This is wonderful! That old windbag Dick Dawkins is running scared from taking on an opponent who he knows will wipe the floor with him. What larks. Read this article, and the truth will set you free. Atheists like their Christians to be fundamentalist fools, but get all silly and pompous when they know the game is up.
Author
Michael Coren is a weekly columnist, published every Saturday, with the Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg Sun and The London Free Press and in more than a dozen other daily and weekly newspapers across Canada.
-
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Richard on For my blog, go to www.michaelcoren.com
- Richard on Forgive Us Jack, Forgive Us!
- Bella on For my blog, go to www.michaelcoren.com
- Lana on Thank God for DVD Sets
- sintax on For my blog, go to www.michaelcoren.com
Blogroll
Categories
- Climate Change (4)
- Consider This (235)
- Crime and Punishment (7)
- Freedom of Expression (19)
- I'm A Believer (4)
- Life and Death (1)
- Politics (12)
- Religion (14)
- Terrorism (7)
Archives
Subscribe to blog
Search in blog
-
William Craig is an eminent American philosopher and for Dawkins to call him anything but a worthy opponent is pure ignorance and cowardice on his part. Not surprising though, that they refuse to debate people who are substantive and intelligent, I guess if someone doesn’t fit their bill of the stereotypical Christian they immediately flee the scene.
I have no problem with atheists, many of my friends are atheists. I just think that if they choose to not only accuse me and my fellow Christians of ignorance and stupidity, they ought to be willing to at least let me stand up for the faith, and they should at least have something to say for themselves. Or would that hurt someone’s feelings?
Personally, I find that Dawkins, when read by anyone with a functioning brain, is more anti-religion than anti God. He may not say so, but it certainly seems that way. Debating on the existence of God just seems silly – it’s just a personal matter. Debating on the benefits or evils of religion is another. If someone tells me that, like Bishop Usher, they believe the world was created in 4004 BC. I just roll my eyes and walk away. I won’t debate it as it is a ridiculous thing to believe.
Greg,
Atheists attack, Christians defend. Atheists are not used to seeing the tables being turned on them.
This Sunday is the Gospel of the Good Shepherd.Watch out for the false teachers….the BAD Shepherd…like Dawkins….who have to come to destroy……
If William Lane Craig pulled out a gun during a debate and shot himself in the head, theists would declare it a victory. No matter what anyone says in these debates, theists will always come away thinking that they’ve won because they’ve completely made up their minds about what preceded reality. Atheists haven’t made up their minds because there’s no evidence that makes one religious deity more compelling than the other, and why should Yahweh be treated differently when according to scripture He created water before light, which doesn’t make sense because you need stars to fuse hydrogen and helium into oxygen.
What I’d like to know is what does WLC mean by “god” because it’s never quite clear what deity he’s talking about. He’ll say things like the Taliban has the wrong god, so it can’t be the Abrahamic deity—you lose Muslims and Christians! And isn’t it ironic that what makes WLC appealing to Christians is that he refrains from using scripture? Are you really Christians? Christians that don’t put much weight in scripture? Don’t get me wrong, that’s a helluva a lot better than the Bible thumpers that want to abolish science, but if you actually believe that a pretense of circular logic built on wildly debatable assumptions about morality, or cosmology and a fine tuned universe… essentially new-age sophistry designed to appeal to Christians, do you really believe that that has more weight than scripture? Then you’ve rejected your own religion.
Sophistry, that’s all WLC has, nothing more. The fine tuned universe argument is a supremely arrogant declaration that there couldn’t be an alternative universe to this one with very different life forms. Who says? Apparently, we’re living in some grand design where spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) are supposed to happen and that the designer is a perfect being, all loving and all that. The argument doesn’t make sense. We know that there’s billions of other planets in space and yet not one of them has been discovered to support life… that’s some fine tuning!
So if a biologist like Dawkins is a “fraud” (really?) then what does that make a professional theist like WLC who uses sophistry to support his claim that “god” preceded reality, without ever explaining what “god” is?
Never underestimate a theist’s disturbing ability to turn logic upside down whenever it suits them. It really is astounding that someone like Coren is able to believe with absolute certainty what exists outside the boundary of space and time, but he’s unable to figure out what cellphone plan to get. That’s astounding to me. Someone is lying to themselves, and I don’t think it’s the biologist. And I’ve never even read the God Delusion, don’t have to, I know that you don’t know what preceded reality because nobody knows, that’s a truism. You just don’t have the courage to admit it because that would mean admitting that you’re wrong and have wasted a great deal of your life…
Well, since my last two attempts to reply have not shown up yet, I guess Coren is himself a coward? He can prove me wrong by actually posting this.
===
Right, the it’s the “bad shepard” like Dawkins who destroys?
Let’s look at some things said by that “eminent American philosopher” shall we, Greg?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
What’s he referring to? Accidents, disease, nope. Genocide.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
Almost as bad as the desensitizing effect of religous belief on the morals of their apologists…and I bet that Craig calls himself “pro-life”. Yeah. Nothing “disturbing” about the killing of those women and children though, eh?
Not if “god” orders it done, but boy howdy! If a doctor does it, it’s a “SIN”!!!! Why? Doesn’t the fetus still go to heaven? So, by Craig’s “logic”, what was the harm done?
Compare with what atheist PZ Myers thinks about this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/wait_i_thought_they_believed_i.php
No. No, I can’t imagine that. I can imagine parts of it: I can imagine a long, heavy piece of sharp metal in my hands. I can imagine a frightened, unarmed woman in front of me, trying to shelter her children. The part I can’t imagine, the stuff I’m having real trouble with, is imagining voluntarily raising my hand and hacking them to death.
I guess one has to be a religous philosopher with “biblical morality” to be able to imagine oneself hacking up those people eh?
While godless atheists like Myers, and I suspect Dawkins too, can’t.
Speaking of “absurdly arrogant”, Coren…
absurdly arrogant”? Time for a reality check Coren: Between pope ratty and Dawkins, who dresses in outlandish clothes that only king or emperors would wear and who wears regular clothes? Who changed his name to take on a new identity and title? Who makes pronouncements which he expects everyone to obey? WHo makes trips to other countries and expects the host country to foot the bill?
All of that is your man, the Pope. Dawkins dresses normally, doesn’t expect his sayings to be taken as law by any “disciples” or “followers” and in contrast to the Pope’s visit to England on taxpayers dollars, when Dawkins visited the University of Oklahoma a few years back, he waived the speakers fee and gave 5 grand to the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education people.
How much did Pope Ratty donate to the people of England when he visited there?
While you’re at it, Coren…justify your claim that Dawkins is a fraud, liar, and coward, please. All of them.
In fact, it’d be nice to see you try and justify your claim that the pope is “the greatest man alive”…even ignoring the fact that he helped cover up the sex abuse scandal.
What did the pope do that makes him deserving of the title of “greatest man alive”.
CH says:essentially new-age sophistry designed to appeal to Christians, do you really believe that that has more weight than scripture? Then you’ve rejected your own religion.
Christ says you are saved by your faith….he did not say you are saved because you can explain scripture?
How is Mr.Coren wrong? he’s sharing his faith & of course there will always be those who do not know Christ?(the world does not know Christ) they do not understand the supernatural? however like your lack of faith(CH) you only understand the natural.For example as the great floods hits the USA this week; God knows the unbelievers will only understand “natural” disasters so that they too will come to repentance.
You see as St. John The Divine explained in Revelations the number 6 “666″ for example is an imperfect number.The number 7 is a perfect number & leads into the supernatural.If you do not come to believe then you fall back & rebel (back to the number 6 & you stay in a natural state & not into the 7th heaven so to speak the supernatural.
C.H.
According to Genesis, the first thing God said was “Let there be light”. So light did precede water.
Just sayin’.
When I first saw the headline, I thought “Wow, Coren is finally getting a modicum of self-awareness”.
Then I realised that Michael the prick Coren was calling Dawkins a dick. How morally superior of him. Me, I don’t have any delusions of being important but Mick-the-pr… does, apparently.
There’s no reason why people should suffer fools gladly, so I can surely understand why Richard Dawkins won’t suffer William Lane Craig.
CH,
Addenda: Sorry, you are correct when you point out that according to Genesis the earth (and seas) were created and THEN God adds the light.
Apart for the dangers of taking Genesis literally, the assumption is that the universe (stars and planets) was already in existence and that earth was covered in gaseous clouds that allowed no light from our sun to enter. At some point the light does penetrate the gas (Let there be light)and the earth transforms into a life sustaining planet.
Most Christians I know tend to see Genesis as reflecting the Big Bang Theory. There is nothing, darkness, then BAMM — there is light and energy exploding through the cosmos. So although the “Let there be light” command in Genesis comes in a bit later in reference to Earth’s formation, it thematically can be taken to mean existence from non-existence, light where there was once only darkness.
The Genesis author, given his limited scientific knowledge, intuits rather accurately the beginning of our universe, our planet. There’s a sense of wonder in the first chapters of Genesis and unlike many other creation stories it parallels science. When you read it, you can almost imagine yourself witnessing this moment in space and time.
Read the Creation again without all the religious baggage that’s been attached to it — it’s a story written by a human being trying to wrap his head around the wonder of existence.
C.H.
Atheists are already calling this debate a victory for Dawkins because WLC is apparently not “worthy” of his superior linguistic skills. And it would seem to me that Atheists have completely made up their minds. Or are you suggesting that Dawkins is open to the idea that there “could” be a God?
Sounds to me like you want it both ways. If WLC used Scripture would you accept that as a legitimate counter-argument? Well you already answer that question. He’d be dismissed as a “bible-thumper”. Then, score for you, since he doesn’t use scripture (I assume in an attempt to frame the debate at “your” level) you get to use that as a club too. Awesome for you!
And I’m not really sure what’s circular about his logic. He’s making a case for a creator God using the precision that is our universe. Believing it to be too perfect to have come about without some intelligence to guide it. Seems like a pretty straightforward claim to me.
So WLC is arrogant for believing that a supreme being created the universe. But you’re counter to his “intelligently designed fine-tuned universe” argument is that we might just be that lucky dimension? I’m confused, how is your claim not equally arrogant then?
Seems like you don’t believe in God because there is bad and evil. But without a moral authority what is bad and evil? Who would be the arbiter of what is good?
Dawkins does, kind of, the same thing. He makes the case that God doesn’t exist without ever really explaining why we’re all here or how. Unless you consider his theory (in the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”) where he explains that maybe an advanced alien race put the seeds of life on Earth. I supposed that’s possible?? (don’t be mad at me. He said it).
So Michael doesn’t know what the best cell phone plan out there is and that means his faith in God has been a huge waste? It’s a good thing it’s just theists that turn logic upside down???
I would wager that Michael and others like him often struggle with believing what exists outside the boundary of space and time. I would doubt any of them would attribute absolute certainty to it.
I didn’t read Dawkins book(s) either. I think he’s an arrogant chump in the same way that you think WLC is. Between the two us maybe it’s a good thing this debate isn’t going to happen. Since it’s just a couple of blow-hard dupes that’ll be singing to their respective choirs.
Reynolds says: the Pope who makes pronouncements which he expects everyone to obey?
Everyone? Reynolds again showing your ignorance, when a Pope speaks to the world;he is like a Shepherd that raises his voice for his sheep to hear.Only his sheep will hear his voice & obey.He is only reaching out to Roman Catholics around the world, because the world does not know the Good Shepherd.Even a dog like yourself Reynolds might get a few crumbs off the table?
John,
A mouse eating off the table is in hardly in a position to disparage the dog eating crumbs on the floor.
The man’s name is Richard Dawkins. I have listened to him speak on several occasions and he is brilliant, regardless of whether one agrees with his point-of-view or not. Putting forward alternate theories is healthy in a secular democracy. Don’t you agree ?
Hey John…I know the guy only expects Catholics to obey what he says…I should have said “everyone in his cult”.
And to reiterate: Dawkins doesn’t expect anyone to obey what he says.
Reynolds…..cult? no Jimmy Jones & his followers were a cult….Charlie Manson & his followers were a cult? liars & murderers.Every POPE over the last 2,000 years has defended the truth.Well maybe one or two popes maybe fell a little short in history.Reynolds have you read Mr.Coren new book? I admit he knows his history.Especially Catholic History very impressed are you?
Reynolds says:”And to reiterate: Dawkins doesn’t expect anyone to obey what he says.”
No kidding? because Dawkins is a LIAR…….
False prophet……
What makes the Pope & the Roman Catholic Church so special you ask?
The Catholic Church is here to proclaim God’s glory & the Kingdom of God, yes we are sinners however we are also to proclaim & practise the forgiveness of sins.In the old testament God’s chosen people their sins were always exposed however God always enjoys showing his mercy throughout history.In the new testament the Roman Catholic Church’s sins are always exposed & yet God shows his mercy.You ask why should we be forgiven? you see God is not like you Reynolds; his heart is very different? your justice is based on reason alone (pharisee-lawyer).
Michael, LOVE your show and writings!
So, in return, he’s a video of my own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE
“William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair”
It outlines the story of Dawkins’ cowardice and presents him with the challenge!
Enjoy!
It is of course IMPOSSIBLE for Craig to wipe the floor with Dawkins for one very good reason..there is no such entity as God ! All God is-is a man – made character,a “meme” if you like,that has survived the ages. How is it possible to put forward a solid case for an entity that does not exist ? Why would Dawkins fear an argument that is full of holes ? Its laughable !