Posted: Dec 11, 2011 8:20 pm
Shrunk wrote:However, it seems that by Craig's own example that was not the correct response on my part. Rather, Craig seems to see such a refusal as an act of cowardice, and that[b] anyone [/b]who refuses an invitation to a debate should be publicly hounded and shamed, even for years, until they relent and agree to the debate.
Emp mine. Anyone?
This is a keystone idea in your post, though Craig does not say this at all. Nowhere will you find this, or anything like it, within his writings or statements.
There's a lot of pressure on Dawkins to debate Craig. The motivating sentiment behind this pressure is this: People want to see Dawkins put his money where his mouth is by debating one of Christianity's most skilled debaters, Craig. If Dawkins avoids engagement with Christianity's finest, and instead blithely parades the "delusion" of Christians on an international basis, then I would call that intellectual cowardice. If Christianity is so intellectually bankrupt, then he needs to tackle our best to show it.
Now consider your scenario: You are calling on Craig. Yet, Craig rountinely debates far better atheologicans than any common poster here. Indeed, he publicly debates intellectual atheism on an international basis. He also debates them within the scholarly journals. Understanding this, where's the shame of him not debating the likes of this forum? Where's the cowardice? It's hilarious to think that he's being cowardly despite the fact that he rountinely faces bigger challenges.
Comedy.