Freedomain Radio

I'd suggest that people first watch YouTube debates with Craig before deciding if another debate is worthwhile.

He has a debate on youtube with Hitchens. From the clip I watched, he looks like a great person to debate.

How can someone blame one person for two people not debating?  Given that both must agree to debate for it to take place...

Molyneux published some books

Craig published some books

I think the answer is clear.......

"We have one rule: Never unplug a mind once it's reached a certain age."- Mopheus from The Matrx

He has debated Sam Harris before.  I haven't seen it, but here's a link to part 1, for anyone intersted.

"Sorry, not sure I quite understand.  Was that comment in reference to the question about not debating Bill Craig which Stef answered on the Sunday Show?"

I mean the person who asked the "question".  Though it wasn't a question, so much as an accusation.

Which makes me wonder if the person wants the truth that might come from a debate.  Maybe so... or maybe they think philosophy is a pissing contest.

The demand that Stef debate William Lane Craig has nothing whatsoever to do with a search for the truth, the advancement of philosophy, or even the desire for a good debate. It had everything to do with guilt, self-attack, and insecurity -- and the desire to project it into the most moral target available. Which, for the author of that "request", was Stef, in that instance.

As an aside, I think it's entirely apropos that the attacker chose mister Craig as the hammer with which he tried to beat Stef over the head. If you know anything about Craig's "debate" style, and the odiousness of his interactions with atheists (see: the televised "debate" with Antony Flew, for example), then it should be pretty clear.

Wow, CapitalistDog. I'm changing my mind about this debate Craig talks like a politician. I haven't listen to Craig in like 2-3 years. I'm more keen now on how amatuerish his debating skills really are. Stefan would whup him.

And Rational Empiricist, my comment was meant (I change my mind now) to assert that the debate (and the after effects of the debate) would be like a philosophy pissing contest. They both have huge investments into their ways of thinking and they would be unlikely to change their minds about anything. It would be very similiar to the Jan Hetfield debate only much more visceral and hard headed.

GregG:

The demand that Stef debate William Lane Craig has nothing whatsoever to do with a search for the truth, the advancement of philosophy, or even the desire for a good debate. It had everything to do with guilt, self-attack, and insecurity -- and the desire to project it into the most moral target available. Which, for the author of that "request", was Stef, in that instance.

As an aside, I think it's entirely apropos that the attacker chose mister Craig as the hammer with which he tried to beat Stef over the head. If you know anything about Craig's "debate" style, and the odiousness of his interactions with atheists (see: the televised "debate" with Antony Flew, for example), then it should be pretty clear.