The dangerous ideas of Richard Dawkins: Irrefutable proof that Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig is not only coward but intellectually dishonest

In 2006, the magazine Edge published a series of articles with leading scientists and scholars on the question What's your dangerous idea?

Richard Dawkins was one of the "scholars" to whom such a question was asked. Let's copy here the entire article (in order to avoid misrepresentations of Dawkins' view). Please, read carefully the full article, specially the emphasis in blue added by me. (You can consult the original article in the Edge website here). I'll prove, with irrefutable evidence (in the context of Dawkins' excuses to avoid debating William Lane Craig) that Richard Dawkins is not only a COWARD but that, additionally, his refusal to debating Craig is based on reasons which Dawkins himself see as scientifically false.

People like Dawkins deserve to receive public intellectual punishment (i.e. sound refutations of his charlatanisms) and an evidence based debunking.

Let's all stop beating Basil's car

by Richard Dawkins

Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'. Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes? Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me). But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car? Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

Jime's conclusions:

1)Dawkins claims that according to science human brains "are as surely governed by the laws of physics" and hence the concept of "retribution" is unscientific. Therefore, "punishment" makes no sense at all (Dawkins: "When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it.")

Such a view implies DETERMINISM (i.e. the view that human thinking and actions are wholly determined by physical laws, not freedom of the will is allowed).

True, naturalism implies such view on determinism, but wait a minute. Think about it: If determinism is true, then Dawkins' belief in determinism is ALSO determined by physical laws, not by reason or logic (which are no physical laws). Dawkins is a determinist because physical laws impose on him such a belief, not because such a belief is rationally justified over other non-jusitified beliefs.

So, as we never say that a computer is irrational when it malfunctions (because such computer is not guilty of the malfunctioning due to the deterministic physical laws which controls it), we cannot say that human beings (e.g. religious fundamentalists) are irrational when they have false beliefs or do dangerous actions. After all, like the computer, human beings are fully determined (by physical laws) in their functioning (reason and logic, not being physical laws, don't determine anything), and the concepts of rational or irrational makes no sense.

Moreover, on what grounds are you going to criticize religious people who believe in God, free will, the afterlife, spirits and indeterminism, if their beliefs are ALSO determined by the same physical laws which impose on Dawkins his deterministic view?

The same physical laws which makes Dawkins an automata without free will will be efficacious to make all the other people automata too. And the difference of beliefs of each person will be caused by physical laws, not by the person' fault, and hence you cannot complain that such people are irrational or guilty, since they have not responsability at all regarding the beliefs they hold.

2)Dawkins claims that "evil and good" are MENTAL CONSTRUCTS and USEFUL FICTIONS (i.e. they exist in our minds alone), and don't have any objective, mind-independent existence. In Dawkins word's: "Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it"

Note that Dawkins constrast such a mental constructs and fictions with the "truer analysis of what is going on in the world", which implies that such mental constructs and fictions are probably FALSE.

Again, this view is entailed by metaphysical naturalism and atheism, so Dawkins is (at least in this point) being consistent.

Now, if the "evil" is a mental construct which a scientific atheist should deny (on behalf of a more rational and true scientific analysis), then WHY THE HELL DID DAWKINS SAY THAT WLLIAM LANE CRAIG'S THEOLOGY IS EVIL? On that objective moral grounds is Dawkins going to criticize Craig if such a moral ground is a pure mental construct without any objective validity? Moreover, is Craig guilty of something "evil" when, according to Dawkins' beliefs, the evil doesn't exist and Craig is fully determined in his beliefs and actions by the same deterministic physical laws which determine Dawkins' beliefs and actions?

This is evidence which Dawkins doesn't take his worldview seriously. He denies the objective existence of the "evil", but then accusses others (specially religious believers) of being evil or of doing evil things.

He denies the justification of the concept of "retribution and punishment", but then castigates Craig when the latter defends a religious view that Dawkins finds unpalatable.

He criticizes (and uses as an excuse to refuse debating) Craig by his (alleged) justification of biblical genocide, but Dawkins himself claims that he is open to the persuasion that "killing people is right under certain circunstances" (so, supporting genocide).

Do you think the evidence mentioned here support the conclusion that Dawkins is a rational, logical and intellectually honest scholar?

I think the answer is obvious. As I said, in my opinion, people like Dawkins deserve to receive a public exposing and evidence-based intellectual punishment (=solid refutations of his views), and in this blog I'll contribute to this purpose.

I entirely agree with atheist Oxford philosopher Daniel Came who says that Dawkins's refusal to debate Craig is cynical and anti-intellectualist, and that people like Dawkins "seek to replace one form of irrationality with another."

As expected and predicted Richard Dawkins didn't appeared to debate William Lane Craig

The above is a video by a Christian youtuber called (in youtube) Birdieupon. He made a good work putting together some of the pictures of the Oxford scholarly meeting to discuss Craig's lecture on Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

As the coward Richard Dawkins didn't showed up, Craig was confronted with a panel of 3 skeptical scholars (including atheist philosopher Daniel Came, who called Dawkins a coward and an anti-intellectual) who made critical comments of Craig's lecture, followed by Craig's response. It seems the session also included questions by the audience.

This kind of intellectual interaction is good and productive, because it enables to see the force and weaknesses of the arguments of each side.

High level intellectual debates like this are much appreciated by seekers for the truth (people like Richard Dawkins and many pseudoskeptical charlatans don't like that kind of debates, because the extreme weaknesses, superficiality and sophistical character of their case is fully exposed in front of the public).

Stay tuned for the video and audio of this interesting Oxford session.

Michael Shermer vs John Lennox debate on the existence of God

I think Lennox won this debate against Shermer.

In my opinion, Shermer is too superficial as to be a serious intellectual opponent to debate any topic whatsoever. So, if you add the falsehood of atheism to an unsophisticated defense of it, you will get a debate like this.

In any case, don't be influenced by my opinion; just watch the debate, think hard about the arguments of both sides, and draw your own conclusions.

A.C.Grayling vs. William Lane Craig debate on the problem of evil against God's existence

Joel Marks and the atheistic amoral manifesto: The moral poverty of materialistic atheism and metaphysical naturalism

Joel Marks is Professor Emeritus (Philosophy) from the University of New Haven. His interest in bioethics stems from his work in philosophical ethics, mainly at the theoretical level.

In this blog, I've provided a lot of evidence that metaphysical naturalism and atheism don't provide any ontological foundation for objective moral values and, very plausibly, imply the non-existence of morality in any ontologically objective sense (only in a subjective sense, we could talk of morality given atheism).

In order to prove this point, I've provided as evidence the scientific and philosophical arguments of leading atheists themselves, including atheistic moral philosophers (i.e. people who specializes professionally, not superficially, in the topic of morality).

There are so much evidence and arguments (scientific, philosophical, anecdotal, logical, etc.) supporting this view that I've been tempted to created an entire blog entitled "The moral poverty of metaphysical naturalism, atheistic materialism and secular humanism", dealing exclusively with this topic. But I think this conclusion is accepted by most people (including most of the few intellectually honest atheists out there), so creating an entire blog to prove this point seems to be a waste of time. So, I've decided to continue to deal with this matter in a section of my blog.

In order to provide more evidence for this point, I'd suggest you to read carefully the arguments of moral philosopher and atheist Joel Marks. In an article entitled "The Amoral Manifesto I", Dr.Marks shows his intellectual honesty conceding that, if atheism is true, then morality doesn't exist in any ontologically objective sense (as opposed to pragmatical, instrumentalist, subjectivistic, etc. senses).

Dr.Marks concedes: "The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument ‘hard atheism’ because it is analogous to a thesis in philosophy known as ‘hard determinism.’ The latter holds that if metaphysical determinism is true, then there is no such thing as free will. Thus, a ‘soft determinist’ believes that, even if your reading of this column right now has followed by causal necessity from the Big Bang fourteen billion years ago, you can still meaningfully be said to have freely chosen to read it. Analogously, a ‘soft atheist’ would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of ‘New Atheists’ (see Issue 78) are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." (emphiasis in blue added).

Read carefully Marks' piece and please, leave aside your prejudices. Try to examine his arguments, and try to see exactly which ones of his premises is false or implausible. Don't commit the intellectual mistake of simply disagreeing and positing another opinion. Try to reflect hard on why a believer in morality like Dr.Marks changed his opinion about the God-morality connection and now, in order to be a consistent atheist, he has to reject the existence of morality.

Again (and I'm being intentionally redundant) don't commit the mistake of positing your own opinions about morality as an alternative to Dr.Marks. Rather, think carefully about his arguments in the context of atheism and metaphysical naturalism (i.e. reflect on whether Dr.Marks' conclusions are plausible and fit better than the alternatives given the basic premises of metaphysical naturalism).

It is crucial that you don't interpret Dr.Marks' views outside of the context of atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

Don't leave that your sympathies with certain moral points of views colours your sober and rational assesment of Dr.Mark's argumentation.

Wholly independent of Dr.Mark's article, I'd like to suggest this cumulative case for the conclusion that atheism implies the non-existence of morality (think hard about each step):

1-Metaphysical naturalism says that everything which exists or is causally active in our world is physical (physicalism), and hence non-physical entities (like God) don't exist (or don't have any causal influence in our universe).

2-Science is the best method to research everything which exists, or at least, the physical world.

3-We should believe only what science has discoveried (and deny or be skeptical of what science has not discoveried yet or has not scientific basis), because science is the best method to find the truth.

4-Science has discoveried that the physical world has only physical properties (including chemical and biological ones).

5-Physical properties don't include objective moral properties (nor any other normative property, for that matter).

6-Therefore, people's beliefs in objective moral properties or entities is unscientific (without any scientific basis) and plausible false (because not moral properties can be deduced of any known physical properties derived of our best scientific laws).

The above is not a deductive argument, but a series of step leading to a conclusion (6). I submit that most atheists and naturalists would agree with steps 1-5, and hence would be rationally forced to concede point 6 as the most plausible conclusion.

Think hard about it.

In future posts, I'll develop Dr.Marks' arguments in more detail and give supporting evidence.

My purpose is to show that, it is metaphysically necessary or at least metaphysically very plausible, that naturalistic atheism implies the non-existence of objective morality. Therefore, whatever reason you have to accept that objective moral values exist is a reason to think that atheism is false.

Rabbi Moshe Averick defends William Lane Craig against atheist Richard Dawkins and calls him a "chicken" for dodging a debate with Craig

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an ordained Orthodox Rabbi who has taught theology, spirituality, and religious philosophy for nearly 30 years

Read Averick's article here.

Review of Alex Rosenberg's book An Atheist's Guide to Reality (part 1): The atheist mindset

Prominent philosopher of science and biology, professor Alex Rosenberg has written an excelent book in defense of naturalistic atheism (his book is "excellent", not because his conclusions are true or plausible, but because they're consistent with the premises of metaphysical naturalism. So, if naturalism were true, I'm sure that Rosenberg's conclusions would be true too). In this sense, we have to praise Rosenberg's intellectual honesty and courage in following the implications of the premises of metaphysical naturalism wherever they lead.

In the part 1 of this review, I just want to do general remarks about Rosenberg's book, leaving a more in depth critical examination of his arguments for upcoming posts. The purpose of part 1 of this review is to sketch what I consider is one aspect the typical hard-core atheist mindset: arrogance + complex of intellectual superiority + solid ignorance of theism.

Like with so many others book by atheists, the first impression that you'll receive of Rosenberg's book is its "smater than you" arrogant tone with condescending and patronizing remarks about people who disagree with atheism.

Take for example this comment (in which he mentions the great questions of life like the existence of purpose in the Universe, or the existence of God or free will and so forth):

People who believe in religion are particularly adept at avoiding the answers. This is not a book for them. This is a book for those who want to face up to the real answers to these questions. It's a book for people who are comfortable with the truth about reality. This is a book for atheists. (preface viii)

I know of no religious believers who are adept at "avoiding the answers". Rather, they provide answers in terms of God's action on the world, in order to make sense of the origin and fine tuning of the universe, the origin of consciousness, the rationality of our minds, the existence of objective moral values, putative afterlife experiences (like NDEs) and so forth. They try to make sense of our human experience and the universe as a whole in terms of a spiritual cause which trascends the purely material universe.

So, Rosenberg's characterization of "people who believe in religion" is demostrably false, a crude caricature based on atheistic prejudices (which is unworthy of a serious scholar like Rosenberg).

Note that, from the beginning, not just atheism is assumed to be true, but that atheists are considered to be in a superior intellectual position than theists regarding the truth.

I wasnt's surprised by this at all because, according to my experience, most hard-core atheists are strongly deluded into the belief that they're intellectually superior than non-atheists. Their self-perception is one of intellectual superiority. This explains their typical arrogance.

For example, non-philosopher naturalist Richard Carrier wrote in his book "This book is only for sane, reasonable people" (Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, p. 287), almost implying that non-naturalists (or people who disagree with Carrier's book) are somehow insane or irrational.

Also, remember Daniel Dennett's silly attempt to use "brights" as a label for atheists.

(By the way: This is why I enjoy so much when William Lane Craig kicks their butts in public debates and universities. Craig proves that atheists' self-perception of intellectual superiority is a pure self-delusion, without any objective ground on the reality. Even though I don't agree with all of Craig's views, I agree with his refutations of atheists and his exposing of them as irrational people)

They seem to live in a dream world where the (extremely few in number) atheistic people are superior than anyone else. I consider this elitistic personality trait an almost essential aspect of the hard-core atheistic minset and an interesting area of scientific research by experimental psychology.

For my surprise (since I've read several books on philosophy of science, economics and biology by Rosenberg), his knowledge of philosophy of religion and theology seems to be very superficial. In his typical atheist-arrogant and condescending prose, Rosenberg says:

Knowing the truth makes it hard not to sound patronizing of the benighted souls under religion's spell. So from time to time, some of the tone of much of what follows may sound a little smug. I fear I have to plead guilty to this charge, with mitigation. So far I can see, belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus (preface XII).

The modest implication that Rosenberg (and atheists) "know the truth" about complex matters (many of which are metaphysical and hence beyond science proper) reminds me of the treatises of medieval religious dogmatists.

Also, saying that belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus is an offense to prominent ancient, modern and contemporary thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and (former atheistic apologist) Antony Flew, in addition to being an a slap to the face of the above 90% of people in Earth who reject atheism and embrace belief in God. (This sectarian, elitistic mindset is a direct consequence of the deluded self-perception of "knowing the truth" and being intellectually superior to anyone else who disagree with atheism)

Consider two of Flew's reasons for conversion from atheism to a version of theism: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion." (emphasis in blue added).

Note that Flew's argument is not a God of the gaps argument in which he argues that God exists on the grounds of gaps in our knowledge. Rather, his argument is that our current knowledge provide EVIDENCE for the "intelligent source hypothesis" over the purely materialistic hypothesis.

Now, what the hell has to do Santa Claus with Flew's argument for God? Is Santa Claus a good candidate to explain the complex order of the universe and life?

Only a person with strong atheistic prejudices and extraordinary ignorance of philosophy of religion could claim that the "God hypothesis" is on a par with the "Santa Claus hypothesis" (and hence, that belief in the former is on a par with belief in the latter).

Reading that part of Rosenberg's book made me very dissapointed of him as a philosopher (because, as I've commented, his works in philosophy of science and other fields are very good).

Part 1 of this review only tried to give you a taste of what you will find in this book in terms of "tone" or prose.

In future posts, I expect to explain in detail why I think that Rosenberg's case is self-refuting.

Don't get me wrong. I urge my readers (atheists, agnostics or theists alike) to get a copy of Rosenberg's book and read it carefully.

You need to know which are the actual consequences of metaphysical naturalism, and I know of no other book which explains these consequences so consistently and rigurously as Rosenberg's.

And for the same reason, you need to know why sanity, morality, spirituality and rationality demands to refute and consistently debunk such doctrine.

Oxford historian Tim Stanley says that Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig

Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Oxford University. He is currently working on a biography of Pat Buchanan.

In a recent article, Dr.Stanley says:

We are left with two possible conclusions from Richard Dawkin’s flimsy sick note. The first is that he doesn’t understand Christian apologetics, which is why he unintentionally misrepresents Craig’s piece. The most frustrating thing about the New Atheism is that it rarely debates theology on theology's own terms. It approaches metaphor and mysticism as if they were statements of fact to be tested in the laboratory. Worse still, it takes the crudest equations of faith (total submission to an angry sky god) and assumes that they apply to all its believers at all times equally. That most Christians living in the 21^st century don’t know who the Canaanites were and only go to church because it brings them an intangible inner peace, totally escapes these atheist pedants.

The second explanation is that Dawkins is a coward. He likes to pick fights either with dunces (like the deliciously silly and obviously gay Ted Haggard) or with incredibly nice old Christians with no fire in their belly (like Rowan Williams). Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly. This is a damning indictment not only of him, but of the clerical establishment of Great Britain. But this time, he understood that he was up against a pro. In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy. In Craig, Dawkins met his match. Like Jonah, he was confronted by the truth and he ran away.

It seems that Dawkins' cowardice (as evidenced by his refusal to debate God's existence with Craig) is being well known and widespread among Oxford scholars (both theists and atheists alike, see an example of the latter here).

Atheist philosopher Daniel Came says that Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate William Lane Craig is cynical and anti-intellectualist

In this recent article, an atheist philosopher from Oxford named Daniel Came argues that Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig is cynical and anti-intellectualist and adds that such position is typical of the so-called New Atheists.

Dr.Came comments:

Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate "the existence of fairies and water-nymphs".

Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.

Came's article is a reply to Dawkins' recent article where he poses another silly excuse to avoid debating William Lane Craig.

I haven't read any professional paper or book by Dr.Came, but given his straightforward position regarding Dawkins' obvious cowardice, dishonesty and anti-intellectualism, I must assume that Came is an intellectually honest atheist. This kind of atheist is worthy of respect and admiration, even if you disagree with him (regarding their atheistic worldview).

Moreover, as a trained and competent philosopher, Came castigates Dawkins' fallacious arguments against theism. In Came's words: "Dawkins maintains that we're not justified in inferring a designer as the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe because then a new problem surfaces: who designed the designer? This argument is as old as the hills and as any reasonably competent first-year undergraduate could point out is patently invalid. For an explanation to be successful we do not need an explanation of the explanation. One might as well say that evolution by natural selection explains nothing because it does nothing to explain why there were living organisms on earth in the first place; or that the big bang fails to explain the cosmic background radiation because the big bang is itself inexplicable."

Note that Came's objection to Dawkins's argument is exactly the same objection that William Lane Craig has raised against Dawkins:

This is evidence of intellectual honesty and rigour by Came. (You can see that, contrary to the very common atheistic cranks, irrationalists and charlatans, there are a few atheists out there who are intellectually honest and competent thinkers, worthy of intellectual respect and admiration).

Just for the record (and as a personal addendum): In his article, Richard Dawkins says that he won't debate Craig because Craig is an "apologist for genocide". A smart (and hypocritcal, as we will see) excuse by Dawkins, indeed.

That excuse by Dawkins provides more evidence of his intellectual dishonesty, sophistry and personal cowardice (giving support to Dr.Came, who suggested in a previous article that Dawkins is a COWARD).

Consider the evidence:

Dawkins poses an apparently "moral reason" (the alleged defense of genocide by Craig) as a valid excuse to avoid debating Craig. However, the hypocrital and coward Dawkins himself is sympathetic ("quite open") to the persuasion that the murdering and killing of human beings is right. In this interview, Dawkins says: "Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan... The statement 'killing people is wrong', to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances... I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police... I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind" (Emphasis in blue added).

Now, on what moral grounds is Dawkins going to criticize Craig' (alleged) endorsement of genocide, if in Dawkins' own view the statement "killing people is wrong" or "genocide is wrong" or "killing people is right in some circunstances" cannot be defended rationally and intellectually?

Moreover, for Dawkins, "killing people" is not morally evil or bad because in his own opinion the evil doesn't exist objectively in this universe. In his work River Out Of Eden, Dawkins wrote: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." (p.155. Emphasis in blue added)

So, the "observable universe" (which includes the observable cases of murder, rape, genocide, terrorism, poverty, drug additcion, frauds, bigotry and persecution against atheists, etc.) is not, at the bottom, "evil" at all for Dawkins, then which is the rational and intellectual basis of Dawkins' moral complain against Craig? Is Craig being "evil" in Dawkins' view? Can Dawkins argue that Craig is defending something morally wrong and evil, and at the same time to claim that the evil doesn't exist in this universe?

The above suffices to prove that Dawkins is an intellectually incompetent, dishonest sophist and a straightforward coward atheist.

Consistent with his stupidity, incoherence and cowardice, Dawkins ask "Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't."

But Dawkins DID shared a plataform with Craig in Mexico some time ago, as you can watch in this video:

And as you can watch in that video, Dawkins' replies to Craig were ignorant, stupid and intellectually inept (which is typical of most atheists, according to my experience).

You can agree or disagree with Craig's arguments; but I think any rational person would easily see that Dawkins is an intellectual lightweight amateur in comparison with Craig (just compare the logical structure, rigour and coherence of the argumentation of both men).

Craig would destroy Dawkins very EASILY in a debate about God's existence. Dawkins knows it and this is the ACTUAL reason why Dawkins WON'T debate Craig. Ever.

William Lane Craig vs. Stephen Law debate on Does God Exist? at Westminster Central Hall, 17 October in front of an audience of over 1700 people

This is Craig's most recent debate (17 October 2011) with an atheist philosopher from England named Stephen Law (who's a senior lecturer at Heythrop College in the University of London. He also edits the philosophical journal Think, which is published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy and aimed at the general public).

Examine carefully and sympathetically both sides of the debate, and draw your own conclusions asking yourselves "which is the most plausible argument?".

My own opinion is that, as expected, atheist Law couldn't reply correctly to Craig's arguments (specially the first and second arguments by Craig weren't responded by Law, and his replies to the other arguments were pretty weak, contrieved and ad hoc).

You can hear the public in the hall to give ocassional positive responses to Craig's refutations of Law's atheist claims, so I think that in general the public there also realized that Craig won the debate (let's see if the poll of this debate are published, in order to confirm or refute my perception),

Atheism is a dying ideology; and this is why a theist like Craig predictably destroys them in debates pretty easily.

It's needed to have a monumentally strong faith in atheism and hostility towards theism (and the obvious cognitive distortion and irrationality caused by such emotional commitment and the companion wishful thinking) in order to give more plausibility to atheism than theism (at least, regarding the case for atheism as presented by atheists like Stephen Law).

Richard Dawkins and the The Magic of Hypocrisy and Cowardice (Making Money Missing The William Lane Craig Bus)

William Lane Craig's refutation of Richard Dawkins' arguments against the traditional arguments for God's existence:

BBC Oxford News- There's Probably No Richard Dawkins (Buses); On Dawkins's refusal to debate William Lane Craig

Atheist Michael Tooley vs. Christian William Lane Craig debate on the topic Is God Real?

I think this debate was another easy one-way victory for Craig. I'm astonished by the tremendous weakness of the philosophical and scientific case for atheism and the bad atheistic objections against the existence of God. (Keep in mind that Tooley is one of the more sophisticated contemporary atheistic philosophers!)

Enjoy.

Pseudoskeptics and hard-core materialistic atheists- Damaged by Hellfire preachers in early Childhood ?

The author of that video has arrived a similar conclusion than mine: extreme pseudoskeptics and other hard-core atheistic irrationalists/charlatans have been emotionally and spiritually damaged during their childhood years by extremist/dogmatist people related to religion and related fields (spirituality, the paranormal, etc.).

A direct consequence of this inner damage are the following traits of personality:

1-Egocentrism (keep in mind that children have the tendency to be self-centered, their inmadurity prevents them to expand their awareness of the interests of people around them), So, adult atheists who have suffered religious abuse during their childhood have been stuck in that infantile personality, and this explains why they tend to be self-centered, egoistical, people. (This is why they tend to be dishonest, hostile, arrogant, condescending, supercilious, etc.).

2-Another consequence is a complex of (intellectual and moral) superiority. Their lack of emotional madurity push them (through a compensatory mechanism) to the delusion of superiority, even when they're intellectually inferior.

This particular aspects of hard-core atheists bothers me a lot. First, because many of them are demostrably irrational, intellectually retarded, inept and stupid (see solid evidence for this here, here and here).

Secondly, their atheistic worldview offers no ontological nor rational basis for morality (hence, the atheist's self-perception of moral superiority is a pure irrational delusion, incompatible with their own atheistic beliefs). Solid evidence for this is available here, here, here and here.

3-Another consequence of this is the atheist's tendency to use arguments, words and phrases related to cartoons and other games proper of children. For example, in serious discussions about the evidence for/against the paranormal, you're confronted with the atheist's constant references to Santa Claus, Peter Pan, Spaguetti Monsters and so forth. (If you understand the childish nature of the atheist's personality and its causes, then you won't be surprised by these kind of infantile comments. After all, little children cannot talk about serious topics in a serious way).

Also, in their own "scholarly" writtings and when defending their own (supposedly serious and science-based) position, they appeal to the same childish ideas and fantasies. An egregious example of this is Richard Carrier. In his book Sense and Goodness without God, you can read some of Carrier's fantasies which are mostly based on Star Trek (I'm not kidding you). Carrier explicitly concedes his inspiration in that movie when he writes that the "Secular Humanist Heaven" (Jime: What the hell is that?) is "a world rather like that in Star Trek: The Next Generation" (p. 405).

Another funny example of this are the criticisms of the members of the Center For Inquiry against Jesus of Nazareth. These atheist charlatans tried to ridicule the image of Jesus with paintings of Jesus with a long nose of.... PINOCCHO! (See the specific evidence for this here).

Try to imagine a bunch of adults doing something like that. What would you think of them? Would you trust them about serious, adult matters? Are they mature enough to discuss, seriously, complex topics like the existence of the paranormal, God, the afterlife, etc.? Obviously no. Their whole intellect just reach to discuss these matters in terms of Star Trek, Pinoccho, Santa Claus, Pink Elephants, etc.

They're like children in the body of an adult person, and you can imagine the consequence of this for the people who happens to be close to them.