I'm sorry, but Dawkins complaining about snobbery and pomposity is laughable.

@4jgarner

4 ай бұрын

Glad someone pointed that out.

@Joshs8707

4 ай бұрын

yes he is that kind of clown he complained about, what double standard

@thomascarroll9556

4 ай бұрын

Your wrong, because Dawkins is speaking the truth whereas William Lame Craig is talking absolute B O L L O C K S.

@danieltakyi1793

4 ай бұрын

Lool thank you

@carolvassallo26

4 ай бұрын

​@@thomascarroll9556that, of course, is a matter of debate, which is why this video exists.

New atheism : “The other guy is dumb” “I’m too smart to talk to you”

@DarkFlamesDarkness

4 ай бұрын

They said within seconds its not that theyre too smart, its just that the other guy is is trying to defend something that cant be defended. way to show you cant even sit through a few seconds of talking without warping what you hear to suit you. Hope you dont have authority over people, your inability to listen when you dislike the other party would probably make you abusive in that position.

@JM-st1le

4 ай бұрын

​​@@DarkFlamesDarknessI agree with you initial point. But you ruined the comment with the authority stuff

@DarkFlamesDarkness

4 ай бұрын

@@JM-st1le Theyll never think about it unless someone says it directly. Even then, they'll almost certainly not think about it. Religious people will pretty often have kids, because most religions push it, & this one is obviously religious. So theyll eventually have someone to bully with their reinventing what was said scenarios. Also my last bit ruined it? The whole comment was a comment on how they were dumb & wrong for changing what he heard to fit what they wanted to hear, a common thiest issue, but not exclusive to them. I spent no time thinking about what I wrote, like them, so it wasnt gonna be great in the first place. Like theirs. Great comments should be left off corperatetube anways.

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

As a matter of fact, he is too smart for a debate with a theist.

@THETANKGINGER

3 ай бұрын

@@DarkFlamesDarknessatheist can’t defend their own points because it’s simply unknown whether god exists or not. Making either claim is solely based on faith. Most atheist are arrogant losers who care way too much about theists ideas.

"I don't want to sound arrogant. I just can't help it."

@bibastarmedia9650

2 ай бұрын

I like Dowkins very much, very intelligent, thinking person, great mind.

@KN-ul5xe

2 ай бұрын

@@bibastarmedia9650 and if you don't believe that, just ask him...

@howeffingridiculous

2 ай бұрын

Your silly insults would sound better if you could refute his arguments

@KN-ul5xe

2 ай бұрын

@howeffingridiculous he doesn't have an argument other than he doesn't see any evidence. He doesn't see it because he doesn't want to see it. Whatever evidence you give him he just says, I don't accept it.

@howeffingridiculous

2 ай бұрын

@@KN-ul5xe you're talking in generalities, be specific and tell us which evidence he is unfairly rejecting. Otherwise your statement is worthless

“No one is good enough to debate me” “I won’t debate him because he’s too pompous” 😂

@kgeo753

2 ай бұрын

Totally not what he said.

@bencohen496

2 ай бұрын

He never said the first part, stop lying

@ceirwan

2 ай бұрын

What he actually said "It's not that I've got great points'. Why am I surprised though, religious zealots have never loved the truth.

@michaelbraga905

Ай бұрын

No Atheist should waste a second debating any Theist... Belief is nothing but empty belief

@Ryebread-lz6ro

Ай бұрын

@@michaelbraga905 and a belief in theism is more empty than a belief in atheism because…?

I respect his lack of respect for Craig

@cosmocoatl

4 ай бұрын

Absolutely 😂

@thomascarroll9556

4 ай бұрын

I’m not aware he did show a lack of respect to Flowers, although he did show distain and contempt for his childish beliefs.

@NotJavi01

4 ай бұрын

@@thomascarroll9556 He didn’t mention flowers I don’t think. But he did say and I quote “I don’t respect him” ( referring to Craig ). This doesn’t mean he’s going to be rude or impolite to him. It just means he doesn’t respect him as an intellectual and possibly as a person, due in part to his gross justifications of genocide.

@kevindiamant415

4 ай бұрын

Dawkins "lack of respect" for Craig is obviously an excuse for his fear of debating one of the top 10 philosophers in the world of the last 30 years (as ranked by "Academic Influence"). Anyone can disagree with William Lane Craig on his points of view, but there's no doubt that he's a top intellectual. Dr. Daniel Came is an atheist philosopher formerly at Oxford and currently at the University of Lincoln. He had this to say to Dawkins about his refusal to debate Craig: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. “I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.” (Edit: I had originally written "The Best Schools" which had Craig in their list of "The 50 most influential living philosophers". I then instead referenced the "Academic Influence" list, which had Craig as one of the top ten philosophers from 1990-2020.)

@fordprefect5304

4 ай бұрын

@@kevindiamant415 WLC is a complete joke.

RICHARD DAWKINS calling someone else’s voice pretentious

@connorbool2802

4 ай бұрын

You got a point, the man sounds incredibly posh

@boxingboxingboxing99

4 ай бұрын

Blokes had his head up his own arse for years now.

@mad-official

4 ай бұрын

Richard Dawkins does not sound pretentious at all.

@davidarbogast37

4 ай бұрын

Well he's English as well as an intellectual and professional. They tend to sound like that. 🤷‍♂️ Whereas Americans with the voice and speaking style that Craig possesses, are often pretentious snobs.

@swagikuro

4 ай бұрын

He does make a good point at the end though. Craig's completely okay with the suffering of innocents because they to "heaven". Guy is insane

As an atheist I don't think Richard Dawkins is our "Messenger" or something. Why are people sort of acting like Dawkins is the main guy of Atheism? He's just a popular guy with ofc alot of knowledge but he isn't the Face of Atheism. Hitchens proudly debated Craig.

@leszekandhisrandomstuff.9228

2 ай бұрын

I have never heard anyone call Dawkins like the atheist prophet or anything except for religious people because they can't understand just thinking for yourself. That is why they say things like even Darwin said this or that. Hitchens this and the other thing.

@robertodepasquale3419

2 ай бұрын

No atheist thinks so, it's religious people who are obsessed with these ideas of Dawkins being the "pope" of atheists, wake up boy.

@humanbeing7624

2 ай бұрын

he is too antagonistic to be our main guy. There are so many ways to make an argument against religion without being so disrespectful and hateful like Dawkins.

@Alexander4332

2 ай бұрын

Athieism does not need a messenger, religion needs one. If you think Athieism requires a messenger, then what's the message?

@anotheroutlier1227

2 ай бұрын

I suppose that 'there is no meaning to be found at all beyond what you see in the things around you', ​@@Alexander4332. My conviction is that people see ideas attached/imbibed in things that they sense (with their five senses); things that when elaborated on (perhaps with metaphor and experience) they inevitably get a sort of meaning out of it. If anything, Spiritualism, or mayhaps, Agnosticism in the most basic sense would be closer to not need a messenger in this regard.

Richard Dawkins is totally outclassed by William Lane Craig. 😂😂😂

@Butzemann123

25 күн бұрын

You cant be outclassed by someone who is justifying genocide. WLC is done and gone. His latest interview with Alex was the last nail in the coffin💀

@martinhal-fead84933

11 күн бұрын

A genocide that according to Dawkins et al never actually happened as it occurs in the Exodus story.... the bottom line is that Dawkins suspects he would be embarrassed in such a debate.​@@Butzemann123

@Ma1q444

10 күн бұрын

@@Butzemann123how do you know genocide is bad what tells you that.

@Mutterschwein

8 күн бұрын

Outclassed in defending mass murder yes. Such a classy guy, this William Lane Craig!

@hyutashanomi

5 күн бұрын

​@@Ma1q444 empathy tells us genocide is bad, if of course you needed something to tell you that. Which is a weird question.

I like that Dawkins doesnt attribute the good points to himself, but just the reality of there not being good arguments on the other side.

@theresalotofthingsilove

4 ай бұрын

Dawkins is brain dead, you can see his speech starting to slow. He was never one for very intellectual matters, so he makes claims in a british accent and people like you buy it. Truth is, the smartest man in the world thinks God exists, but good ol Dawkins here thinks his daddy Darwin and his passionate hatred for christianity will synthesize into some sort of coherent argument.

@ILoveLuhaidan

4 ай бұрын

Yeaaa because Alex would TOTALLY agree there are *no* good points on the other side, it’s not like he said verbatim that the contingency argument is strong or anything. He is too much of a coward to call Dawkins on it though.

@Burner39

4 ай бұрын

@@ILoveLuhaidanYep, decreased the value of these two speaking, pretty pointless watching the full debate.

@natearmendariz2851

4 ай бұрын

The irony of admitting you don't have any good arguments for your world view. There's only two positions, either God exists or he doesn't, if you admit you don't have any good arguments for your view, you admit by default that the evidence supports the opposite, regardless of whether or not you like the arguments. Dawkins has always argued from incredulity, a simply unwillingness to believe

@CatOnFire

4 ай бұрын

​​@@natearmendariz2851That is fallacious. There are four options if you and I have different opinions about a topic. Either you are right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both right, or we're both wrong. In the case of Christian and atheist beliefs, they are mutually exclusive, so we can't both be right... but we CAN both be wrong. Maybe the Jews have it right, maybe Islam is accurate, maybe it's Zoroastrianism or Jainism or any number of other religions being practiced around the world. Maybe the truth is found in a dead religion that is no longer practiced or even one that hasn't been founded yet. Just because I can't definitively prove that I'm right, that doesn't automagically prove that you are.

"I don't want to sound arrogant..." mission failed lol

@Bokonon999

4 ай бұрын

It only sounds that way because he's correct.

@hughmyron3845

4 ай бұрын

To a religious zealot, any rational person sounds arrogant.

@lealvazquezosvaldo8431

3 ай бұрын

​@@Bokonon999Apparently everything that comes out of his mouth is correct. He truly is a deity in some peoples eyes.

@ActuallyHoudini

3 ай бұрын

It's impossible for Richard Dawkins to not be arrogant. I feel like if you ask him to pass the butter, he'll somehow turn it into a rant about why transgenders are a detriment to going to the moon.

@AA-yc8yr

3 ай бұрын

@@lealvazquezosvaldo8431 Apparently, someone - that's you, to avoid (your) confusion - can't make an argument so resorts to logical fallacies. Figures.

“Oh he’s always saying things like PREMISE ONE” Yeah Richie, that’s called an argument.

Whats with the Dawkins hate? Hes a rational man whos obviously tired of debating delusional and arrogant idiots for most of his career.

@thakurv1

2 ай бұрын

He’s not rational when it comes to this. He dismisses premises and arguments based on someone’s voice. And preconceived notions

@tommybrown9454

2 ай бұрын

He’s arrogant and pompous, and I have the man’s work on my shelves, it’s just true that his personality is shit. I respect his work and contributions, but detest his smugness and am not a fan of listening to him

@gabereyes6975

2 ай бұрын

@@thakurv1dude, he literally addressed a point Craig made about the midianites deserving to be slaughtered and it was okay that the kids were also murdered because they went to heaven. What do you say as an argument to that? It’s a gross and hypocritical position to hold if you take any stock in “god”

@davidthompson7817

2 ай бұрын

@@gabereyes6975 …yeah, I had to back away from that “creepy God“ and the resulting religious zealots that went with it along time ago. Thanks for reminding me how I saved my life.

@karl-heinzheyland6595

2 ай бұрын

Hahahaha

John Lennox has stumped this man several times. It's a shame he can't admit that.

@dianak9862

3 ай бұрын

how

@memeticist

3 ай бұрын

Yes, please do elaborate on what these alleged stumpers were.

@bman5257

3 ай бұрын

@@memeticistWhen Dawkins said faith by definition meant lacking in reason and evidence and Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife. 😂

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins, stumped? Nope. He's just bored with theists and thier arrogance.

@elodiepollock7326

3 ай бұрын

​@@bman5257 I find that to be a lacking argument. His wife is not some being can be debated if she exists. And if we're talking about faith in her faithfulness, it still doesn't apply. If she isn't faithful, there will be physical evidence (whether it is discovered or not) and if she is then there won't be evidence to prove she is not faithful. But just because there is no evidence we shouldn't always without a smidgen of a doubt assume a partner is cheating because that defeats a very fundamental element of a relationship which is trust. You're free to believe in whatever God you want without any scientific evidence for his existence. In a relationship however, you should be able to trust your partner and if there is reasonable doubt then you see if you can get to the bottom of it. Talk to your partner, look for giveaways for cheating or whatever it is you suspect. Meaning at some point you might need to abandon blind faith and think logically about the situation. Not sure if I said all I wanted to, but to me that argument doesn't hold up at all

I'm no Christian, nor a fan of William Lane Craig, but Dawkins sounds SO arrogant here. He is so close-minded that he is unwilling to debate someone because "they're beneath him." From what I remember, Alex really enjoyed his convo with William Lane Craig, and is likely a better thinker because of it. Dawkins, you're not some omniscient noble King with other people "below" you. Do some original thinking. If people shouldn't debate or host others on their show because they are beneath them, then Alex shouldn't be hosting you.

@sdpearshaped831

4 ай бұрын

Sometimes you need to realise it's not worth arguing with a person that is completely deadened to any sort of common sense or consistent thinking. For religious discussions to even take place you have to grant a whole bunch of concessions to the religious side just to indulge it. Dawkins is probably just at an age where he's had this same conversation over a thousand times. I'd say Craig is beneath him. Why waste time on it?

@crushtheserpent

4 ай бұрын

I get the feeling Alex was cringing inside when Dawkins said that

@rodomolina7995

4 ай бұрын

Man what a strawman, I agree Dawkins can be close minded at times but he doesn't think Craig is "beneath him", he thinks he tries too hard to justify immoral acts from the bible that makes him sound like a horrible person

@subwayfacemelt4325

4 ай бұрын

He invented the word "meme", and has some original thinking written down in some books all them smarties I know like to read. Marry a woman. Then you'll understand how it could be, that there is NO point debating some people. (sarcasm). I had a guy "employ" me. Started off with a "salary" of "150" because I was in "training". I trained myself, got better, faster, more productive over a few weeks. He started paying me "100", he told me I have to get better and faster and more productive. Even though the evidence showed I was, he could not be convinced to pay more than "100". And seemed to forget that he was now paying me less than at the beginning.... At the end of this clip, Dawkins mentions Craig's statement "the Medianites had it coming" and God's will as an excuse for slaughter of little ones. There's something deeply wrong with that, I'm sure you can agree. Especially when considering at other genocides, God is commanding that the children be kept as slaves, sometimes ONLY if they are female AND virgin. Sounds like ice iss. Wanna debate them? Not much point, they just fall back on dogma since nothing they say or think is truly original, seldom logical.

@subwayfacemelt4325

4 ай бұрын

@@sdpearshaped831 20 years ago I about 95%+ retired from debating "Christians" for the reasons you mention here. "The same conversation [excuses] over a thousand times". These days I point out that all the good parts of Christianity come from the same place all the good things come from: Cooperation in order to survive.

Strange: I've never actually seen Richard Dawkins dominate ANY debate against ANY of the best Christian apologists.

@slickfandango7915

12 күн бұрын

probably because you only see what you want to see.

@HalifaxViewers

10 күн бұрын

Name a debate with a believer in God that you think Dawkins lost?

@untoldhistory2800

9 күн бұрын

@@HalifaxViewersDr John Lennox

@HalifaxViewers

9 күн бұрын

@@untoldhistory2800I’ll have a watch. Won’t matter to my religious beliefs though as Dr Lennox has no evidence of god otherwise you would have presented it, but I may say Dawkins isn’t a great debater. I’ll let you know

@untoldhistory2800

9 күн бұрын

@@HalifaxViewers you won’t find evidence if you don’t want to find evidence. I think there are more things involved than evidence like pride, humility, surrender, etc. Enjoy the debate by the end of it you will wish John Lennox was your grandad

So his unwillingness to engage with William is based on emotions. "I disapprove of what he says and how he says it."

@pluntchgunster6156

5 күн бұрын

I mean if you say that mass genocide is okay is that really engaging with humanity?

@jimkim2712

Күн бұрын

anyone with sound mind who saw Alex's interview with WLC, about his defense of genocide of cannanite, would not give him any respect. The way he framed the situation is so self serving yet so morally "wrong."

He is complaining about someone else having a pompous voice? 🤣 He has the most pompous attitude and voice than anyone i have ever seen!

@RedHair651

4 ай бұрын

It's his accent, not a voice he puts on 🙄

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

How has he got a pompous voice?

@evancohen1503

4 ай бұрын

You're not used to the accent, that's all.

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

You're not used to the accent, hick.

@monraie

3 ай бұрын

Atheists are usually the epitome of irony.

Funny that Dawkins calls someone ELSE pompous lmao.

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

You're unfamiliar with the accent, hick.

@BlanBonco

3 ай бұрын

It really depends on who you are doesn't it. Religious people so used to being entitled.

@stravinskyfan

3 ай бұрын

​@@BlanBonco that's only your prejudice

@BlanBonco

3 ай бұрын

@@stravinskyfan i guess but I'm used to being continously condescended to by them sometimes bordering on pathological belligerance. 🤷‍♀️ exceptions of course i have sympathy for those persecuted outside the us too

@SoSimonSays

3 ай бұрын

pompus voice, define.....self importance, just because hes posh dont mean hes pompus, read a dictionary plz

“Premise 1 deduction 2” In other words, he formulates his arguments really well

@AndrewLakeUK

2 ай бұрын

No he doesn't not if you've ever read anything he's done,l he's a charlatan.

@rilzgamez8979

2 ай бұрын

lol fax

@grindhardlio7814

2 ай бұрын

No it’s just the fact that it’s an i falsifiable hypothesis, mixed with an argument from ignorance. it’s very semantics based not any substance

@asherloat8570

2 ай бұрын

If God were real that kind of argument shouldn't be necessary in proving its existence, plus the arguments are flawed but made to sound intelligent

@rcic3706

2 ай бұрын

​@@grindhardlio7814 Craig smashed every single Dawkins' "argument" and he knows very well. Perfectly understandable that he doesn't want to go near Craig. He wouldn't stand a chance.

Dawkins acting like Lennox didn’t eat his lunch in debate is comical

“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you” - C.S. Lewis

@winterroadspokenword4681

3 ай бұрын

C.S. Lewis had some gold!

@pnutbteronbwlz9799

3 ай бұрын

Super good

@AA-yc8yr

3 ай бұрын

Good thing, I suppose, that C.S.Lewis constantly looked up to his sky daddy and forgot to look down for much longer, or else we'd have had more of his badly written books.

@connorsaari8364

3 ай бұрын

​@@AA-yc8yr edgy

@Mark-cd2wf

3 ай бұрын

@@AA-yc8yr”Sky daddy! Sky daddy! Sky daddy! Sky daddy!” David Wood, Apologetics Roadshow

Dawkins choosing to wipe his debate with Lennox from memory, is funny to me. And he wants to convince people he won't debate Craig for the reasons he himself demonstrates. How very intelligible of him😂

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

Only because it was like humiliating a child

@alexrennison8070

3 ай бұрын

Honestly. He was like a stroppy toddler in that debate. Embarrassing. Dawkins is incredibly unconvincing to me.

@herpasherpa6777

3 ай бұрын

How very... intelligible? Not sure you understand the word. Dawkins is correct that he's beneath him.

@ammox4683

3 ай бұрын

He actually said he doesn't respect Craig because he advocates for genocide on a biblical basis, not because of how he sounds, it's sad you couldn't finish the video before commenting although I have a vibrant working theory of why that is.

@zackmac5917

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins is honestly a delusional loser. This is just awful to watch. What a dishonest and bitter person, and his atheist followers cheer him on.

Dawkins isn't even responding to Craig's main arguments. He's afraid to debate Craig

@nyaruko-do2ok

2 ай бұрын

Everyone of Craig's arguments have been debunked Alex has debunked them too

@rcic3706

2 ай бұрын

@@nyaruko-do2ok Ahahahahahahahahahahahah

@dropkickandy

2 ай бұрын

HE EVEN DOES IT IN THE VERY VIDEO......

If you weren't taught a religion......you would never come up with the same story twice.

Dawkins’ ability to hand wave away philosophical arguments with comments about his opponent’s voice and his opponent’s moral opinions is indicative of the pathetic nature of the new atheist movement as a whole. Stay in the lane of biology if you won’t engage Philosophy, it’s that simple.

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

"new atheist movement " Silly rabbit. Wax and wank philosophically all you want The premise of a magician in the sky is one that a 8 year old child will laugh at Getting 2 PhDs in mythology is about as useful as a paper bag in a torrential rain storm Lame makes money making his sheep feel good about the nonsense they believe in,and all he ever produces is the "possibility" Why not have Lame debate on something like the hard science of his god? lol

@crushtheserpent

4 ай бұрын

Well said

@sipjedekat8525

4 ай бұрын

The thing is, he's done that already for decades. At a certain point you don't need to engage in a debate anymore, especially if the opposition is just being ridiculous about it.

@ridleyroid9060

4 ай бұрын

Why is philosophy = religion or theology? Dawkins focuses purely on truth claims and what people believe in as a definite as followers of a religion.

@BlanBonco

3 ай бұрын

Awww religious entitlement is so fragile. I don't agree with Dawkins on trans issues but i know he's just trying to find common ground with the endless harassment from religious people. He already said any "decent theologan" ie he acknowledges they exist. Funny how one trans persons counterintuitive idea about their own body is so offensive to the vast herd of religious cattle who embrace an invisible puppetier 😊

That's a lazy and arrogant answer by Dawkins

@niclasjohansson5992

3 ай бұрын

The thing is if someone presented a good (formally) logical argument for the existence of a god, then that argument would be famous. The famous ones that exist have already been debunked.

@antetony83

3 ай бұрын

@niclasjohansson5992 how about the creation of the universe required divine intervention at the big bang. Just right amount of nuclear, gravitional, and electromagnetic forces

@potatopeelee

3 ай бұрын

@@antetony83the fine tuning argument has already been debunked plenty of times

@CT-cg6td

3 ай бұрын

Yes, it is lazy and arrogant because he's still got PTSD from William Lane Craig destroying his ass years ago.

@antetony83

3 ай бұрын

@potatopeelee not in my opinion. See stephen meyer who contends that fine tuning likely requires a creator. Who coded dna? Matter does not create life.

He has no time to debate WLC, but he has time to sit down for podcasts to explain why he has no time to debate.

His reasons for not debating Craig get increasingly strange 😂. Guess he saw what happened with Hitchens and Harris and figured he best duck for cover.

@antreasAnimations

Ай бұрын

How did WLC beat hitchens?

@andykrankus5108

23 күн бұрын

Or Sean Carrol. Oh wait, he absolutely steam rolled WLC.

@PepsiFuture

23 күн бұрын

@@antreasAnimations hahahahahahaahahaahahaah what? Well one was attempting to make incredibly airtight arguments and directly addressing the fallacies of his opponent's arguments. The other went on pseudo-elequoent rants about spaghetti monsters and literally went the entire debate without addressing his opponent's argument - only individual premises in bad faith

Okay some people have silly points, or none at all. But to say that *no one* EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

"no one EVER made you think twice says more about you than them. Sounds obnoxious to me" Almost a strawman there mate No one has ever made him think twice about what amounts to a magician in the sky Please be honest and finish the quote

@arandombard1197

4 ай бұрын

Has anyone ever made good points to you about Australia not being real? The moon landing being fake? The Earth being flat? If what the other person is saying is just fundamentally false and built on total irrationality, you're never going to consider any of their points as good. Ultimately, theists are arguing from a disadvantaged position because what they're arguing is untrue, while atheists are just arguing the obvious the truth that is backed up by science.

@petergeddes6652

4 ай бұрын

​@@leperlord7078haha and referring to theism as belief in a sky magician is definitely honest framing

@sananton2821

4 ай бұрын

...he is very specifically being described as in heaven, above, in the skies, etc. He "works wonders." Pretty honest to me.@@petergeddes6652

@AethelwulfBretwalda

4 ай бұрын

If you're a follower of science then there's no reason to ever believe in magic. Theism is magic and Dr. Dawkins has been doing this for decade so he's heard it all and any argument for a belief in god is just trying to get someone to believe in magic. Besides, all "scientific" appeals to belief ultimately rely on trying to give unverifiable claims for "holes in scientific theory" or something else completely insubstantial.

haha i like how Alex is having fun by interviewing Richard

@KGS922

4 ай бұрын

Few things beat bearded AND laughing Alex.

How can this dude lack that such self awareness John Lennox destroyed this dude every time they spoke

@AverageAlien

Ай бұрын

John Lennox got destroyed every time they spoke.

“Brother asked a very good question” debate him you will see.

@AndrewLakeUK

2 ай бұрын

No religious person has ever made a good point ever about religion.

@Fishsticks-yz1wm

21 күн бұрын

Zakir Naik is a joke

Dawkins shouldn’t be used as a spoke person for atheism or rationality. Dude’s a good biologist with very specific domain knowledge, outside of that he’s incredibly disappointing

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

Well said And that is why Lame craig refuses to debate Loftus or Matt,and focuses on Dawkins

@wunnell

4 ай бұрын

True, Dawkins is weak when it comes to philosophy but he's still well beyond your average Christain. I think the problem that many of us have is that, while philosophers may sneer at a scientist like Dawkins for not being able to comprehend advanced philosophical arguments, the fact is that your average Christain isn't even that capable and they don't understand science either, so they are literally believing on blind faith.

@roro-mm7cc

4 ай бұрын

He's not approaching the question of god from a philosophical perspective, but rather an empirical scientific one - which is reasonable as the scientific method is the only model we have to accurately and reliably predict reality. He's a scientist not a philosopher.

@anteodedi8937

4 ай бұрын

​@@roro-mm7ccWell, he should because the god debate is philosophical. And empiricism is a self refuting epistemology. Empirical investigation is only part of the story.

@JDT101

4 ай бұрын

​@@anteodedi8937 I wouldn't waste you time

I find it odd that the #1 reason a scientist gives for not willing to debate someone is the tone of his voice. How reasonable!

@allebasaiadartse3951

4 ай бұрын

He just said that William justified the death of millions of people, including children... and you think it was just for the voice? Ok.

@gueyenono

4 ай бұрын

@@allebasaiadartse3951 I would encourage you to read my comment again. I said it was his first reason... not his only reason as you said. Also he has debated several Christians who hold the same view as WLC so go figure.

@gueyenono

4 ай бұрын

@@Ai.Narrative "Number 1" and "first" mean different things to you?

@guitarflori

4 ай бұрын

@@gueyenono Yes. #1 typically refers to a rank in this context, while "first" is an order in time (here: discourse time). You would communicate better if you take this into account in the future. The more important (criterion for rank order) point is about slaughter and stuff.

@gueyenono

4 ай бұрын

@@guitarflori I appreciate the clarification in the difference between the use of "#1" and "first". I really do. But still, I hardly see how any reader would think that I meant that the "voice tone" argument was his only argument as clearly stated by someone earlier. This is indeed the "first" argument he gave. Also, he has debated many Christians who hold the views stated in his second argument. So why not WLC? The "voice tone" argument appears to be the differentiator.

He forgot a button !

@christuspilatus

Ай бұрын

THAT MEANS GOD EXISTS!!!!

As someone with a degree in philosophy I’ve never found a single atheists writing from this century compelling, quite the opposite. Their pomposity and ego cloud all their writing and it turns out incredibly mediocre.

@andykrankus5108

23 күн бұрын

And I'm pretty sure you were raised a Christian.

@perrytheplatypus42

19 күн бұрын

It says quite a bit that you have to resort to critiquing the quality of writing rather than the actual ideas.

@lolsing2205

7 күн бұрын

@@perrytheplatypus42 he is right lol richard dawkins types are very low tier

@lolsing2205

7 күн бұрын

@@andykrankus5108 what does that have to do with anything

Dawkins calling somebody else’s voice pompous? Pot kettle pot kettle!

@ramigilneas9274

4 ай бұрын

It’s his English accent. But Craig trained for years to sound as pompous and smug as he does.

@boxingboxingboxing99

4 ай бұрын

@@ramigilneas9274 ‘it’s an English accent?’ No, no it’s not. There is no such thing as an ‘English accent’ You can drive 15 minutes down the road and barely understand the person you are talking to sometimes. 99% of the English population do not speak like Dawkins at all. The average Englishman would think Dawkins belonged to the aristocracy if they didn’t know his background

@pb5640

4 ай бұрын

It’s not being pompous it’s the frustration with the stupidity he has to deal with.

@Funaru

4 ай бұрын

Dawkins' accent is Received Pronuciation or The King's English. This has become rare and it to younger people it sounds old-fashioned and snobbish now. But when Dawkins was young, it was expected from Oxbridge students who wanted to get into public speaking.

@SuperEzekiel7

4 ай бұрын

​@@pb5640"frustration with the stupidity you have to deal with" sounds very pompous, almost like you're better than them.

He calls Craig pompous while you can literally see the pretentiousness dripping from his mouth.

@chikkipop

3 ай бұрын

He's a "proper" English gentleman. You may not like his upper crust demeanor, but he is correct when criticizing religions. You are unable to show otherwise.

@menacetosociety6825

3 ай бұрын

@@chikkipop If Christianity is so irrefutably wrong, then Richard should debate William and prove it. Also, where are you from?

@chikkipop

3 ай бұрын

​@@menacetosociety6825Sorry, but we don't have to prove things are "wrong"; those who make claims about the existence of something have to show how they know, and we get to examine the case they make. All of them fail miserably so far, and crackpots like Craig don't warrant responses from Dawkins. Many others have debated him, and though they have routinely destroyed his arguments, debates are mostly performances. Why give crackpots a stage? Why the interest in where I am from?

@zackmac5917

3 ай бұрын

@@chikkipop Dawkins literally is afraid to debate William Lane Craig because he knows he is unable to win that debate. His excuses are utterly ridiculous and obviously dishonest, with himself and his audience. And his followers are in these comments uttering nonsense in support of that sheer delusional dishonesty.

@hamchurger4566

3 ай бұрын

​@@menacetosociety6825did you not watch the video? Bro doesnt want to debate someone who supports genocide

One of the buttons on his shirt is unbuttoned and now I can’t unsee it

Sounds like he’s a little scared. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.

@Mark-cd2wf

3 ай бұрын

More than a little. Thus, the lame excuses.

@Tulanir1

2 ай бұрын

It's just you.

@fondoomcderty8325

2 ай бұрын

​@@Tulanir1umm and me

@andydufresne8034

Ай бұрын

He doesn't sound scared in the least.

@first-namelast-name

Ай бұрын

I mean, how? I don't see even a little fear in there

Dawkins won’t debate Craig because he is a coward, pure and simple. For a moment, I thought Dawkins had grown a little bit as a person from fifteen years ago, but this interview has shown that he really hasn’t. It’s also extremely arrogant to suggest that there aren’t any good theist debaters, just as it would be for a theist to say there aren’t any good atheist debaters.

@davidarbogast37

4 ай бұрын

Well if that's true then it must also be true that Craig is a coward because he won't debate Matt Dillahunty, who would utterly demolish his silly arguments.

@batman5224

4 ай бұрын

@@davidarbogast37Why would he want to debate someone who runs away like a coward from a debate when he gets his feelings hurt? Matt is probably one of the worst debaters I have ever seen. Craig doesn’t debate internet popularizers, but only people who have contributed to academic literature or have written books fleshing out what they believe. Dillahunty, as far as I know, has done neither.

@ramigilneas9274

4 ай бұрын

@@batman5224 Craig IS a popularizer… And if he has any new arguments for his god that haven’t been refuted decades ago then I am sure that someone will spend a few hours refuting those new arguments. No need for Dawkins to waste his precious time with the same old irrelevant arguments of Low Bar Bill.😂

@alaron5698

4 ай бұрын

@@batman5224 A bit excessively elitist to say that only people with PhD's are worthy of your attention, no? And does Alex O'Connor have a PhD? Because Craig spoke with him.

@batman5224

4 ай бұрын

@@alaron5698 It’s not elitist to suggest that someone needs to express their thoughts cogently in writing. Alex does have a theology degree, if I’m not mistaken, and their conversations haven’t been formal debates.

I recently had the pleasure of deconstructing Craig's moral argument for God's existence in an essay. His reasoning for the existence of objective moral value (no joke) was "it just feels like it exists". Edit: Thanks for the interesting debate in the replies, and to everyone who's not being a complete knobhead on either side

@SamoaVsEverybody814

4 ай бұрын

In the end, that's what faith is. Fuzzy feelings

@mad-official

4 ай бұрын

Fuzzy indeed. Lol

@fireside9503

4 ай бұрын

Intuition is what he means I think. The fact that consciousness remains a conundrum, and yet most people have an intuition of them being the result of a higher mind, an intuition of there being something more. And this intuition comes straight from the conscious experience, suggesting it be a hint or indication God is there.

@joshjackson678

4 ай бұрын

It therefore stands to reason…. That’s all he says.

@nelly5954

4 ай бұрын

@@fireside9503 I respect anyone who believes in God because of intuition. What Craig does, though, is attribute the existence of God to another abstract concept he can only attribute to intuition, and claim that he's proven God's existence. All he's done is just add a middleman.

If he doesn’t want to sound arrogant, then perhaps he should stop being arrogant.

@LawsAndCultureDictateBehavior

2 ай бұрын

He has heard "MY religion is obviously the real religion, because MY religious book says it's the truth" or "look around at the beauty of the world, there's my proof of Gods existence" thousands of times. Christianity unapologetically plagiarized and stole off of Judaism and is correctly defined as mythology.

@PoliticsReal

Ай бұрын

​@LawsAndCultureDictateBehavior Dawkins is just a coward. It's funny how he resorts to a moral argument despite being a moral relativist.

He could use a formidable debate concerning how to do up shirt buttons

So he won't debate Craig because he doesn't like his voice and does not agree with him? What a weak reason.

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

No because he's dishonest

@mahan8070

3 ай бұрын

Are you slow? He just said why he doesn’t want to debate him Cause he believes in the barbaric nonsense in old testament You people are just in another level of stupidity

@cosmicmuffin322

3 ай бұрын

No, because Craig is a dishonest bullsh*tter like all apologists, and at his age Dawkins has had enough of indulging them

@ammox4683

3 ай бұрын

He advocates for biblical genocide of most brutal kind, he said it in the video, Craig sounding the way he does has nothing to do with why he won't debate him, you're being dishonest, same as Craig.

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins is bored with theists, as we all are.

The amount of people who clearly don’t understand WLC arguments is incredible. Someone said Dr.Craig is afraid of debating Matt the bald dude. Absolutely incredible

@wet-read

2 ай бұрын

What's to understand? A lot of apologetics arguments aren't terribly difficult to understand. And yeah, a trained philosopher is ideal to go up against someone like WLC. Not Dawkins, not Dillahunty. I am now reading Shelly Kagan's new book "Answering Moral Skepticism", which is much better and more useful than Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". Etc.

@thomascarroll9556

16 күн бұрын

William Lame Craig’s arguments don’t get him anywhere near theism (let alone xtianity) he’s just a snake oil salesman.

Won't debate him because he disagrees with him?? Doesn't like use of deductive logic?

@FriendlyEvangelist

3 ай бұрын

I know right!!! I just made a similar KZread short challenging dawkins pn this horrible reasoning!

@Mutterschwein

8 күн бұрын

Did you actually watch the whole thing or can't you morons even sit through an entire minute and just comment right away? 😆

I love Richard ! He’s into reality, not bullshit!

Am I the only one who laughed when he said Dr Craig had a pompous voice? Dawkins LITERALLY has the most pompous, arrogant and snobby voice I’ve ever heard

@vladtheemailer3223

4 ай бұрын

Not even close to WLC.

@thomascarroll9556

4 ай бұрын

No you’re not the only one, many fools think like you.

@jdelorenzod2725

4 ай бұрын

why? because he has a British accent? He sounds perfectly normal to me.

@chickenstrangler3826

4 ай бұрын

​@@jdelorenzod2725 that's a factor in it but even among British accents, he has a certain attitude about him.

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

Because you're not used to the accent, ya hick.

Like he hasn't been a pretentious professional debater on religious issues for many years.

@bencohen496

2 ай бұрын

Dismissing ridiculous arguments doesn't make him pretentious

@morphtek

2 ай бұрын

imagine debating someone and he says there is this magical dog poo that governs the whole universe , youd would be sounding pretentious too to the dog poo believers

@mostlysunny582

Ай бұрын

​@@bencohen496it makes him ignorant.

@Mutterschwein

8 күн бұрын

@@mostlysunny582 Nope,. Just someone who has better things to do with his life.

There’s no real debate when the argument is nonsense

@smith46695

2 ай бұрын

Tell that to Einstein and Isaac Newton

@GreatApe0

2 ай бұрын

@@smith46695 I would but they're dead. Einstein wasn't really religious in the colloquial sense(he believed in Spinoza's god which essentially uses an alternate definition), newton lived in a time when theism was an extreme norm in England.

@smith46695

2 ай бұрын

@@GreatApe0 thanks for the update I had no idea they were dead but point is they both are smarter then these guys and one was agnostic the other Christian I don’t care when the lived that doesn’t change anything have we gotten less proof there is a god in the past 300 years answer is no.

@D3nchanter

2 ай бұрын

@@smith46695 einstein himself called christianity a most primitive superstition... probably not the guy you wanted to lead with XD

@smith46695

Ай бұрын

@@D3nchanter did I say I was Christian no lol but I am and he was agnostic not a an atheist that’s my point but Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and he was much smarter than Einstein for his time

WLC, “The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” - Sam Harris

Dawkins is the most pompous of them all, yet he uses that as an excuse that he “has no time for” Craig. I have a hard time taking Dawkins seriously. There are much better atheist debaters than Dawkins, even if I don’t agree with them.

@StrugglingProtestant

4 ай бұрын

Yes, Graham Oppy, is an example.

@craigbritton1089

4 ай бұрын

People tend to hate most something that they themselves have

I’m not a theist, but I think Dawkins sounds pompous himself here to suggest that there’s not a single argument for the existence of god that’s the least bit compelling. Funnily enough, there’s actually a video of him having a conversation with Francis Collins from about a year ago in which he acknowledged that the fine tuning argument has at least some merit even if it’s not enough to convince him.

@starfishsystems

2 ай бұрын

But the Fine Tuning argument is not compelling, and that was the test used here. Fine Tuning is essentially an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Dawkins is being generous to damn it with faint praise. Assuming the premise of Fine Tuning is correct - that the fundamental constants of the observed universe are arbitrary and rare, something we in fact don't know to be the case, since we have no other universes with which to compare them - all we can reasonably say is that WE DON'T KNOW how they came to have these values. When we don't know something, it's NEVER reasonable to infer that we therefore know something else. To offer any such inference is a Argument from Ignorance.

@foolfether

2 ай бұрын

given that we are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent one, it's 'the existence of God'; otherwise it's 'a god' or 'gods'.

@foolfether

2 ай бұрын

​@@starfishsystemsit's reasonable given what we know so far. if we find and study more universes and fine tuning proves to be wrong, so be it.

@tomarmstrong3297

2 ай бұрын

@@foolfetherseems recent popularity and appeal of the (evidence challenged) multi universe idea is as a way to try to rebut fine tuning

@foolfether

2 ай бұрын

@@tomarmstrong3297 it's kinda ironic that in fiction the multiverse is often used as a narrative device to show the problems of avoiding the consequences of agency.

Pompous: Affectedly grand, solemn, or self-important Anyone who claims Dawkins is being a hypocrite here must not understand that definition. He doesn't claim any self importance, he shows humility in this very clip, and is clearly formal and dignified in his arguments. He doesn't make a brash insult about Craig's voice, what he's pointing out is that Craig uses a specific tone of voice and specific language to try and convince people that his talking points hold water - it's a distraction tactic, and the textbook definition of pompous

@austinapologetics2023

2 ай бұрын

You do realize that's about the dumbest reason to not debate someone though right? If Craig refused to debate Hitchens, Alex or Dawkins because they have a smooth and slow British accent that makes them sound intelligent then no one would take him seriously. The way Craig talks in his debates is the way he talks in real life and to be honest it's pretty normal. I understand saying people like Ben Shapiro try to sound intelligent when debating but Craig definitely doesn't give that impression.

@adamj3977

2 ай бұрын

@@austinapologetics2023Seems though as Richard doesn’t like debating. I can relate. I used to like debating people online about religion, but have realized there’s no point.

@austinapologetics2023

2 ай бұрын

@@adamj3977 what are you talking about man. In the 2000s Dawkins did tons of debates and that's when Craig first asked to debate him and ever since then he's given increasingly odd reasons as to why he won't debate him.

"Can you think of an example that is seen to increase the information in the Genome?" Legend has it that Richard is still thinking about a response.

Dawkins is spitting in the face of philosophy of religion. Saying there isn’t a single good point for the other side is a clear indication of arrogance and lack of understanding. Otherwise, why would 18% of philosophers be theists and why are there so many powerful arguments for God? I’m not a theist, but to wave away philosophical arguments as a whole as unimpressive instead of actually making objections to them is ridiculous and disrespectful to the subject.

@evancohen1503

4 ай бұрын

Except Theists have no good points, and he's right.

@liftedmarco4976

4 ай бұрын

There isn’t a single good point. Name one.

@josbisschops7530

4 ай бұрын

​@@liftedmarco4976Aquinas' five proofs. There's five for you.

@darklurkerirl6101

4 ай бұрын

@@evancohen1503 you are under 30 years old aren't you ?

@tamerfakhri

4 ай бұрын

​@@evancohen1503you are arrogant

Dawkins avoids people he can't answer to, and thus reduces all Christian responses to his own simplistic vision of Christianity.

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

" own simplistic vision of Christianity." So is there a complex elaborate, intricate? sophisticated

@FireMarekPL1

4 ай бұрын

@@leperlord7078 He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. By saying that he doesn't see any good points in the opposing side, he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble, and all he can say about Craig is that this is an indictment of the way he speaks. Dawkins has confirmed this many times before, that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle.

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

@@FireMarekPL1 "He is not a philosopher and judges apologetics only on the basis of hard science like biology. " Yes,he lives in reality. He is a hard scientist and has contributed a lot to that field Craig is an expert in his field, based on philosophically debating the possibility of a sky magician, who just happens to love genocide,and playing mind/word games/experiments Who has contributed more of worth? "he admits that he is locked in his worldview bubble," AKA reality.Real-world understanding and solutions "that he is incapable of debating with people outside his circle." And i ask, wtf does he continue to debate outside his expertise. We agree there And i hope you can be as honest as i? and answer why Craig so desires to debate those outside his expertise and refuses to debate those experts within his circle? Loftus and Matt D.?

@crushtheserpent

4 ай бұрын

@@leperlord7078 How much Thomas Aquinas have you read lately? Possibly the most rational thinker in the Western tradition. You clearly know nothing about the very tradition you claim to oppose LOL

@FireMarekPL1

4 ай бұрын

@@leperlord7078 Let me remind you that there is a debate about the existence of God. We are not dealing here with a debate on scientific issues, and Dawkins clearly has no willingness to look at philosophical arguments, which is true of the entire New Atheism movement. Atheists often lock themselves only within the naturalistic worldview and are unwilling to step outside of it or hear the arguments of the other side, and even when they do, they insist that all answers must be simple and consistent with their vision of God, even though they themselves do not believe in God. Dawkins lost most of his debates, and that's because they weren't debates at all just presenting his view and zero thought for over 20 years. In comparison, Craig debated with Sam Harris, Hitchens or Krauss, i.e. the new atheists.

Richard Dawkins is one the best non fiction writers today. Thank you for all of your amazing works

Arrogance will never let you grow

"I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my opposition has no good points to be made and their leader's voice is annoying." That's basically a walking definition of arrogance. He sounds like Donald Trump talking about any political opponent.

@lyssword

3 ай бұрын

Nah

@Chiungalla79

3 ай бұрын

It's just the obvious truth. We need to stop to act as if there is any kind of value or validity to their bullshit.

@feelslikebatman6091

3 ай бұрын

U really rxtxxd enough to think religious snob has any good point? Good grief

@mattboemer4549

3 ай бұрын

If it’s true is it still arrogance?

@raptor-pm3it

3 ай бұрын

More like "the opposition's points are not based on any evidence and yet claim them as true, and their leader uses big words and intentionally sounds pompous to impress the audience, instead of actually using valid arguments"

In regard to Craig's voice, I completely understand where Dawkins is coming from. Craig's voice and speaking style are not only pompous, but they also reek of pretentious snobbery especially when he utilizes emotional intonations. He also sounds like a child when he does that.

@aurelian771

4 ай бұрын

sounds more like dillahunty

@davidarbogast37

4 ай бұрын

@@aurelian771 yeah, not quite. Getting angry at an interlocutor's dishonesty and disingenuousness is not quite the same as desperately exhibiting childish emotions of wanting something to be true even if only a one in a million chance. "I don't raise the bar for Christianity. I, I lower it!" -'Low Bar' Bill Craig

@Funaru

4 ай бұрын

To me, and I have heard him speak live in an auditorium, Craig first and foremost sounds smug. He always has the tone of voice of a teacher who needs to make sure everyone gets how right and well-read he is and how silly and poor the arguments contradicting him are.

@alaron5698

4 ай бұрын

I don't know if Dawkins is the one who should be calling others out for sounding pompous voice. He's not exactly Joe Everyman himself in that regard 😅

@Funaru

4 ай бұрын

@@alaron5698 Dawkins has a posh accent, but does his tone of voice usually come across as smug or pompous? To me, he mostly sounds either intrigued or amused.

He lost debates to John Lennox and he knows it

An atheist arguing for objective morality whilst not having justification for it.

Dawkins has only engaged with the materialist, literalist Christianity of the late 1800s that was pronounced dead at the time by Nietschze. Seriously grappling with the Christian traditions and what they mean is not something Dawkins has ever done. At least people like Nietschze and Jung took Christianity seriously.

@skooma103

4 ай бұрын

That's the only version of Christianity worth discussing, and that was ultimately the version understood by most Christians throughout history. Once you relegate your holy book to mere fables and metaphors, it's hardly worth entertaining. These "figurative" readings of the scripture maim Christianity beyond recognition.

@Thagomizer

4 ай бұрын

​@@skooma103Ah. Are you in the business of telling "Theistic Evolutionists" that they can't be true Christians? There's meaningful or practical way you can make that argument without making yourself look like a Bible Belt fundamentalist. Fundies want a monopoly on scripture, atheists want a monopoly on science. Both are empirically wrong in their insistence on this kind of exclusion.

@sananton2821

4 ай бұрын

What new Bible books have shown up in the past two hundred years? What new Christian info do we know that was not known two millennia ago?

@sananton2821

4 ай бұрын

Not believing in things that no one has taken even the first step in demonstrating is not "empirically wrong" by any stretch of those words. It is, in fact, the only empirical choice.@@Thagomizer

DAWKINS doesnt respect the field of philosophy. He presupposes science not acknowledging that science is built on philosophical arguments and assumptions.

@arandombard1197

4 ай бұрын

Science is built on observation and evidence. It's built on facts and experiments, which can be proven and repeated.

@nrosko

4 ай бұрын

That's complete nonsense.

@4jgarner

4 ай бұрын

​@@nroskothat's an interesting bit of philosophy you've got there...

@gideondavid30

4 ай бұрын

@@4jgarner It is a fact.

@Thagomizer

4 ай бұрын

​​@@nrosko Dawkins is a perfect example of an intellectual falsely believing that his expertise in one area qualifies him to speak about another.

It really does sound arrogant to say that there has never been a moment like this, but people in positions like this have literally made a career out of this subject, so it makes perfect sense that he’s never been stunned by any opposing arguments because he’s spent so much time thinking about this shit that he knows why these arguments don’t make sense.

You can debate anyone on any topic unless they refuse to approach the topic honestly. Then, debate becomes futile.

John Lennox abosutely slaughtered Dawkins, but I guess he chose to forget that.

@Vespa123

4 ай бұрын

you are deluded

@johnfoord9444

4 ай бұрын

@@Vespa123 JL just used word play and as knowledgeable and accomplished as RD is, he is not the nimblest debater. JL produced not one shred of evidence that there is a God. But I do like they are civilised to each other. I also love that people talk about "John Lennox" or "Craig" like he is their mate whereas they turn the argument ad-hominem by shouting "Dawkins" as they froth at the mouth.

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

No he didn't 😅😅😅😅

@MrTheclevercat

4 ай бұрын

I watched that and felt embarrassed for the old Lennox

@dulejmani

4 ай бұрын

yes. in a first debate Dawkins was an atheist and in second already he was agnostic. if there will be a third debate Dawkins will became a christian.

It's rather disingenuous to label someone like Craig as merely an apologist regardless of one's personal feelings toward him, when he has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today). Dawkins can scoff at Craig all he wants. He knows he couldn't handle him in a debate with his limited understanding of philosophy and theology. He can go back to debating evangelical pastors again to make him look good.

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

" has two PHDs specializing in the subjects he debates on (and with more contributions within Philosophy of religion and Theology than most humans alive today" So he is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology, but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol May as well have PhDs in Spiderman His sole job is to give magical thinkers a thread to hold onto in a ridiculous belief system of zero-proof Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D's challenge to a debate? What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology, when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky Man). This is not the field Rich is an expert in, but Matt D., and Loftus are experts in that field, but he denies them the time lol They have him in sus,

@Gokulosestoavirus

4 ай бұрын

Craig refuses to debate Dillahunty and has admitted it would be a tough debate for him. And Dillahunty exposed Peterson in wonderful ways.

@thomascarroll9556

4 ай бұрын

Ffs Christianity is man made nonsense like every other religion. So arguing it is true is just nonsense and I don’t respect any PhD in nonsense.

@christiang4497

4 ай бұрын

@@Gokulosestoavirus I would love to see this debate tbh. Matt is a good debater and would fare much better than Dawkins. I'm pretty sure the reason Craig hasn't debated him is that he's not a scholar. Could be wrong about that though.

@vejeke

4 ай бұрын

It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest. "When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since. "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig The moral of the story is that if you're a scared teenager in need of a warm blankie, you can live off it for the rest of your life provided you know how to sell it to others who need it as much as you do.

“I don’t want to sound arrogant” LOL

That's a strong argument right there "William Craig's voice is so pompous"

I mean he’s basically just insulting the guy instead of addressing anything he says. I don’t know why people are applauding this like it’s some sort of logical stance

@MeMyselfAndEyez

4 ай бұрын

It wasn't the time/place to - he wasn't debating WLC. But he immediately gave an example anyway addressing something WLC has said. Re: Israelites/Midianites. Were you watching another video?

@x-xPhobia

3 ай бұрын

There is no logical point to be made for the existence of God. Also he isn't debating him. He is discounting his character and saying why he doesn't care for him. And hopefully it devalues him in other people's eyes.

@johnwalker1229

3 ай бұрын

I don’t know, excusing child murder feels like a decent reason to have contempt for someone.

@darkflower1729

3 ай бұрын

He literally refutes one of his points in this video...did you not watch the whole thing?

@nerdcorner2680

3 ай бұрын

@@neinnononit is about how he has debated many people, and learned nothing form them. Not a single good argument? Piece of evidence? Philosophical/theological thought process? Not one? When arguing something that is an exact 50/50 with no provable evidence on either side? That is pure ignorance and malice, that is not intellectual

Dawkins is the epitomy of pretentious snobbery.. In his debate with John Lennox for example, he was completely lost on the question of ”who created God”(which is like the most entry-level objection to theism ever, that even a teenager could answer). And the ridiculous false humility of him not taking credit, but instead just saying that all theistic arguments are bad. Come on… this guy😂😂

@MrBugPop

4 ай бұрын

Craig is a joke. There aren’t any compelling theist arguments. Craig yaps ad nauseam about his made up arguments for god. The teleological argument… bla bla bla. Once you have invested a life in religiously it seems it becomes almost impossible to come clean. It is embarrassing that some consider him a great mind and friend of Christianity.

@dannymurray1854

3 ай бұрын

Upon reading this verbal diarrhea, I suspect no human can come up with a response like this and have reported you for being a bot 🤖 🚨

@MrBugPop

3 ай бұрын

IDK. If god is real why the hell does there have to be people that need to argue that he exists? Wouldn’t it be self evident?🤣🤣

@tobiasmccallum9697

3 ай бұрын

It's hard to not look down on creatures less intellectual than yourself. We love dogs, but we don't intellectually respect them. I'm sure someone loves you too....

@gauthierlagrange490

3 ай бұрын

The only answer to that question I’ve ever seen is « god is eternal so he doesn’t need a beginning », which is VERY far from satisfactory and usually highlights the special pleading fallacy of the argument. Not to mention that even if we accepted the premise, it would only be an argument for A creator being or event, it would work as well for a lovecraftian entity, or a simulation theory, or any other cosmic entity, and is far from an argument for the very VERY specific god from Christianity or Islam that usually people making that claim argue for.

I just hate it when people break complex ideas into logical steps that are easier to understand

Dawkins impression of Craig is hilarious 😆

The fact that logical premises and conclusions are "pompous" to Dawkins tells you everything you need to know about him.

@JDT101

4 ай бұрын

Exactly. This was übercringe

WLC is a good debater, whether you agree with him or not. He’s made his opponents sweat a lot. Dawkins just attacked his voice for being pompous. That was pretty poor

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

Made his opponents sweat? lol Over what exactly? Was his god proven? lol Sweating over how good Lame Craig makes already believing sheep feel good that they can continue to believe in magic because Lame says it is after all "possible"

@jacobstinson4863

4 ай бұрын

Keep telling yourself that haha

@forty_tu

4 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@leperlord7078 from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig): In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do." So I do think @divatalk9011 is right.

@divatalk9011

4 ай бұрын

@@leperlord7078Hitch literally pretended his mic wasn’t working and Dawkins wouldn’t dare debate him. I don’t agree with a lot WLC says, but he’s a formidable opponent

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

@@divatalk9011 Opponent for what? lol What has any of his philosophical waxing and wanking ever accomplished? i will stick with the reality that Dawkins deals in any day. A huge advocate for fact-based science & influencer in the world of science/reality, and sharing a stage with an apologist for genocide and child slaughter would only diminish Dawkins and boost Lame Craig Kinda like how Trump foolishly validated Kim Jong and saluted Jung's generals(Spelling?) All Lame does is study really hard,get a Ph.D., and a polished skit to make Xians feel good about the nonsense they believe in WTF is he an expert in? A PhD so he can fight over the "Reasonable faith" of believing in fairytales? i will repeat,if he is as FORMIDABLE as y all claim he is,he needs to debate and stop his 15-year dodge of John Loftus and Matt D. Esp Loftus,a former Craig student,who told Loftus class "My former students are the ones I would fear to debate) So whats he do,he slanders Loftus saying "Loftus is addicted to porn" lol i admit,for over 20 years i have been into this debating with theists stuff, i would tune into every debate available,but man it got tiring. Same old schtick,it is like they never listen Even ken Ham debates more reality than Lame Craig ffs.At least he tries his hand at science lol Or debate Dawkins on the science Dawkins is an expert in Why does Lame always have to control topics and formats ?

the sad thing is a lot of folks would think all the things dawkins just said are quite logical and valid

"I don't want to sound arrogant." Well, you always succeed against your own will.

Translation: Dawkins is scared to debate someone who actually knows what they’re talking about

@UziPeters

4 ай бұрын

Do tell us what they are talking about?

@tennicksalvarez9079

4 ай бұрын

Never heard of low bar bil?

@lyricalmike7162

4 ай бұрын

@@UziPeters Troll

@lyricalmike7162

4 ай бұрын

@@tennicksalvarez9079 I’ve never heard of something you just made up, no,

@LiamMacD

4 ай бұрын

I didn’t know “Actually Knowing what they’re talking about.” Means spouting of excuses for one of the most vile and evil slaughters ever committed.😑

He's not daft. Dawkins wouldn't debate William Lane Craig because he knows it'll be bad optics. Dawkins is such an ignorant philosopher(yes, he philosophizes, just like everyone does) that he even mocks basic formal logical syllogisms. I used to take Dawkins seriously as a teenager, but then I read books by those such as Edward Fesers "Refutation of the New Atheists", & David Bentley Harts "Atheist Delusions", wherby I couldn't but be appalled of his inadequate understanding of theology. I matured in my thinking. He's also "Old-hat"(he likes this phrase), not just in his zoology, but logical framework/paradigm, he's stuck in some late-enlightenment (Hume, etc) age, when the postmodernists brought such a materialistic philosophy to its consistent irrational end, that have shown such a victorian atheistic worldview that he embeds isnt justifiable.

@angelmujahid2233

4 ай бұрын

What does any of this have to do with Dawkins overarching position on the existence of God? I’m not being flippant you simply said a bunch of things that are against Dawkins personally and his view point but nothing about his position.

@RacoonLord-mt9hv

4 ай бұрын

William Craig justifies genocide in a fictitious story. 😅

@PurplePerinaise

4 ай бұрын

Well said!

@davidarbogast37

4 ай бұрын

Well, it's not like 'Low Bar' Bill's arguments cannot be easily refuted, especially when they are logically inconsistent, such as describing something that exists outside of the bounds of existence. His version of the Kalam is utter nonsense, which is not surprising given the fact that his belief system is entirely driven by emotion, which generally causes a person to establish biases whether intellectually, cognitively, or emotionally.

@ramigilneas9274

4 ай бұрын

So you take Craig seriously who openly admits that no amount of evidence could ever convince him that Christianity is false because the witness of the holy spirit assures him that it is true? The supposedly intellectual, philosopher and smartest Christian Apologist who unironically lowered his epistemic bar because he desperately wanted Christianity to be true for emotional reasons? Dawkins should debate Craig about the historicity of Adam and Eve… that would probably be another bloodbath like Craigs debate with Carroll.😂

Every Atheist argument: “I’m right because I think you’re dumb. You’re wrong because I don’t like you.”

@VoidplayLP

Ай бұрын

I mean if you believe that is what all atheists are like you might actually be dumb

I had watched all the debates in his sphere and didn't find that debaters speak to each other very often

Goodness, Dawkins sounds so pompous himself

@ReuvenGoldstein1

4 ай бұрын

that's just the accent. Don't be Britphobic.

@thyikmnnnn

4 ай бұрын

@@ReuvenGoldstein1it’s not though. The average ‘British’ person sounds nothing like Dawkins.

@evancohen1503

4 ай бұрын

No, you're just not used to the accent.

@MikeB-ng3ol

3 ай бұрын

@@thyikmnnnn Do you know how many accents there are in the UK?

@nikolaoskontogeorgiou6126

3 ай бұрын

@@ReuvenGoldstein1I mean even King Geroge sounded more down to earth than dawkins 😂

Umm…saw him rendered pretty speechless in his conversations with John Lennox…so maybe there are a few with good arguments😂

@criticalthinker8007

4 ай бұрын

John Lennox as mastered the art of circular arguments

@user-cg2ij7ow5u

4 ай бұрын

@@criticalthinker8007 well, he did spin Richard Dawkins pretty well😂

This is how you lose a debate without even having one. I always kind of suspected Dawkins was full of it.

Ad hominem. Great response from the Dawk

Craig also did a full podcast with Alex and was much better faith and less arrogant than Dawkins.

@JDT101

4 ай бұрын

And extremely interesting

Kinda easy to never hear any good points when you admit to not wanting to debate anyone who can actually hold their own in a debate

@MrTheclevercat

4 ай бұрын

Like who? That's a cute way of saying Dawkins has never lost a debate and just insulting those who were brave enough to try.

@WillGaylord

4 ай бұрын

@@MrTheclevercat Dawkins has consistently said that he won't debate Creationists, and that's reasonable to me. But William Lane Craig isn't arguing for Creationism, he argues for theistic evolution. Dawkins has made philosophical assertions with his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit and keeps inviting people to debate him and "point out it's flaws", yet has declined to debate the single most person heralded as having good responses on four occasions. His stated reason is that he doesn't want to give Craig a platform and keeps attacking his character as disingenuine and as trying to gain popularity despite already being wildly popular.

@MrTheclevercat

4 ай бұрын

WLC is a creationist. He believes the universe was created by magic specifically so humans could have a relationship with a god. He's a potato.@@WillGaylord

@WillGaylord

4 ай бұрын

@@MrTheclevercat Doesn't change the fact that Craig isn't trying to argue about Creationism with Dawkins anyway, he wants to tell him why his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is flawed but Dawkins won't have it

When you are on the side that has ZERO evidence for their claims, the opposition with evidence will always sound arrogant to you.

This guy’s arrogance is off the chart, he thinks he got it all figured out.😂 poor soul.

Laughable. I think everyone knows why he wouldn't debate Craig.

@betadecay6503

4 ай бұрын

Because Craig is a dishonest scumbag?

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

Because he's dishonest

@jc1daddy2

4 ай бұрын

@@johnchambers9836 well a debate is a great way to expose that. Until than the burden of proof of dishonesty is on the accuser

@davidkodsy90

3 ай бұрын

@@johnchambers9836can you please name one single incident where he lied ?

@evancohen1503

3 ай бұрын

I know! Because theists are boring and arrogant.

WLC will mop the floor with Dawkins ass on this matter and Richard Dawkins know that.

@nineteenninetyfive

4 ай бұрын

If you watch the whole interview he says that debates are won on rhetorical skill than the truth of the propositions, so I don't think Dawkins would care if he lost or won a debate.

@johnchambers9836

4 ай бұрын

You must be joking 😅

It doesn't matter what you say to a religious person or how you say it. They will never hear you and will instead assert what they imagine about you, which will always be incorrect. They deal in PURE imagination, and it's usually best to avoid interacting with them because doing so only gives them an opportunity to speak their distortions, defame you, and drive you mad.

Me: What if you're wrong? Dawkins: Then I guess I'm going to hell. Me: You finally got something right.

Dawkins was avoiding William Lane Craig before he ever discovered Craig’s article about the Canaanites, and even after that Dawkins “forgot” about the article for about 3 years and gave multiple other excuses.🤨

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

Lame Craig is an expert in mythological fantasies What is there to debate with an evolutionary biologist who has given so much to hard science/reality? So Lame is an expert in fantasy/mythology, and he wants to debate an expert in evolutionary biology,but not about evolutionary biology.NOOOOO of course not lol May as well have PhDs in Spiderman Now will Lame ever accept Loftus or Matt D challenge to a debate? What is the point of debating an evolutionary biologist within the fixed framework of theology,when said evolutionary biologist admits he has never had religion in his life since he was a child.Not even a bible in his house(Lucky man). This is not the field Rich is an expert in,but Matt D.,and Loftus are experts in that field,but he denies them the time lol They have him in sus,

@tonoornottono

4 ай бұрын

is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for… more than one reason? i don’t know that it’s ever happened in history before, but we can’t discount it! more experiments must be performed to get to the truth…

@leperlord7078

4 ай бұрын

@@tonoornottono "is it possible that dawkins dislikes craig for" i would guess that shaking the hand of the same man who says "Well children die every day,god made us and can do anything he wants with us" Special pleas for genocide,kinda a turn off innit.

@JCs_saved_girl

4 ай бұрын

​@@leperlord7078if you actually watch Craig's debates... and well, read the Bible to understand, you'd realise that is just one part of the whole argument. Not even the take away

@Birdieupon

4 ай бұрын

It shows that Dawkins will use whatever excuses he can. @@tonoornottono

Wow...in this interview Dawkins belittles Jordan Peterson and William Lane Craig, calling their theories Bullshit or making fun of their voice...easily done sitting in a room without them present. Just shows his contempt and ignorance imo.

@Chiungalla79

3 ай бұрын

Contempt for those two has nothing to do with ignorance. They are despicable. Petersons whole game plan is to mix bullshit and his agenda between things every educated person knows. Dumb people admire him for the wisdom he shares and will not question the bullshit. William Lane Craig just cashes in on old delusions.

@supermancd1988

3 ай бұрын

Do you not know who Dawkins is? As if he WOULDNT say that to them to their face or in a debate. That’s what his entire career is based off of.

@Chiungalla79

3 ай бұрын

@@supermancd1988 Lol, no. That might be a narrative that fits in your delusional world view. But that's only because you are really stupid. Dawkins career had nothing to do with atheism. It's more a hobby of his. Which is more than enough, since atheism won the debate 2,500 years ago and religion had no intelligent or logical valid comeback yet.

@BikeJackass

3 ай бұрын

Dawkins is well within his rights to belittle ANY theologian whose life and livelihood is basically scamming people out of their money, they are all charlatans.

@vondas1480

3 ай бұрын

They had it coming 🤷🏻‍♂️

'Whose evidence have you feared most when debating against square-circle believers?' None is the only valid response.

Translation: “Craig would bury me, so I’m going to come up with ridiculous excuses about style and tone to cover my own cowardice.” I mean, Craig is quite literally one of the most humble debaters I have ever listened to. He has a cadence to his voice and he is very commanding, but he loves having actual conversation about actual areas of scholarship. Dawkins? He will only debate people he thinks he can beat.