s sup before we go.’
And then they wended their weary way up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire to continue their adventures in the Land of Nod.
October 10th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Bit of an owl myself.
Face to face is good, though personal injury is slightly less desirable than a scratched PC monitor. And I enjoy the power of written language, carefully choosing the correct metaphor, skilfully weighing every worm.
October 11th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Stuart, I cannot remember if I have sent this to anyone or not, but just in case I haven’t I thought you might find this funny:
Dawkins gets angry about Craig
October 12th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Tim,
I guess it’s funny if you depersonalise it. But actually, doesn’t it reveal something rather nasty and disturbing about the character of the author? And what on Earth is the justification for comparing Dawkins to Hitler?
Personally I can’t abide William Lane Craig, with his sanctimonious grin and vapid rabble rousing rhetoric, but it would never occur to me to portray him on Youtube in a similar way. Is that because I’m not an extremist, or just because I am an atheist who has developed a reasonable sense of (absolute?) right and wrong, despite WLC disputing that this is not possible for me to do without God.
Am I personally offended by the video? Not really. I guess I’m more annoyed and frustrated by the intentionally mean-hearted mis-representation, which does nothing to further mutual understanding. Indeed it only serves to increase the belligerent ‘them and us’ attitude which many people on both sides of the fence devote themselves to reducing. A sad and bad Youtube post…
October 12th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
A video about The Upcoming Tour which begins next week and the programme for the Tour here: The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011
Incidentally, they are now using the anti-racist terminology in respect of Dawkins speaking engagement being cancelled when they discovered he was an atheist. Dawkins described it as “Sheer bigotry.”
Hmmm, how does that argument stand when weighed against Polly Toynbees cancellation of her, and Richard Dawkins refusal to, debate with Prof Craig?
October 12th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
@ Simian. I guess there isn’t much laughter in your house then? lol It’s called ‘having a sense of humour. I can most certainly laugh at myself, and where dishonesty, arrogance, and plain old nastiness are concerned, see nothing wrong with laughing at people that fit the description.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:33 am
Plenty of laughter in my house Tim, but not at cruelty or nastiness. You may think that Dawkins is nasty. I would suggest that being nasty back gets us nowhere, and has the potential to do actual harm.
Despite being an atheist I take religion very seriously, because I recognise that it affects so many people’s lives so fundamentally; and I try hard to understand it. But I do take exception to the playground bullying that seems to be prevalent – on both sides of the fence.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:53 am
The video reeks of desperation, and the whole campaign against Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig smacks of Creationist style gleeful over-reaction to mis-perceived weaknesses in the opposition. Could you imagine Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris mounting such a hysterical campaign if Craig refused to debate them? They don’t need to resort to such cheap point scoring.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Yes but Simian, pride in anyone must be poked and prodded and laughed at. Nothing worse than an egotistical pompous ass and taking them down could teach them a thing or two about humility. Actually there are plenty of things worse than that aren’t there? But you know what I mean. Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and it laughs at you instead, lol.
“Could you imagine Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris mounting such a hysterical campaign if Craig refused to debate them?”
Yes I could actually. Very easily. And if you think that Dawkins would not resort to such tactics then you must be from another planet.
“Mis-perceived weaknesses” Excuse me? The guy ran away as attested by other atheists. Deal with that, and stop making such lame excuses for the man.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Tim
OK, so greetings from Mars.
Sounds like you’re ready to throw something else at your computer screen. Wouldn’t want to give religion a bad reputation as a cause of violence. ;¬)
Why does Dawkins have to debate with every crackpot showman with dodgy qualifications that challenges him? I think Dawkins’ comment says it all: it would look good on Graig’s CV but not on his.
October 13th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I regret the distraction of making several different points in a few comments, and putting a partisan case. My central point was, and remains, that this is an uncivilised way to behave, whoever does it, and is not helpful.
We disagree on other points but they are trivial.
October 13th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Earlier you stated that the “…fundamental problem with arguing against atheists is that their arguments will be rational to the end”. I laughed then and I’m still laughing now. When are you going to give us some examples? LOL!
October 13th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Tim seems to think that humiliating a person is a good way to make them humble – sorry, it makes them resentful. Cry and the world laughs at you? There’s a hint of the cowboy western philosophy about all this.
October 13th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Simian and Hocus Pocus, if you can get Dawkins and his supporters to comply by your rules you might have an argument. You can’t, therefore you don’t. Laughter has been shown to be the best medicine, and people that are unable to laugh at themselves have pronounced ego problems. I have been the butt of jokes many times and instead of getting mad, I laughed. I laughed because the jokes had a point and a funny side. People that take life and themselves far too seriously, as you two clearly do, could do with lightening up now and again. The overall impression that you are both giving is that no one is allowed to have a little fun without your permission. ‘Self-righteous’ is the expression that springs to mind
October 13th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Blessed are the sanctimonious, for they shall always think they are superior to the common man but never get the joke.
October 13th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Tim
“…fundamental problem with arguing against atheists is that their arguments will be rational to the end”.
Taken in context, I was simply saying that, unlike atheists, believers can only take rational argument so far. Faith is not open to logical reasoning.
Anyway, laughter is the best medcine. Glad to help.
October 13th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Homo Erectus, I like you. You can take it as well as dish it out, lol.
October 13th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I give up Tim. I wonder if you have missed my central point (as in my comment at 8:33 this morning). This is not about me at all. It is about mutual respect, and civility around religious belief, or the lack thereof.
I’m trying very hard to understand faith, belief and religious motivation, but some of you guys really don’t make it easy. Maybe I do take this too seriously, but I thought this was a serious matter. Name calling gets us nowhere. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps we should leave it at that and move on.
October 14th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Tim: Ah, you’ve taken your medicine then…
Just listened to WL Craig defending his proposition that God must be good, using the same type of circular argument as Anselm. It goes like this: “God is a being worthy of worship… therefore God must be perfectly good”. Or, God must be good because people worship him, and people worship him because he is good. Does this man have any bona fide academic credentials?
October 14th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Yes Homo Erectus, I generally take my tablets about 6 or 7pm, lol.
Now, usually I avoid Wikipedia like the plague, but being in a hurry I clutched a crucifix, muttered a few incantations, and bit the bullet. Here, shamelessly copied and pasted, is what is written about him there:
“Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history.[4] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[5] From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.[5]“
If it is correct then it sounds good to me.
Simian, by what authority do you tell me how to behave? By what authority do you tell anyone how to behave? Your philosophy means that you are the sole arbiter of your behaviour. And by your philosophy I am the sole arbiter of mine. I take as my personal example my Lord, who when chided by the Pharisees because he sat down and enjoyed laughing, chatting, and dining with people deemed unacceptable by polite society, then told them that they were white-washed graves full of dead mens bones. I am sure his comments raised more than a few laughs occasionally. I can give a number of other examples where he advised putting people in their place, called ‘clowning’. People that were overbearing and hypocritical, puffed up with their own self-inportance.
You however have no one to turn to except yourself, and what you personally feel is right. Dawkins people would eat you alive.
Incidentally, how you deal (or in your case, don’t deal) with humour is very telling. Some time ago I had a screen-name that was, shall we say, unusual. Someone in an attempt to make me angry/upset, whatever, played around with it and turned it into what he thought was an insult. I laughed because it was actually quite clever/funny, so much so that I told him that I wished I had thought of the idea first, and then adopted it for a good while as my actual screen name. Funnily enough he never ever interacted with me in any way, shape, or form, ever again, lol. I still think it was funny, and would still use it if appropriate but nowadays prefer to use my real name.
October 14th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Tim
Re the academic credentials you list for Craig, I can only make one comment: He should then know better than to produce circular arguments. However, this is typical of his rhetoric: he spouts a good deal of sophistry. And if he is as clever as you would like him to be, then he is being disingenuous to try to win arguments with it.
October 14th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Tim. I get your point. I disagree but that’s ok. You know how I feel about this and I know how you do. I think specifically using Hitler is wrong and I would never do so, whoever I was parodying. I doubt ‘Dawkins people’ would eat me alive, particularly as I’m a paid up member of BHA and NSS. And no, I am not the sole arbiter of how I behave, and neither is anyone. You may believe morality comes from God. I believe it comes from our society. But that’s a whole other debate!
October 15th, 2011 at 5:01 am
OK Simian and H.E., we’ll agree to disagree, part on equal terms, and I’ll leave it there with both of you as I am finding it intensely frustrating conversing in this manner. Real time is better, and more can be said between each of us rather than waiting six, seven, eight hours for comment moderation.
October 15th, 2011 at 7:54 am
Tim, what is the biblical reference for the white -washed graves full of dead bones? Please give some other examples of Christ putting people in their place.
Simian may get Tim’s point, but does Tim get Simian’s point? If not, there’s no communication.
October 30th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
[...] Kindly sent in by Tim and follows on nicely from myblog post:Millitant atheists are coming out; except of course Dawkins, who’s staying in and hiding behind th…. [...]