Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

                                    Image via WikipediaDr Richard Dawkins has caught a lot of flack because he refuses to debate Dr William Lane Craig next week. Dr Dawkins is currently on a debate tool in the UK. Dawkins has recently written a letter defending his decision.

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 Birdieupon on his blog. In his post, eleven of Dawkins' excuses reasons for not debating William Lane Craig are laid out and refuted for the inconsistencies bound-up in them. One of the things that I think is glaring about Dawkin's class that Loftus admires is really shown for what it is when Dawkins is quoted here and rebutted in this post in the following quote from the post

You've no intention of helping Dr Craig with "his relentless drive for self-promotion". But, of course, your recent self-promotional tour of "The Magic of Reality", which included a shouting match with Bill O'Reilly (whom you'd described 4 months prior as being "unintelligent" and "ineffective" for public discussion)... presumably was simply your altruistic effort to better the human condition (and make a nice extra buck while you were at it, of course). Dr Craig, if you'd done your homework still, has made it perfectly clear he's not seeking this debate with you, but he's responded to independent invites. I'd have thought you'd twig that, given that they'd also be liaising with you!

Read his post here:
My Response To Dawkins' Latest Anti-Craig Excuse in The Guardian:

Related articles

• Richard Dawkins: Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• why richard dawkins refuses to debate william lane craig (toomanytribbles.blogspot.com)
• Richard Dawkins is Just too Busy (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
• It's about morality, stupid: why Dawkins won't debate William Lane Craig (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Putting William Lane Craig in his place (choiceindying.com)