The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig is cowardly and hypocritical.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
sourcecom has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 232 times Debate No: 95322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Although Dawkins travels around the world, debating religious people of all stripes, he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. Dawkins claims, among other things, that Craig is simply trying to use Dawkins to add to his own reputation. There is no evidence for this view, as Craig has, for years if not decades, also been traveling around the world debating both atheists and theists. It is not unreasonable to infer that Dawkins is afraid of Craig, who is one of the most accomplished and effective debaters alive today.


Richard's Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig is obviously not cowardly and hypocritical. Craig is not a top debater and supper effective. Craig has lost debates to many atheist such as Lawrence Krauss. Dawkins has no reason to debate Craig, what does Dawkins have to prove? He is obviously a master debater and is much more effective than Craig.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sourcecom 1 month ago
I read this article just AGAIN just a few days ago again, and it is this article that confirms me in my view that Dawkins is a coward and a hypocrite. And probably a liar. He refused to debate Craig from the very beginning, and had different explanations at first. It was only after being badgered by friends and foes that he decided to write (create?) another, further, more elaborate explanation. Academics and other experts in the relevant fields are broadly suspicious of why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig.

Dawkins' goal in debating people is to expose faulty, horrible, dangerous ideas. But when it comes to monster which he implies that Craig is, he doesn't want anything to do with it -- even though Craig has a worldwide reputation, and there is no evidence that Craig would benefit by debating Dawkins -- contrary to what Dawkins says.

He will travel around the world debating people who holds beliefs he considers dangerous, destructive, ignorant, backwards. But he will not debate Craig??? And I suppose there is no chance that his refusal is the result of the fact, widely recognized, that Craig is one of the best debaters on the planet? I suppose that Dawkins could not possibly be afraid of having his clock cleaned by Craig?

The article you refer to is designed to bolster fans of Dawkins only, who will accept it without question. No such fan will admit or recognize that Dawkins, while being, apparently, a top notch zoologist, is sorely out of his depth when it comes to cosmology, logic, religious history, theology. His writings and talks on these and related subjects are widely condemned by professionals, and are considered embarrassing by many who know most about these things.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.