Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
In other words: He's trying to save face.
However, John Loftus seems to have bought it. Loftus wrote:
I have to admit Dawkins has class. He continually turns the tables on believers. Listen, we would refuse to debate a Holocaust denier, a spokesperson for the KKK, or a militant Muslim. Why would we? Doing so legitimizes their position. He refuses to debate an apologist for genocide even though Craig speaks for the majority of evangelicals in America. It appears that Dawkins doesn't care that Craig's view is a majority view. It's just not right for him to legitimize such an absurd position, and I can admire that.
Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig
It's shows the bankruptcy of Loftus position. Purely emotional in trying to compare William Lane Craig to a Holocaust denier and the KKK. A really poor argument. I consider it inconsistent to support Dawkins not debating Craig but saying that he should debate Craig. If it's a crisis of conscience making Dawkins not want to debate Craig so that he will not "legitimize such an absurd position", then where is Loftus' conscience if he agrees with Dawkins?
No. I think the truth is more better put forth by