Difference between revisions of "Atheism and cowardice"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New Atheism and hypocritical cowardice)
(New Atheism and hypocritical cowardice)
Line 107: Line 107:
  
 
Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all?
 
Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all?
The answers to all of the above are: "No." Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on Christian principles and conveniently launched condemnations which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-4-4 Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4 - Is The New Atheist Movement Dead?]</ref>}}
+
The answers to all of the above are: "No." Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on [[Christianity|Christian]] principles and conveniently launched condemnations which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).<ref>[http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-4-4 Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4 - Is The New Atheist Movement Dead?]</ref>}}
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 19:58, 18 November 2011

The cowardice associated with atheism has become so obvious that it is making newspaper headlines.[1] [2] For example, on May of 2011, the UK's The Daily Telegraph alluded to the cowardice of atheist Richard Dawkins.[3][4]

Richard Dawkins

See also: Richard Dawkins and Atheism and Debate and Evidence for Christianity

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a news story entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.[5] In The Daily Telegraph article Dr. Daniel Came, a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[6] In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.[7] In addition, Christian apologist Mariano Grinbank called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.[8]

Shmuley Boteach

(see license agreement)

Below are some resources relating to Dawkins refusal to debate various debate opponents:

In addition, respected biochemist and intelligent design researcher Dr Michael Behe has openly challenged prominent evolutionists and proponents of Darwinism to debate him regarding the many failings of evolutionism, yet Richard Dawkins - one of the most outspoken Darwinists today - has declined all such invitations. Dawkins has also refused to debate prominent creationist and evangelist Ray Comfort.

2010 Global Atheist Convention

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.[9] Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.[10] Generally speaking, creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.

PZ Myers also refuses to debate Vox Day on the existence of God or concerning evolution [11]

British Humanist Association

Sam Harris once described William Lane Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.[12]

(photo obtained from Wikimedia commons, see license agreement)

See also: Atheism and Debate and Evidence for Christianity

In August 19, 2011, Fox News reported:

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."[13]

On August 19, 2011, the leading British Anglican weekly newspaper the Church Times wrote:

The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him.

“Rather than hurling ad hom­inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[14]

PZ Myers refusal to debate Vox Day

See also: Atheism and Debate

PZ Myers

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

On September 4, 2011, Christian apologist Vox Day wrote concerning the evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers:

I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They'll run away with alacrity.[15]

On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers:

What you clearly do not understand is that, by his own admission, PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.[16]

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates

See also: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and Debate and Evidence for Christianity

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[17] In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[18]

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and the abundant evidence for biblical creation, this is not surprising. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[19][20] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[20] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[20]

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the debates.[21] In addition, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."[22]
Richard Dawkins
The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists.

(photo by Shane Pope, Title: Richard Dawkins, obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)

In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute declares:

Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.[23]

In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:

During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.

Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.[24]

New Atheism and hypocritical cowardice

Christopher Hitchens is one of the founders of the New Atheism movement.

New Atheism is a form of militant atheism. In 2010, Christian apologist Mariano Grinbank wrote:

The New Atheists have expressed that the proverbial straw-that-broke-the-Atheist-camel's-back was the group of attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001 AD. That is not to say that some of them were not Atheist activists before then, but 9/11 fanned the flames of their activism.

The attacks on 9/11 where primarily caused by Islamic extremism (with a long list of other causes such as maintenance or gaining of power, wealth, popularity, etc.). The question is: what have the New Atheists done in response to this particular event, this particular threat? Surely, they would focus their efforts primarily, if not exclusively, upon confronting this threat, this cause, head on.

Yet, what have the New Atheists done? What they have and have not done makes one wonder if their appeal to 9/11 is a reason or an excuse. After all, why 9/11? Are they not aware of similar atrocities throughout history? Are they not aware of the recent chronicles of the most secular century in human history also being the bloodiest-with millions upon millions being murdered not only during war, but also by their own regimes? (see here).

Have any of the New Atheists toured Islamic countries giving lectures in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all? The answers to all of the above are: "No." Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on Christian principles and conveniently launched condemnations which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).[25]

See also

Other atheism articles:


Essays:


Comedy and satire concerning atheism:

External links

References

  1. Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers
  2. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God
  3. Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers
  4. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God
  5. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011
  6. Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011
  7. Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig - October 21, 2011 - The Daily Telegraph
  8. Richard Dawkins, the Cowardly Clown
  9. http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown
  10. http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/richard-dawkins-cowardly-clown
  11. Speaking of Assiduous Absconders
  12. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates
  13. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates
  14. http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=116718
  15. Running, running by Vox Day
  16. Can one dodge a dodger?
  17. http://www.discovery.org/a/2732
  18. Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
  19. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Fraser, Bill,Who wins the Debates?
  20. http://www.icr.org/article/811/
  21. http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate
  22. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html
  23. http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/credebec.htm
  24. Atheism - The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 4 of 4 - Is The New Atheist Movement Dead?