The Great Dawkins running from debate with a theist?

[Verità]

Now that my book What's So Great About Christianity is establishing me as a leading defender of theism and Christianity in the public arena, the atheists are stepping into the ring--all except one, as you will see.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, will debate me November 30 at Tufts University in Massachusetts. The topic: "Is God a Human Invention?"

Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine and the author of Why Darwin Matters, will debate me twice: on December 5 at George Washington University in Washington DC and on December 9 at Cal Tech in Pasadena, California. Our topic is whether Christianity has been good or bad for the world. (If you want tickets to the Cal Tech debate you can purchase them through Shermer's website www.skeptic.com).

Christopher Hitchens and I are planning a rematch in 2008. I am also approaching Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation, about a debate in the Spring.

So far only one leading atheist has declined to debate, and I hope he'll reconsider. Richard Dawkins sent me a note saying that "upon reflection" he had decided not to debate. No reason given. And there is no reason. Dawkins and other atheists present their view as the only reasonable one, and the religious view as driven by dogmatism and "blind faith."

If they are right, it should be an easy task to step into the public arena and vindicate the position of reason against a manifestly unreasonable alternative. Dawkins knows that I am a serious guy who can match his intellectual credentials. My books have collectively sold as well as his (What's So Great About Christianity is my fifth national bestseller). And I have proven my capabilities in my previous debates with Shermer and Hitchens.

So is Dawkins running scared? I hate to think so, because in truth I am an admirer of Dawkins. I learned a lot from The Selfish Gene and while I don't agree with its conclusion I think The Blind Watchmaker is a beautifully written, brilliantly argued book. I've also praised Dawkins in my earlier work, citing him favorably in my book What's So Great About America.

I've reissued my open invitation to Dawkins to debate under the most favorable conditions possible. We can do it on a liberal, secular West Coast campus such as Berkeley. We can do it in the Spring, when Dawkins' paperback edition of The God Delusion comes out. Michael Shermer, who is a friend of Dawkins and on Dawkins' side of the argument, has agreed to moderate. A donor has agreed to pay both our honorariums.

So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once." Arise and mount thy steed. The challenger is ready, and the time has come to joust.http://www.tothesource.org/11_13_2007/11_13_2007.htm

So is Dawkins unsure of his position or is he merely aloof?

D'Souza vs. Hicthens debate entitled "Is Christianity the Problem." Lengthy but entertaining debate between two intellectuals.

http://216.75.61.152/xstream/neproductions/tkc/debate.wmv

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I'm quite sure Dawkins is not afraid of debating or unsure about his opinions. It says he just told that he's not going to debate -- could be anything.

 

[holy king]

so is dawkins bound to discuss theism with every religious lunatic who wants to?

 

[Verità]

so is dawkins bound to discuss theism with every religious lunatic who wants to?

Religious people are lunatics?

 

[Mark1031]

Why would Dawkins debate an attention whore like D'Sousa, BTW I think Dawkins has a policy of not debating people of lower stature. From what I can tell D'Sousa is not an intellectual but a Regnery cut out of an intellectual.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Also, Dawkins & CO usually declines of debates with ID supporters -- because just debating them could give ID ppl some "credibility".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know any great Dawkinses.

Now that my book What's So Great About Christianity is establishing me as a leading defender of theism and Christianity in the public arena

People who proclaim themselves as "leading defender of theism and Christianity" should be ignored as well. Not your call to make buddy

edit: Simply entering a scientific debate about ID gives it scientific credit, so I can understand declining yet another one of those debates. They're always the same and they're always useless.

 

[Verità]

Why would Dawkins debate an attention whore like D'Sousa,

To dismiss the religious lunatic and demonstrate to all delusional God-believers what fools they are?

BTW I think Dawkin's has a policy of not debating people of lower stature. From what I can tell D'Sousa is not an intellectual but a Regnery cut out of an intellectual.

Ah, so he is aloof. The ole ad hom and dismiss tactic, kinda like those Christians who think they got it right eh?

 

[Simple Simon]

Indeed - why should he debate some jerk? I mean, he debates the smartest and most influential people! There really is no need to give a religious guy addicted to the limelight further media attention. It would be like bestowing an intellectual knighthood on him, if you compare him to the people Dawkins does agree to debate.

@Verità: see, you post is an exact example why it is a bad idea to debate just anyone! You take a post that contains a statement, reverse that statement, then demand that explained. WHY? You should know fully well (at least if you had grammar school maths) that reversions of true statements need not be true!

Basically, either you are too stupid to debate, or you are intellectually dishonest, by intentionally suggesting that the reverse statement (which would be an insult) might be true, thereby discrediting the guy you cite. So why debate someone like that? It can only turn into a mudfight!

(In case you really did not understand: the post you quoted is intended to be read like this
'so is dawkins bound to discuss theism with every lunatic out of the group of all religious people who wants to?')

 

[bhsup]

so is dawkins bound to discuss theism with every religious lunatic who wants to?

While I dismiss your ridiculous use of the word "lunatic", I otherwise agree with your sentiment. It's as silly as Bill O'Reilly saying those who choose not to appear on his show are afraid of him.

 

[Mark1031]

To dismiss the religious lunatic and demonstrate to all delusional God-believers what fools they are?

Ah, so he is aloof. The ole ad hom and dismiss tactic, kinda like those Christians who think they got it right eh?

Sure go ahead and let them debate themselves. Does one have to debate every drunk walking down the street who wants to get into an argument. Compared to people Dawkins has debated like the chair of theology at Oxford or Cambridge D'Sousa is the equibalent of the intellectual drunk. Simply the taunting nature of his challenge is sufficient to demonstrate his intellectual maturity. That and the fact that all his books are published by the right-wing hack house Regnery.

 

[aneeshm]

The problem is usually the format.

I'm sure that if given infinite time, Dawkins (or hell, even I) could trounce every single Judachrislamic theist in an argument on the existence of God and the role of religion in human life.

D'Souza has a habit of trying to always score cheap debating points. He is also an idiot, in the strict sense that he makes many, many fallacious arguments that have no appeal to reason whatsoever, just to emotion, so that he comes out looking good (because most of the audience (any mainstream audience) is dumb, too (Sturgeon's Law), and have no idea why his arguments are crap, but react emotionally).

 

[brennan]

Maybe he has a prior appointment?

 

[Verità]

@Verità: see, you post is an exact example why it is a bad idea to debate just anyone! You take a post that contains a statement, reverse that statement, then demand that explained. WHY? You should know fully well (at least if you had grammar school maths) that reversions of true statements need not be true!

While I understand Dawkins to be the messiah to many a atheist, I don’t think it offensive to question the level of confidance he has invested in his work.
I barely past remedial math (the result of my undersized wall thumping helmet), so please be gentle. My sensibilities are delicate.

Basically, either you are too stupid to debate, or you are intellectually dishonest, by intentionally suggesting that the reverse statement (which would be an insult) might be true, thereby discrediting the guy you cite. So why debate someone like that? It can only turn into a mudfight!

Like the mudfight you are trying to initiate now? If you must know, I prefer to indulge in jell-o fights, but only when I’m in the mood for devilishly dishonest intellectual debates.

(In case you really did not understand: the post you quoted is intended to be read like this
'so is dawkins bound to discuss theism with every lunatic out of the group of all religious people who wants to?')

Take a breath my friend. If you can provide some medical documents that evince D'Souza’s mental psychosis, then maybe I will be inclined to consider your view.

 

[Verità]

The problem is usually the format.

I'm sure that if given infinite time, Dawkins (or hell, even I) could trounce every single Judachrislamic theist in an argument on the existence of God and the role of religion in human life.

D'Souza has a habit of trying to always score cheap debating points. He is also an idiot, in the strict sense that he makes many, many fallacious arguments that have no appeal to reason whatsoever, just to emotion, so that he comes out looking good (because most of the audience (any mainstream audience) is dumb, too (Sturgeon's Law), and have no idea why his arguments are crap, but react emotionally).

Give him a chance, watch the Hitchens debate. He might suprise you.

 

[Simple Simon]

While I understand Dawkins to be the messiah to many a atheist, I don’t think it offensive to question the level of confidance he has invested in his work.
I barely past remedial math (the result of my undersized wall thumping helmet), so please be gentle. My sensibilities are delicate.
Like the mudfight you are trying to initiate now? If you must know, I prefer to indulge in jell-o fights, but only when I’m in the mood for devilishly dishonest intellectual debates.

I see that you get my point exactly

Take a breath my friend. If you can provide some medical documents that evince D'Souza’s mental psychosis, then maybe I will be inclined to consider your view.

Tsk, tsk, now you od it again!
See, I did not say that this specific religious fanatic is mentally ill (though I think he is delusional). And my view has nothing to do with the point that you intentionally misunderstood the post you quoted

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

People who proclaim themselves as "leading defender of theism and Christianity" should be ignored as well. Not your call to make buddy

Indeed, he even plugs his book in the same sentence. Why would anyone want to help this loser make a fast buck.

 

[Brighteye]

Since this person can't even use the English language, it's no surprise that Dawkins doesn't want to travel half-way across the world to chat with him.

Oxford to California isn't exactly a quick trip. And if you want to have a debate with someone you should at least discover how to use the word 'debate'. I do not debate Dawkins, I debate with him; I might perhaps say that I debate [a subject].
So this person's invitation might have been read by Dawkins to mean 'Please come and debate about me', a proposition which has little appeal.

 

[Taliesin]

Dinesh D'Souza declared, circa 1995, that "the problem of poverty has been solved."

Now there's not much to choose between these two (Dawkins thinks I'm mentally ill and, when I have children, would accuse me of abusing them) but I think the atheist has my sympathy here.

 

[Phlegmak]

It's as silly as Bill O'Reilly saying those who choose not to appear on his show are afraid of him.

Thank you.