Dawkins sucks as an Atheist. If PZ Myers is the Fried Phelps of Atheism then Dawkins is Pat Robinson(only about half as smart).Really people! Graham Oppy, Smith, Nagel etc there are better more intelligent & competent critics of religion then the likes of Dawkins & his fundie Atheist ilk.Seriously!
Strangely Dawkins & his fundie Atheist ilk seem to have the art of communication, I don't know how or what the attraction is frankly. P Z Myers famous blog is boring and repititive frankly, but he stirs his disciples into a frenzy?
>Strangely Dawkins & his fundie Atheist ilk seem to have the art of communication, I don't know how or what the attraction is frankly.I reply: People respond to simplistic arguments. That is true wither said arguments are for or against God & religion.>P Z Myers famous blog is boring and repititive frankly, but he stirs his disciples into a frenzy?I reply: PZ is also abusive to those religious skeptics who take issue with his irrational behavior. Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum authors of Unscientific America received a ton of verbal abuse from him because they dared to claim his theft & desecration of a Eucharist hurt the cause of science. He's a nut pure & simple & his followers are foul mouthed sociopaths. Yikes!
"One of the big boys"?? Snort. Is that a reference to his swelled head? Seriously, reading the Book of British Birds would give you more knowledge of biology than Dawkins has of theology. Heck, reading the Book of British Birds would give you more knowledge of theology than Dawkins.
I heard something somewhere about Ray Comfort trying to scrape up $10,000 or so to actually pay Dawkins to debate him...and man do I hope that never happens. Quite frankly, I think Dawkins would utterly destroy Comfort, but on the other hand I think somebody like William Lane Craig would give Dawkins a thrashing he wouldn't soon forget. Of course I don't see a debate making any of the spectators "switch sides" or anything afterward, but it could possibly raise some very interesting talking points for future discussion. I wish Dawkins' fans would encourage him (through message boards, e-mails, etc) to debate somebody like Craig or possibly D'Souza.
Dawkins speaks about declining Dr William Lane Craig:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A
I think you misunderstand the reason Dawkins won't debate creationists. What he refers to here is debating creationists on the "science" of creationism or ID. ID us a pseudoscience like astrology and alchemy. This cannot be debated on a scientific level, and doing so gives it a validity it does not merit. Interestingly, when he agreed to break this rule and debate with a creationist on the Bill O'reilly show, the creationist withdrew.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes&feature=fvw