Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God
Posted on 05/17/2011 8:37:33 AM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church evil and once called the Pope a leering old villain in a frock.
But he now stands accused of cowardice after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.
A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a glaring failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“..a leering old villain in a frock...”
That says all I need to know about Dawkins.
To characterize either of the last two Popes in this matter displays abject ignorance, and a willful denial of any of the factual evidence concerning the lives of these two men.
It is clear that Dawkins is really just ALL about showing off for his fans and generating press and publicity.
The fool is a just an unfunny, pathetic joke, not worth the time of any thinking human being.
Probably has yet to get over his liaison with Mrs. Garrison.
I have never understood why this guy was ever given any credence. I have always thought he talked gibberish.
How he thinks it gives him the moral authority to speak on the non-violent spiritual needs of people is another thing.
Thanks for brining that image back....pass the brain bleach please!
Poll: was this guy better in Hogan’s Heroes or Family Feud ?
Dawkins saw how Craig wiped the floor with Hitchens - no wonder he’s chicken. Dawkins is incredibly weak on meaphysics and even the elementary rules of logic. Virtually none of the conclusions in “The God Delusion” follow from the premeses he uses. When one looks at the most brilliant apologists for atheism, Russel, Hume and Flew it becomes quickly appearant that Dawkins isn’t close to being in their class.
The article states that the two were involved in some sort of six person battle royale in a boxing ring of all places.
Dawkins position is apparently that he took Craig’s measure and, I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion, he said.
I’ll play anyone in tennis, at least once—unless I see them playing first and they suck. I want to play better players, not vice versa.
Occasionally I succumb to taunting and mop him up 6-0, 6-1, 6-0. So then he’s a little better and I’m a little worse. I guess it beats batting the ball against a backboard, unless you have better things to do.
He is like most "atheists"... just another anti-Christian bigot who takes only token swipes at other faiths.
If Dorkins thinks the pope is evil, what the heck does he think of Mookie? The Good Humor Man without his ice cream truck?
Hogan’s Heroes v Family Feud.
Sort of apples and oranges.
He was brilliant in both.
In all seriousness, Hogan’s Heroes is a classic piece of work. I saw an interview recently with Werner Klemperer on Pat Sajack (I love youtube!). What a great gentleman he was. His father, which I did not realize until recently, was the great conductor Otto Klemperer.
In any event. Back to Dawkins.
That man is a genius. His own sort of genius, to be sure. But genius still.
If pressed, I would have to vote for HH over FF, though.
I agree. If he was talking about Alexander Borgia, okay, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI are distinguished and honorable men by any reasonable secular standard. One need not believe in any religious faith to recognize this.
Hogan’s Heroes had clever writing and a terrific cast, but Family Feud required Mr. Dawson to act as if he wasn’t about to ROFLHAO at the “people of Walmart” who appeared on the show. That takes skill!
Robert Clary, who played Louis LeBeau in HH, was (is?) a holocaust survivor. He wrote a book that never shows up in my library, and I always forget to order it.
That, my friend, was Richard DAWSON on Hogan’s Heroes and Family Feud.
How can anyone really be strong on metaphysics? Isn’t it really just someone’s theory? It’s not like anything metaphysical can really be proven, is it? I think one man’s theory about the unknown, is as good as any others.
Definitely at his best in Running Man, where he lampooned the ultimate gameshow host taken to extremes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.