He has debated several prominent atheists in this way and, for example, Christopher Hitchens, found the experience frustrating.
Below is a link to a blog that has a summary of Craig's debates with video and audio links which you may find useful (or already be aware of).
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
Anyway best of luck.
(Though I have my doubts how anyone can sensibly philosophically argue for the existence of God(s. You either fall back on Gods) being immaterial entirely, in which case they might just as well not exist, or God(s) can have effects in the material world, in which case we can examine the scientific evidence. No factual claim for the power of divine intervention has ever been supported when subjected to scientific study. So it boils down to whether one is emotionally disposed to believe claims for divine existence. This, of course should be a personal choice and a basic human right for everyone, a much more important issue, in my view.
I currently lean towards thinking that atheists should not agree to debate Craig because of his habitual dishonesty.
But that's not very useful to you right now. So instead, I'll say that I attended his debate with Sam Harris live, and thought Harris did an excellent job. I recommend both watching the debate online, and reading Harris' comments on it:
We'll be there (4 of us in my family) & wearing our Atheist T-shirts (literally). I listened to the debate between WLC & Grayling re the problem of evil & personally I didn't think WLC was so great. His arguments included a very obvious appeal to authority. But having said that, the consensus, even amongst atheists, is that he is a formidable opponent - the triumph of style over substance, I think.
People who keep on saying don't debate craig because of his way of arguing theism is just obnoxious. The point of debate is to show who is more convincing, and if one had better arguments then one should crush craig's theism so people can think. Opting not to debate, to me if one has better argument is really like a kid closing his ear and sing lalalala at the top of his lungs.... Just silly ignorance.
I applaud you Stephen, i hope you can present your case better than other atheist debater so far.
Comments
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
For example:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-reasonable-people-should-not-debate.html
He has debated several prominent atheists in this way and, for example, Christopher Hitchens, found the experience frustrating.
Below is a link to a blog that has a summary of Craig's debates with video and audio links which you may find useful (or already be aware of).
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
Anyway best of luck.
(Though I have my doubts how anyone can sensibly philosophically argue for the existence of God(s. You either fall back on Gods) being immaterial entirely, in which case they might just as well not exist, or God(s) can have effects in the material world, in which case we can examine the scientific evidence. No factual claim for the power of divine intervention has ever been supported when subjected to scientific study. So it boils down to whether one is emotionally disposed to believe claims for divine existence. This, of course should be a personal choice and a basic human right for everyone, a much more important issue, in my view.
Anyway, best of luck!
But that's not very useful to you right now. So instead, I'll say that I attended his debate with Sam Harris live, and thought Harris did an excellent job. I recommend both watching the debate online, and reading Harris' comments on it:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-god-debate/
http://www.youtube.com/drcraigvideos
Opting not to debate, to me if one has better argument is really like a kid closing his ear and sing lalalala at the top of his lungs.... Just silly ignorance.
I applaud you Stephen, i hope you can present your case better than other atheist debater so far.