Richard Dawkins vs Christopher Hitchens

You haven't give me any specifics about what Christopher Hitchen has done that gave him the edge in that debate other than your own personal insults directed at William Lane Craig. Richard Dawkin nor Christopher Hitchen are known for their intellectual rigor, especially Richard Dawkins whose book the "God Delusion" was mocked and ridiculed by pretty much every professional philosopher. J.L. Mackie took William Lane Craig serious enough to actually respond to multiple of his arguments.

The God Delusion received a mostly positive reception. I recommend this book.

Responding to someone's arguments does not necessarily mean one takes them seriously. Otherwise Dawkins and other Atheists would not be frequently schooling Creationists.

@nick_hero22: I don't find WLC all that intellectual rigorous. I am reading a book called the Case for Faith and he compares the Resurrection to the lottery. “This standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace. For example, you would not believe the report on the evening news that the numbers chosen in last night's lottery were 4, 2, 9, 7, 8 and 3, because that would be an event of extraordinary improbability. The odds against that are millions and millions to one, and therefore you should not believe it when the news reports it”.- WLC.

@mr_clockwork91: Craig is garbage.

Ends in sex.

@sophia89: The second video has nothing to do with religion. That was Hitchens illustrating how ridiculous Diana worship is. Intellectually dominating Hannity isn't hard to do but that's probably my personal favorite Hitchslap moment. FOX invited Hitchens for a reason, it was not to pay his respects to someone who had just died.

Hitchens was as much an Anti-theist as he was Atheist, that's why he came across as ''rude''.

He was also a political theorist (if that's what you'd call it). Perhaps these videos will shed light on the Hitchslap.

William Lane Craig's argument are actually taken serious enough to warrant legitimate discussion from professional philosophers.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/62/The_God_Delusion_by_Richard_Dawkins

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-fear-religion

• http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-asks-do-philosophers-take-william-lane-craigs-arguments-seriously/
• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/
• http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

A philosophical argument of the existence of a God lacks validity as the burden of the proof lies on the one making the claim.

With that said, The Flying Spaghetti Monster was the best thing to happen to Intelligent Design.

@sophia89: Before I respond to your post, Hitchens was most definitely not a racist.

@sophia89: He is not attacking all Muslims, that's ridiculous. He is however, attacking the Religion itself, which he provides a good argument for.

Christopher Hitchens was a debater in a crowd of morons; the sheer way in which he deconstructed and utterly destroyed people's arguments should evidence how much better he was. He needed an aggressive debating style to drill his point and expose the hypocrisy of what it is he was debunking. Look at some of the people he insulted before accusing him of being an ass --- so-called 'truthers', FOX News hosts and Jihad sympathizers, frankly his attitude was fine. He was arrogant, but this is to be expected given his knowledge.

If you know anything about Hitchens, you will be aware that he was a staunch defender of Homosexuality. This is evidenced when he exposed the Church in defending Stephen Fry's homosexuality.

He was pro-USA because he did not believe in non-intervention. These Islamic militants are killing far more of their own people than the USA is. Again, he admitted he was much of an Anti-theist as he was an Atheist (see 'God Is Not Great').

There's nothing wrong with being an Anti-theist given the overwhelming evidence of historical religious horror and hateful scripture.

Here is another one of his arguments:

@sophia89: Read my edited post with the hyperlink. He was staunchly against racism and homophobia. If anything, he was maybe more of a sexist.

He didn't really win the debate IMO,he just insulted hannity.

And honestly Hannity won that one IMO.

Hannity did not win that debate because he had no argument. Hitchens argued with intellect, reason and wit. Hannity argued with emotion and thus came across as a rambling baby.

@frozen:

Well done on defending the Hitchslap from detractors

@nick_hero22 Because both Dawkins and Hitchens both had actual and worthwhile points which made for legitimate and interesting discussion. All Craig can offer is recyled and nonsensical confusion for an argument and I am absolutely baffled philosophers take Craig with a modicum of seriousness. He's no worse than the Bible bashing belt of America because his defense of Christianity and God hardly makes any sense at all.

Where has the argument been proven false? In the context of his argument, how does the goldilocks zone disprove his argument? So far, the goldilocks zone does not disprove his argument based on what we actually know by verification (e.g. planet hunting); there has been no proof because there have been no planets found in goldilocks zones around other stars that would be habitable to life; the goldilocks zone is purely based on speculation; the only example we have to really work with the goldilocks zone argument is the Earth itself, so, based on assumptions of how life came to be on Earth, the goldilocks zone was invented. Currently, with what we actually know, the evidence would seem to support the arguments for fine tuning, because we have Earth, as an example, whereas the evidence does not support the goldilocks zone argument, because the planets we’ve found in the goldilocks zone around other stars did not support the type of life that we see and expect on the Earth; given that fact, no one can say with such confidence that his argument has been disproved; the goldilocks zone is just a hypothesis, not proof against his argument.

Why don’t we use probability to analyze past events? Who tells you that or where is the research that tells you that? The probability argument is as valid as any argument, in the context of the likelihood of a past event having occurred. The arrangements of atoms in molecular structures does not defeat his argument about the argument against random chance that we see in biological structures. The manner in which sodium, potassium, and lithium could have been created is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction; the formation of different elements on the periodic table is not chemical in nature. The reason that noble gases are so unreactive is because of their stable bond configurations. Potassium is separate from Argon, because of nuclear reactions. However, although nuclear reactions occur in stars, only the lighter elements are favored for formation naturally (e.g. hydrogen, helium, lithium), while the larger elements are not favored for formation in stars; we can easily hypothesize that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, because it is a type of nuclear reaction that is favored in stars; however, calcium and radon are very different; some of the elements are found only on Earth and have a half life that is nearly the calculated age of the Earth.

It’s easy to see how certain molecules can be formed naturally; but, it would seem to need to involved elements that we would expect to be most common in the universe such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium. However, the odds would seem to disfavor the formation of proteins and biological molecules. The odds seem to favor the natural formation of compounds with repeating patterns such as carbohydrates over proteins; although the building blocks of proteins are amino acids, the patterns in proteins seem far more random; proteins have a symbiotic relationship with DNA. Proteins are very large molecules of random patterns, while random molecule formation favor smaller molecules and compounds. Proteins can be organometallic molecules, sometimes involving calcium and potassium; while hydrogen is a common element found in the universe (e.g. in the open vacuum of the universe), calcium, potassium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are not, where these elements are commonly found in proteins; than, cells require certain proteins, where cells are the building blocks of most biological life forms; many complex proteins are required to form a cell, but in an unknown manner that is the genesis of life. Because of such facts, we can go with the probability and statics argument to question the likelihood of life forms coming into existence by random chance, given that we’re proposing that the Big Bang created the galaxy and stars, where stars produce elements; but certain elements are common in proteins and DNA, which are not abundant in the universe. Chemical reactions can explain protein chemistry, but certain elements are required for proteins, certain proteins are required for life, and some mystery mechanism is required to spark life from proteins; element formation is a nuclear reaction; biological molecules require elements that are very rare in the universe.

George Lincoln Rockwell

Who is better? Odd question. Dawkins and Hitchens would probably criticize such an odd question (although Hitchens would then say he was and then both would laugh)

Dawkins is an incredible teacher and educator, there was a series of BBC Christmas lectures Dawkins hosted in 1991 that were brilliant. Not brilliant in an intellectual sense, brilliant as far as making science and scientific ideas accessible, interesting and awe inspiring to people, especially children, though I suspect many of the things he covered in the lecture aren't known by many adults today. Point being many people view Dawkins as this atheist guy which is fair, people simplify things and love to put others into categories but Dawkins is a very interesting individual for many other reasons. As far as differences, Dawkins seems to have a deeper appreciation and enthusiasm for science and teaching, and probably because of that is a lot more patient with others, and probably to many also may seem more pretentious than Hitchens. That might just be because of his accent though and because he is slower to turn to insults and bluntness than Hitchens.

Hitchens on the other hand you could say was a lot more… fun than Dawkins, fun in the sense that he is less forgiving to idiots and will call people idiots, morons, uneducated fools and do so with a glass of Whiskey and cigarette in hand. Hitchens was a lot more politically aware, more aware of global events and how media works, the news works, he was more cynical, less forgiving, louder, angrier. Incredible intellect though of course, which is what made him stand out since its not that uncommon to find many intelligent and articulate people with Dawkins composure and position, occupation, but it is rare to find an angry, loud, impatient person in who actually can back up what they say with facts and sound reasoning. Hitchens is like Bill O'Reilly if Bill O'Reilly had a brain… that worked, and could reason well, and was honest.

There are much more refined and articulate scientists, atheists, what have you, out there, better atheistic debaters since that is what many users are discussing in this thread, even Hitchens and Dawkins friends Dan Dennett and Sam Harris because of their backgrounds and knowledge from that generally make stronger arguments than Dawkins and Hitchens. Lawrence Krauss as well. Also many individuals who can dismiss and refute say William Lane Craig's arguments much more thoroughly than Hitchens or Dawkins, Robert Price for example who isn't an atheist because there is a difference between having a position and arguments for those positions. That's not a negative for Hitchens or Dawkins, its something they knew well and occasionally commented on, many debaters such as William Lane Craig employ very insincere tactics and by the spirit of debate thats okay, because in debates its considered acceptable to use rhetoric to undermine the position of an opposing view then to attack it rather than to represent it accurately and honestly and then try to address it. In other words it can end up being a time waster to see who merely sounds smarter, especially if there is an audience involved or the judges involved are't intelligent enough to understand the arguments and or are focusing on persuasive rhetoric over validity and accuracy to reality. I think the only reason Dawkins has mentioned for his occasional debate has been because its helped raise awareness and money for charity.

Dawkins and Hitchens are these celebrated figures not because of their debating ability (though many respect and admire that naturally), but because they are intelligent, sincere and their ideas and words carry resonance with many many people in last few couple of years/decades, not just purely atheists, skeptics, cynics, agnostics, religious people as well. They both remind me of Richard Feynman, incredibly intelligent but also very forward and blunt, not lacking an appreciation for say philosophy or debate, but much more concerned in being practical. All three for example when it came to their respective background works/careers could dance circles around others as far as making valid and sound points with practical factual knowledge, their brilliance would shine much brighter but its okay that that same ability was a bit duller elsewhere especially when dealing with more philosophical, theoretical ideas/topics.

Short version. I couldn't compare them, it would be like trying to compare two friends, I think their differences only strengthen both their personalities, and that with them and people in general everyone is better on the whole for such differences, meaning you can't really ask who is better, you have to be much more specific, discerning, skeptical and critical on the smaller components.

If that was the case you wouldn't have professional philosophers claiming that Dawkin argumentation in his book "The God Delusion" was a sophomoric attempt at using logic or atheist philosophers claiming that Dawkin's makes them ashamed to be atheist because of his poor level of argumentation. Scholars make disagree with William Lane Craig's conclusion or believe that his premises are false in his argument, but I have never heard a professional philosopher claim that his arguments are logically invalid. Daniel Dennett a close friend of Dawkin admitted that William Lane Craig's arguments are almost air-tight.

@lvenger: Hitchens was one of the greats --- may the Hitchslap live on...

@frozen said:

@lvenger: Hitchens was one of the greats --- may the Hitchslap live on...

Just because someone is popular doesn't make them good intellectuals especially when Hitchens never provided substantive arguments for his position and utilized the same rhetoric that William Lane Craig uses, but less effective. Hitchens is a pseudo-intellectual compared to the actual defenders of atheism like Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, and J.L. Mackie.

His popularity is not the reason why he is a great debater. Though he did stomp Theists (any capable Atheist will stomp a Theist in debate, hence why Hitchens did not lose a single debate) --- it's his intellectual rigor, wit and ferocity which is why he is held in such high regard. If we go by admissions (which you were to keen to cite when it came to Daniel Dennet and the hack William Lane Craig), it was Tony Blair who praised Hitchens and regarded him as a 'one-off'.

Arguably he was not even primarily Atheist-orientated, a good chunk of his arguments were in relation to political foreign policy. Though when it did come to Atheism, he gave more of an Anti-Theist stance.

May the Hitchslap live on...

He is a good debater! You couldn't name me one substantive argument he gave in defense of Atheism. Like I said William Lane Craig divisive beat Hitchens, and this fact is acknowledged on the Atheist blog-sphere and I believe Hitchens himself acknowledged his lost. Comparing Tony Blair to a professional philosopher and scholar like Daniel Dennett who acknowledged William Lane Craig's intellectual rigor is why New Atheism isn't taken serious. If Dawkins and Hitchens are the leading proponents of Atheism then I renounce my own atheism because atheism is dead.

@nick_hero22: William Lane Craig is not a good debater. He continuously shifts the burden of proof to the one that is not making the claim (Atheist) which as Lvenger pointed out, is laughable. His arguments in regard to God can literally be applied to The Flying Spaghetti Monster --- which is just as valid as a God and completely exposes the hilarity behind the burden of proof.

The clear gaps in his argument are quite visible --- http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/why-reasonable-people-should-not-debate.html

Tony Blair is not a professional Philosopher (his level of debate reached Downing Street, though). It does not take a Philosopher to see through Craig's arguments, hence why The Flying Spaghetti Monster: a creation made by an angry Science teacher completely destroys the 'burden of proof' aspect when it comes to Theist debaters.

Richard Dawkins on why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is in no way analogous to the God that people like Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig.

Here is what Christopher Hitchens has to say about William Lane Craig........

Christopher Hitchens was a terrible, hateful person. I guess i like Dawkins more since he isn't a racist so far as I can tell.

@nick_hero22: Read my edited posts with articles from Richard Dawkins and other links. Craig presents himself well, but his content is not convincing in the slightest. His argument is no different to Ken Ham, the only difference is that Craig is more articulate, hence a pseudo-intellectual.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect analogy, because it exposes the hilarity behind the burden of proof.

Hitchens was not a racist.

@frozen: He seems like a racist to me, considering how he advocated the murder of muslims in the middle east. As a christian, it doesn't bother me too much when people bash religion. They can believe what they want, I'll believe what I want. But there is a difference between being an atheist and anti theist and being a racist hateful person.

Whatever you want to tell yourself about William Lane Craig. Regardless of what you or I think, he is taken serious within academic circles.

Here is William Lane Craig refuting that argument:

What about the other theistic arguments? The contingency argument, if successful, proves the existence of a metaphysically necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe (see “Argument from Contingency” in the Question of the Week Archive). That conclusion is also incompatible with the Sufficient Reason of all things being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since as a physical object (even if invisible to our senses) he can be neither metaphysically necessary, timeless, spaceless, nor immaterial.

The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster#ixzz3NKQWbuEN

He did not advocate murder of Muslims in the Middle-East. In fact, the murder of people (Muslim civilians included) was one of the reasons he cited for justification of his argument against Islam. He was however, pro-invasion of Iraq because he did not believe in non-intervention (might I add, he had traveled to the 'three axis of evil').

''Seeming'' to be a racist is not an argument if Hitchens himself vehemently made it clear that he was not a racist. His speech at a memorial lecture for the murdered Daniel Pearl clearly illustrate that he was anti-racist. More evidence that he was not a racist.

He was an Anti-Theist and he condemned Islam. People blur Islam with race.

His premises being false and his argument being logically invalid are two completely different things. William Lane Craig's arguments are logically valid, but the truth of his premises are debatable.

@nick_hero22: Craig's argument constantly shifts the burden of proof to the Atheist, if this is to be taken seriously in the philosophical circle, then common sense and logic is truly lost --- and if you do not see the logical gap in Craig's argument when it comes to the burden proof, I too question your Atheistic stance. In regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if that is the argument that Craig takes, then as a Christian apologist he is ignoring his own scripture as God's description includes:

Revelation 1:12-15 ESV /

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.

This is in addition to the number of other physical descriptions of the Judea-Christian God: http://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_appearance

In further regard to Dawkins' debunking of Craig, I cite: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

@nick_hero22: His arguments are illogical. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that his arguments are logically valid considering the illogic behind it has been exposed.

@frozen said:

Isn't his popularity why we are talking about him now more or less. I mean why did you ask us who is better between Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? Instead of say Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, and J.L. Mackie? Is it not because Dawkins and Hitchens are more well known, popular, respected, adored, notorious more so than the others in the general sense? Or that you are more familiar, or enamored with those two over the others? That you respect their accomplishments more because you know them better as public figures? Something along these lines?

Anti-theism is compatible with atheism in a similar way to agnosticism, they overlap but aren't mutually exclusive, and you are right about that and about how he wasn't primarily atheist orientated, because he is in his element when it comes to the practical benefits of applied ideas, as opposed to say theory and the nuances that come with logic and philosophy, something where William Lane Craig excels. Don't worry if you think this implies that Craig is is smarter or more intelligent than Hitchens, if Hitchens devoted as much time to learning logic and philosophy he would be much much better than it, and the conclusions that can be drawn from Craig or Hitchens arguments aren't really that relevant (well they are but in a different way) Craig is just better at the in-between parts. Explaining and articulating why his reasoning from premise to conclusion is more sound and valid. In this respect many atheists can be the worse for wear in a debate with a theist or deist or agonistic because its just a stance and not reflective of competence or intelligence in constructing arguments or deconstructing arguments.

Hitchens lost debates, he has admitted to losing debates, but thats okay, Hitchens went out of his comfort zone a lot to debate things that weren't his speciality and that he did so well is testament to his gift as a talker, because he was all the things you say he is, and more, he was also fearless and he had balls, in contrast William Lane Craig generally tends to only take on opponents that won't make him look bad, set all sorts of conditions about the set up of debate, not forgetting the fact that debating is also what pays his bills and earns him money. He debates to win, which is admirable in another way. So he devotes more of his time and energy to refining his arguments, as bad as the premises and conclusions are because he realizes he just has to do a better job at the in-between bits than whoever he is arguing - and he has all sorts of debating tricks to help him do that.

Nick Hero probably isn't mentioning Dennett just to randomly bring him up, Dennett's background is in philosophy, thats his expertise, Dawkins is biology. Dennett can understand and appreciate what Craig does even if he disagrees with him, even if he has the same conclusions as Dawkins/Hitchens. On the other hand mentioning Blair is good too, but in a different way, because Blair is a politician, so he should be impressed with Hitchens, Hitchens strength. Blair is fairly intelligent himself but Craig would also likely do a better job at debating him about anything too, even if they had the same conclusions as well. Just like in a talk about biology Dawkings would be (as opposed to sound) more acute and knowledgable, just like talking about international politics Hitchens would be more informative than Dawkings.

I agree about hailing and respecting the Hitchslap, but respecting and appreciating Hitchens doesn't have to mean thinking that he pwned Religious noobs all the time and never made weak arguments. That doesn't seem like actually respecting or appreciating Hitchens as he was at all, my personal favorite atheist was Richard Feynman but he was no great debater nor did he need to be to be one of the greatest and most influential human minds. William Lane Craig would easily beat Feynman in a debate but thats mostly because Feynman was actually doing stuff of actual consequence that improved the fields of science he was in and his sincerity, honesty and appreciation for science went on to inspire many many people, including people like Lawrence Krauss.

I think you are misunderstanding what burden of proof is. If someone makes a claim and provides argumentation for it then you the person who is denying the conclusion has to provide a response why you feel that why about the conclusion. It would be completely different if William Lane Craig just asserted that God exists, but instead he provides actual arguments for his belief so I believe you are being a little disingenuous here. You may not agree with William Lane Craig's arguments, but let's not pretend that he doesn't provide arguments and what he claims to be "evidence" for his beliefs. The Judeo-Christian God is capable of taking human form, so I don't see the issue here?

This is nothing but empty rhetoric, especially when professional philosophers who study formal logic say that his arguments are air-tight. I don't even think you even know the difference between a false premise and a logically invalid one.

@sc: Popularity is exactly why we're talking about him on the surface (why I made this poll), though this does not apply when it comes to evaluating his arguments. Popularity is not what made him a great debater: someone can be popular at a specific task yet that popularity is not what makes him great. I could make a poll between Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith and J.L. Mackie while additionally stating that their lack of popularity does not hinder their debating ability.

It was Hitchens who said ''I'm as much an Atheist as I am Anti-theist'' --- in secular contexts, Anti-theism typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion, which was essentially the core behind the argument that Hitcchens put fourth. If anything, I would say that Hitchens was more of a political commentator, with specific regards to the Middle East foreign policy --- his Anti-Theism strongly influenced his commentary. Now that's a different slice of the cake in contrast to someone like Dawkins, who will argue more about the logical fallacies of religion, the contradictions and the immorality (though Hitchens did argue morality) whereas Hitchens primarily took to applying his Anti-Theistic stance against the political leverage that religion had. Hitchens was far more vocal against religion as a political force, with his arguments underlining the immorality of religion (which he derived from scripture and application). There are debaters who are in to ''win'' or atleast make yourself look convincing, and then there are those such as Dawkins and Hitchens, who inspire critical thinking skills through each debate. They are not only debaters but educators.

I would actually argue that Hitchens ''pwning'' Religion is exactly why I respect him. We live in a society to which religion is too protected, political correctness namely protects it and this is evidenced by the ''Christopher Hitchens schools Muslim'' video --- the four horsemen of non-apocalypse (Dawkins, Denett, Harris and Hitchens) all tackle religion in a different, but Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens prop up the most. Though I haven't really tuned into Harris, I firmly believe that Dawkins is the most popular because he tackles the truth --- while Hitchens may tackle a moralistic, socially constructed argument, Dawkins will easily interject Science to expose the logical loopholes of religion, which in my opinion, is far more effective and quite frankly, less pretentious than philosophy.

@nick_hero22:

I think you are misunderstanding what burden of proof is. If someone makes a claim and provides argumentation for it then you the person who is denying the conclusion has to provide a response why you feel that why about the conclusion. It would be completely different if William Lane Craig just asserted that God exists, but instead he provides actual arguments for his belief so I believe you are being a little disingenuous here. You may not agree with William Lane Craig's arguments, but let's not pretend that he doesn't provide arguments and what he claims to be "evidence" for his beliefs.

I do not wish to come across as condescending but you are coming across as ignorant. The burden of proof is the obligation to prove one's assertion --- Craig continuously shifts this assertion to the Atheistic perspective, which is illogical. The Atheistic perspective is that which asks for evidence due to the lack/none of it, you of all people should know that.

Dawkins nails the 'evidence' argument the best because a philosophical defense for evidence is not a valid one in contrast to the logical, empirical and Scientific stance of Dawkins.

The Judeo-Christian God is capable of taking human form, so I don't see the issue here?

Really?

The same could be said for The Flying Spaghetti Monster. That it's just God taking the form of Spaghetti.

@frozen said:

Difference between premise and conclusion and the in-between. As far as consistency, soundness and validity in establishing occlusions from arguments, Craig is good, manipulative, but good. I think what you maybe mean to say is that his premises are very prone and vulnerable to criticism? Or are weak? The conclusions he draws are therefore pointless? That is very true, even people like you and me and others in this thread can deconstruct Craig's arguments by pointing out the flaws in his definitions, his premises, his conclusions, but he has studied philosophy, logic, epistemology and so he does a good job, better than most at explaining the in-between steps of his constructed arguments. Also… doing it so well and integrating them with other arguments that refuting all of them can be time consuming as far as correcting him and calling him out on his premises, and the definitions he uses.

Its not really the logical validity that people expose in Craig, specifically its his overall arguments and components of it, like the premise or the conclusion rather than say how he arrives at the conclusion from his premise. Being critical of Craig though, and applying that same skepticism towards Dawkings and Hitchens arguments though? We also reveal vulnerabilities in their arguments, its not about understanding that Craig is fallible, he is very fallible, just that in many respects so was Hitchens and Dawkings, but thats okay, again, Dawkings has devoted most of his life to biology, science, education, atheism, and not philosophy, logic, epistemology (though there is some overlap) Dawkin's never desired to be the worlds best Pokemon trainer and maybe if he did he would be? It is no negative reflection on either Dawkins or Hitchens intelligence, or credibility that Craig can do something in debates better than they can. In many other ways they are superior, even in debate, like Hitchens knew enough to dismiss and almost ignore Craig's points… because why waste the time? Well that and he never learned to refute the arguments step by step. So Hitchens can tell what BS is, can call it out, and most of the time, with most people, if he so chose he could do a great job explaining why it is BS and refuting what the BS is, its just that William Lane Craig is like… a BS Bender, but a high level BS Bender, maybe even the Avatar of BS. Out of the four horseman of atheism, Dennett and Harris are best equipped to dealing with him, Dennett because his philosophical background, Harris can sort of attempt to undercut Craig's arguments because his neuroscience background, he can talk about how people reason and are motivated to reason in ways too specialized for Craig to be familiar with. (Which is also why Craig loves to cite/reference other people who specialize in different sciences for his arguments)

Still not understanding the point! The point is that he isn't shifting the burden of proof when he makes an argument for a conclusion which requires an actual response if someone disagrees with his premises or conclusion. You don't understand what shifting the burden of proof is which is why you have that view-point. If William Lane Craig's simply asserted that God was real without argumentation and told his opponents that they need to refute his belief then that would be an instance of shifting the burden of proof, but William Lane Craig has always provided arguments for his beliefs. Philosophical definition of evidence is far more rigorous then what Dawkins or most scientist are espousing.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

The Flying Spaghetti Monster by definition of being a Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, nor immaterial which is why the argument is a dis-analogy.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the soundness part because when we say an argument is sound are saying that it is both logical valid meaning that each premise in the argument guarantees the truth of the previous premise in the argument and the premises that are being used a true, but I believe that the truth of some of William Lane Craig's premises are debatable so I'm not willing to say that his arguments are sound.

@nick_hero22:

Still not understanding the point! The point is that he isn't shifting the burden of proof when he makes an argument for a conclusion which requires an actual response if someone disagrees with his premises or conclusion. You don't understand what shifting the burden of proof is which is why you have that view-point. If William Lane Craig's simply asserted that God was real without argumentation and told his opponents that they need to refute his belief then that would be an instance of shifting the burden of proof, but William Lane Craig has always provided arguments for his beliefs. Philosophical definition of evidence is far more rigorous then what Dawkins or most scientist are espousing.

I am astounded that you fail to comprehend a simple point. Craig providing an argument for his belief in God requires a burden of proof. As Dawkins quite easily put it to Bill O'Reilly of all people: ''true for you is true for everyone else?'' --- providing an argument for a belief in God is not the same as providing evidence for a belief in God. An unscientific philosophical definition of evidence lacks the validity of a Scientific one (and the stance of Dawkins) because it lacks objectivity and empirical nature. The evidence that ''Scientists'' are spouting, when overwhelming in nature can be proven to be true, or falsified. While someone like Dawkins can be subjective, he is objective when it comes to evidence.

A philosophical argument is not empirical evidence.

This is basic 101.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster by definition of being a Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, nor immaterial which is why the argument is a dis-analogy.

Add some context, please.

The Flying Spaghetti is essentially a parody of God, easily noticed by the creation comparison. The argument you've put forward (that the Judea-Christian God takes a 'human' form) can easily be applied to The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Both have been shown to be blind in their rejection of God. God's existence is apparent to all (Romans 1:21), but because this is an unacceptable conclusion to many, those individuals go into denial and proclaim themselves to be atheists.

Actually, even Dawkins has claimed to be an agnostic, and has stated that he never claimed to be an atheist. And the late Hitchens claimed to be a hater of God, and not to flat-out deny His existence.

@johnnyz256:

Actually, even Dawkins has claimed to be an agnostic, and has stated that he never claimed to be an atheist.

Wat?

This is simply not true.

Dawkins once used the term 'Agnostic' because of the stigma attached to Atheism. He clarified this and then clarified his Atheistic stance.

I have nothing but a shaking head at quoting some passage from The Bible as be-all-end-all proof (post #97).

*Insert GOTG WHO? meme here*