Yes i was dumbfounded and shocked this morning when i was browsing to find that Richard Dawkings - Author The God Delusion could not face William Lane Craig for debate and to which a LADY Polly Toynbee has chosen to take the bull by the horn to face William. . . that is this October 2011. I trust Yahweh to be there at least.

So could Mr. richard dawkings be seeing some 'delusion' afterall hence his running away?

http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/polly-toynbee-steps-in-where-grayling-dawkins-fear-to-tread.htm

Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins [/b]and A.C. Grayling have [b]both flatly refused to debate with Craig, [/b]who was recently described by Sam Harris as [b]“the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”.

Since Dawkins and Grayling have both made significant sums from their books about God, (aka The God delusion) [b]their refusal to defend their writings in public debate is extraordinary. [/b]Is it not reasonable to ask them both to publicly put their mouths where their money is?

Ask them oh!!?

put ur interlect where ur mouth is!

sir_enoch:

put your interlect where your mouth is!

Yo! ok then but richy-god delu$ion $hould have been man enough to face willy lane 4 once @ least thereby putting his mouth where he got the dollar$ by the god-delu$ion book project. . .thu$ defending it ok.

It seems like ju$t as in 'christianity' we have dupe$ so also among the athei$t there are also con that wont want to stand up to defend their belief/idea$[guess u wont accept dat]. and sir enok by that am not refering to u tho but ur chubby god-delusion promoter

^^^^

Lol!

hi vedacool



Richy DAWNkins has received the dawn that is Y he is $hying away from defending his booty$ before a 'poo' willy [i guess]. Well am taking time to get videos on u tube and study as well on the athiest vs christian debates it seems there is quite many. . .

^^^ One interesting series of debates is that involving Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (and sometimes others) which partly contributed ultimately to Antony Flew renouncing atheism. Antony Flew (in vogue on Nairaland at the moment) had for a long time been a champion for atheists; till date many evangelical atheists in particular still parrot Flew's arguments even though Flew himself later accepted the superiority of the arguments for the existence of God.

Enigma:

^^^ One interesting series of debates is that involving Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (and sometimes others) which partly contributed ultimately to Antony Flew renouncing atheism. Antony Flew (in vogue on Nairaland at the moment) had for a long time been a champion for atheists; till date many evangelical atheists in particular still parrot Flew's arguments even though Flew himself later accepted the superiority of the arguments for the existence of God.

hmm! thanks enigma, no wonder i see why quite a lot of Christians that understands (by the grace of Yahweh) the emptiness of atheism no longer waste their time debating with them (atheist) because they are leaning on straw man reasons/views of atheism.

But overall, may Yahshua's love and peace be upon all that believe and may their (atheist) eyes be opened to see the fallacies of their belief called atheism.

^^^^^^
Richar Dawkins has been involved in debates about religion for ages, the fact that he decided to ignore this particular debate doesn't mean he is a "chicken" or anything of that nature, it simply means that he doesn't want to get involved in this particular debate. It beggars belief how that is so hard to understand for some people . Anyone with an elementary understanding of the past debates of Richard Dawkins will know that this is the last person that will "chicken" out of debates, and any suggestion by anyone to the contrary is downright farcical.

You say that "may Yahshua's love and peace be upon all that believe and may their (atheist) eyes be opened to see the fallacies of their belief called atheism", the fact of the matter is that it is the eyes of the religious goons like yourself that have been closed by an irrational belief in illogical belief systems. Atheists simply ask for rational evidence about a belief system, is that so much to ask?!

@ unphilaz

Here is one video --- this one not really a "debate" as such but of attempts to get Flew to clarify his deism following his renunciation of atheism.

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53REH5etIxU[/flash]

unphilaz:

hmm! thanks enigma, no wonder i see why quite a lot of Christians that understands (by the grace of Yahweh) the emptiness of atheism no longer waste their time debating with them (atheist) because they are leaning on straw man reasons/views of atheism.

But overall, may Yahshua's love and peace be upon all that believe and may their (atheist) eyes be opened to see the fallacies of their belief called atheism.

One guy had their measure (especially of the evangelical atheists) in the post below

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes,  Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

@unphilaz

unphilaz:

Yes i was dumbfounded and shocked this morning when i was browsing to find that Richard Dawkings - Author The God Delusion could not face William Lane Craig for debate and to which a LADY Polly Toynbee has chosen to take the bull by the horn to face William. . . that is this October 2011.

This is a sexist remark.  Not only did you condescendingly mention that Polly Toynbee is a lady, you also had to capitalize it.  Is this what Jesus taught you?

Besides, Richard Dawkings has been debating the existence of God since god-knows-when.  His decision to opt out of this one shouldn't be giving you premature ejaculations.

Enigma:

^^^ One interesting series of debates is that involving Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (and sometimes others) which partly contributed ultimately to Antony Flew renouncing atheism. Antony Flew (in vogue on Nairaland at the moment) had for a long time been a champion for atheists; till date many evangelical atheists in particular still parrot Flew's arguments even though[b] Flew himself later accepted the superiority of the arguments for the existence of God. [/b]

Which God exactly did Flew accept his existence? What is his name and what are his attributes? Is it Allah, Yahweh, Zeus or Ogun? Don't come around saying he believed in God because there are many different Gods that different people believe in, and the word God means different things to different people . There is no universally accepted God concept and there is NO universal God. Allah is NOT Yahweh and Yahweh is NOT Zeus. . . .So which God exactly did Flew believe in? And what are the superior arguments?. . . .

Last time I checked all Gods were man made and Flew just proved that point, he refused to accept the Gods created my the ancient men whose attributes do not agree with his world view. He went ahead and created a God in his own mind that accepted and agrees with his world view. Flew's God does not have a hell or heaven, he does not interact in human affairs, Flew's God is genderless who just created and left and has nothing to do with his creation.

You see, so easy to create a new God, if flew had given the God idea a name, assign a gender to it and tries he can convince others to believe in it and help him propagate this idea he made out of thin air, so many people will accept this God of his and will later begin to propagate it to others based on their own made up stories, cultural acceptance, mythical traditions and ignorance. . . .That's how all the Gods that men worshiped in the past and those they still worship at present were created. All the Gods were all created based on ignorance and fear of the many and the cleverness of a few. . . . .

whatever, listen to what one of ya said. . .

Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have both flatly refused  to debate with Craig, who was recently described by Sam Harris as “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”.

whatever, however u might use words to extrapolate the nonsense that athiesm represent the bottom line is 4 all i care is that he richy opted out. . . or is it that steam has finished for him to weld anymore delusion of his?

unphilaz:

whatever, listen to what one of ya said. . .

Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have both flatly refused  to debate with Craig, who was recently described by Sam Harris as “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”.

whatever, however u might use words to extrapolate the nonsense that athiesm represent the bottom line is 4 all i care is that he richy opted out. . . or is it that steam has finished for him to weld anymore delusion of his?

He has debated so many theist in the past, he has also debated a panel that consist of William Craig in the past. At least Anthony Flew just proved atheism right didn't he? He created a God right before our very eyes didn't he?. . . .A God that agrees with his thoughts and beliefs about the world,no?. . . .

mazaje:

He has debated so many theist in the past, he has also debated a panel that consist of William Craig in the past. At least Anthony Flew just proved atheism right didn't he? He created a God right before our very eyes didn't he?. . . .A God that agrees with his thoughts and beliefs about the world,no?. . . .

ok that is nice to know cos i watched it but why not one on one? just as anthony flew did and created his idol b4 your eyes. no!

ok am note the one that is saying scared [/b]or sam harris alone check this

[b]An Oxford University Philosopher and atheist [/b]has written an open letter suggesting that [b]Richard Dawkins might be running scared for refusing to debate Dr. William Lane Craig, [/b]arguably the greatest Christian apologist and debater of our time.

Dawkins has consistently refused to debate Craig even though Craig has debated just about every atheist debater out there. Why when Dawkins will debate lesser men without any hesitation does he continue to avoid Craig? It certainly looks as if he is trying to dodge a debate!

In his letter Dr Daniel Came from Worcester College writes,

“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course [b]apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

http://www.afaithtoliveby.com/2011/05/15/why-one-oxford-univ-atheist-suggests-dawkins-is-a-coward/

oh pls mzj could you kindly invite him by 'petitioning' him to defend his 'delusion' at least to make 'po.o' of willy

I don't know A. C. Grayling's reasons for not wanting to debate, but, if I remember correctly, Dawkins doesn't do debates anymore. There's a reason he hasn't done one for years. As far as I know, he declared himself out of debating theists even before Craig's current clarion call for a head to head debate. If anyone knows better, I'm open to being corrected.

I’ll start out by informing the initiator of this discussion thread that the president of the British Humanist Association Polly Toynbee has pulled out of an agreed debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in October claiming as her reason that she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane’s debating style.”

It will be useful to provide a little bit of backdrop to this story.

First of all, I’ll encourage you to disregard the duplicitous pretensions by Mr Dawkins in this matter. I’ll get to it later. Let’s just state that for brevity’s sake, Dawkins’ staunch and inflexible refusal to debate Mr. Lane Craig, a formidable apologist for Christian Theism, has lately begun to sit uncomfortably with his fellow university professors and other eminent personalities in the skeptical movement. When a lot of hullaballoo was made about his seeming cowardice on the matter, even as he continues to reap handsome profits from the sale of a God-bashing book, Miss Toynbee decided to toss her hat in the ring to protect as it were, the ‘reputation’ of atheism or secular humanism from charges of being intellectually incapable of defending their beliefs and convictions.

So, she signed up to debate Craig when he visits the UK this fall as he challenges the fallacious fulminations in “The God Delusion” and defends Christian Theism against the now-fashionable assault by many of today’s New Atheists. There had to be a reason why Dawkins was running scared of Craig, but of course at the time, it will be fair to say that poor Miss Polly Toynbee was not cognizant of this. So you’ll have to admire her guts or bravery for offering to take on Mr. Craig. But upon closer inspection, it quickly begins to look like that all-too-familiar arrogance and hubris that unfortunately affects a lot of these New Atheists. Who on earth could Mr Craig be anyway that one ought to think twice about a debate with him? What preposterous and laughter-worthy points is some so-called philosopher from America going to raise to successfully attack atheism or skepticism anyway? Why bother to do any research on this chap? It is not likely that he would be on the same intellectual footing as we fashionable God-abolishers with his mumbo jumbo about the existence of God, so why are some respectable academics in the atheism and skeptical movements apprehensive of a debate with the fellow? So with nary a thought, and of course brimming with her cocky self-assurance, she offered to debate Mr. Craig without as much as knowing anything about the man.

In hindsight, it is rather hilarious that the woman chickened out of the debate afterwards. In all honesty, I cannot blame her much. My guess is that not too long after she cavalierly threw her hat in the ring, her handlers apprised her of the formidable nature of her opposition. Now, I am not going to suggest that she was painted a flattering picture of William Lane Craig, but whatever she was told, she was made to understand in unmistakable terms what heavy intellectual and perhaps political toll would be her portion from a widely publicized debate in which her highfalutin secular humanism or atheism was intellectually, imperiously and conclusively dealt a devastating blow. The fact is that for all the bluster, or the haughty pretension to a superior knowledge on the God-question, many of these militant evangelistic atheists and secular humanists are shockingly and I daresay disturbingly under-informed on exactly what they are supposed to be against. She can thank her lucky stars that she got out of a very severe public embarrassment.

Now, concerning Richard Dawkins, I wish to make it absolutely plain that I think he deserves respect in the field of evolutionary biology. That’s his area of expertise. The man has a gift for metaphor and for explaining evolutionary concepts in very beautiful almost poetic language. Whenever he is speaking on the issue of evolution (that narrow field in which he specializes), one may be well-served to listen to him and take his words seriously as they represent perhaps the most current understanding of evolution we have today. I make this caveat here first of all, to assure you that I do not harbor some visceral distaste for the chief apostle of atheism.

So what happens when an evolutionary biologist leaves his narrow area of discipline, and then dabbles into Philosophy or Theology by writing a best-seller bashing God? Should he be given the same deference as he might be given when he is speaking on evolution? Should his words be swallowed whole and entire by a majority of the uncritical self-styled New Atheists seeing as this man was pronouncing entirely on a subject that he has at best, a rudimentary understanding? One doesn’t even need to be a theist to see that the answer is a vigorous negative.

This is why some Christian and Skeptical groups have on their own privately sought to sponsor and organize a debate where Richard Dawkins expostulations in his book will be robustly challenged thoughtfully and intellectually. It makes sense, doesn’t it? For example, if some economist, with little or no training in Biology decides to write a strongly worded book vehemently criticizing evolution, it is normal to expect proponents of the evolutionary theory to challenge that economist’s understanding of evolution.  Notice here that I am not saying that Richard Dawkins, or the economist in this case, have no right to write a book on any subject or academic discipline they fancy. But if they want to be taken very seriously, they should be very open to a mature and robust challenge of their understanding on the matter. This is where William Lane Craig steps into the picture.

We have seen that Richard Dawkins apparently has no scruples about debating persons of religious faith. His duplicitous claims of not debating creationists is belied by the fact that he has on different occasions debated people who are not rigidly wedded to his Evolution by Natural Selection like Alister McGrath, or people who might be in favor of Intelligent Design (spitefully dubbed creationism by the willfully ignorant) like John Lennox or indeed people who are creationists! We have seen that Dawkins is happy to join issues with lay clergy, and ordinary believers and theists. So let us dispatch this lie at once. When he was caught flat-footed with that lie, he is famously known to have said that he would love debates but only with someone like the Pope, a cardinal, an archbishop or some other visibly high representative for Theism. All these pronouncements sadly seem to be devoid of any real commitment. Why then is he afraid of debating someone who is reputed to be the best or rather the strongest mouthpiece for the opposition? Why is he running scared of Craig?

I suspect that the simple reason is because Richard Dawkins knows too well what a debate of that nature may do to him and his influence with this rapidly expanding quasi-religious New Atheism. As one of the four horsemen for Atheism in these times he has an image and a reputation to protect. By the way, the arguments that these New Atheists offer are neither different from that of atheists of the past century nor are they any more sophisticated. Richard Dawkins has seen clips of Craig where the unscientific and sometimes patently illogical and irrational presuppositions of latter-day New Atheists were graciously laid bare. For now, Richard Dawkins maintains that he is too busy to debate Craig—even as he runs to the bank with the handsome profit that a sophomoric treatment of the God Hypothesis has earned him. LOL, let’s not begrudge the man the fruit of his labors okay? As things stand now, it  appears that none of the shrill and highly regarded mouthpieces of the UK atheist and humanist community is willing to stand up and be counted. Of course, it’s always easier and fashionable for belligerent New Atheists to cajole and to mock on various web fora and in YouTube videos’ comments section. I suppose when Craig is done and gone, they’ll emerge to attack and discredit whatever he might have said. Nonetheless, I can’t help wondering how the rest of the high church of ‘internet atheism’ feel about this sort of spinelessness from their much adored high priests.

Truly, far from being dead or a delusion, the God-issue is alive and well in the US, the UK and many other parts of the world. Unbelief it would appear is not really anchored upon the realization that there is no God; rather it seems to be a willful and concerted refusal to accept one higher than oneself to which one must give account. It seems to me that this New Atheism isn’t so much as a result of a genuine failure to see glaring evidence that calls for a creator; it seems to be anchored on a desire to rid one of moral accountability to some moral law-giver; a petulant fist-shaking at a God who as it were, failed to prevent some personal calamity from befalling one.

Conclusively, I wish to point out with very earnest tones that the truth or the falsity of beliefs and worldviews are not decided by the outcome of a debate. Inasmuch as there is no doubt in my mind that a debate with Craig will expose the laughable superficiality and the gross misrepresentations in Dawkins’ best-seller, I would not take that to mean then that the existence of God for example, has been conclusively proven or established. Likewise, if Richard Dawkins were to somehow demolish Craig’s argument in that debate, it wouldn’t also mean then that the existence of God has been refuted. It will simply mean that one side has succeeded over the other in making a compelling case for their worldview. Nevertheless, it still falls on you to honestly and sincerely weigh the evidence and choose in the teeth of mankind’s incomplete knowledge of himself, his surroundings and the universe on a grand scale.

1Godfather:

I’ll start out by informing the initiator of this discussion thread that the president of the British Humanist Association Polly Toynbee has pulled out of an agreed debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in October claiming as her reason that she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane’s debating style.”

It will be useful to provide a little bit of backdrop to this story.

First of all, I’ll encourage you to disregard the duplicitous pretensions by Mr Dawkins in this matter. I’ll get to it later. Let’s just state that for brevity’s sake, Dawkins’ staunch and inflexible refusal to debate Mr. Lane Craig, a formidable apologist for Christian Theism, has lately begun to sit uncomfortably with his fellow university professors and other eminent personalities in the skeptical movement. When a lot of hullaballoo was made about his seeming cowardice on the matter, even as he continues to reap handsome profits from the sale of a God-bashing book, Miss Toynbee decided to toss her hat in the ring to protect as it were, the ‘reputation’ of atheism or secular humanism from charges of being intellectually incapable of defending their beliefs and convictions.

So, she signed up to debate Craig when he visits the UK this fall as he challenges the fallacious fulminations in “The God Delusion” and defends Christian Theism against the now-fashionable assault by many of today’s New Atheists. There had to be a reason why Dawkins was running scared of Craig, but of course at the time, it will be fair to say that poor Miss Polly Toynbee was not cognizant of this. So you’ll have to admire her guts or bravery for offering to take on Mr. Craig. But upon closer inspection, it quickly begins to look like that all-too-familiar arrogance and hubris that unfortunately affects a lot of these New Atheists. Who on earth could Mr Craig be anyway that one ought to think twice about a debate with him? What preposterous and laughter-worthy points is some so-called philosopher from America going to raise to successfully attack atheism or skepticism anyway? Why bother to do any research on this chap? It is not likely that he would be on the same intellectual footing as we fashionable God-abolishers with his mumbo jumbo about the existence of God, so why are some respectable academics in the atheism and skeptical movements apprehensive of a debate with the fellow? So with nary a thought, and of course brimming with her cocky self-assurance, she offered to debate Mr. Craig without as much as knowing anything about the man.

In hindsight, it is rather hilarious that the woman chickened out of the debate afterwards. In all honesty, I cannot blame her much. My guess is that not too long after she cavalierly threw her hat in the ring, her handlers apprised her of the formidable nature of her opposition. Now, I am not going to suggest that she was painted a flattering picture of William Lane Craig, but whatever she was told, she was made to understand in unmistakable terms what heavy intellectual and perhaps political toll would be her portion from a widely publicized debate in which her highfalutin secular humanism or atheism was intellectually, imperiously and conclusively dealt a devastating blow. The fact is that for all the bluster, or the haughty pretension to a superior knowledge on the God-question, many of these militant evangelistic atheists and secular humanists are shockingly and I daresay disturbingly under-informed on exactly what they are supposed to be against. She can thank her lucky stars that she got out of a very severe public embarrassment.

Now, concerning Richard Dawkins, I wish to make it absolutely plain that I think he deserves respect in the field of evolutionary biology. That’s his area of expertise. The man has a gift for metaphor and for explaining evolutionary concepts in very beautiful almost poetic language. Whenever he is speaking on the issue of evolution (that narrow field in which he specializes), one may be well-served to listen to him and take his words seriously as they represent perhaps the most current understanding of evolution we have today. I make this caveat here first of all, to assure you that I do not harbor some visceral distaste for the chief apostle of atheism.

So what happens when an evolutionary biologist leaves his narrow area of discipline, and then dabbles into Philosophy or Theology by writing a best-seller bashing God? Should he be given the same deference as he might be given when he is speaking on evolution? Should his words be swallowed whole and entire by a majority of the uncritical self-styled New Atheists seeing as this man was pronouncing entirely on a subject that he has at best, a rudimentary understanding? One doesn’t even need to be a theist to see that the answer is a vigorous negative.

This is why some Christian and Skeptical groups have on their own privately sought to sponsor and organize a debate where Richard Dawkins expostulations in his book will be robustly challenged thoughtfully and intellectually. It makes sense, doesn’t it? For example, if some economist, with little or no training in Biology decides to write a strongly worded book vehemently criticizing evolution, it is normal to expect proponents of the evolutionary theory to challenge that economist’s understanding of evolution.  Notice here that I am not saying that Richard Dawkins, or the economist in this case, have no right to write a book on any subject or academic discipline they fancy. But if they want to be taken very seriously, they should be very open to a mature and robust challenge of their understanding on the matter. This is where William Lane Craig steps into the picture.

We have seen that Richard Dawkins apparently has no scruples about debating persons of religious faith. His duplicitous claims of not debating creationists is belied by the fact that he has on different occasions debated people who are not rigidly wedded to his Evolution by Natural Selection like Alister McGrath, or people who might be in favor of Intelligent Design (spitefully dubbed creationism by the willfully ignorant) like John Lennox or indeed people who are creationists! We have seen that Dawkins is happy to join issues with lay clergy, and ordinary believers and theists. So let us dispatch this lie at once. When he was caught flat-footed with that lie, he is famously known to have said that he would love debates but only with someone like the Pope, a cardinal, an archbishop or some other visibly high representative for Theism. All these pronouncements sadly seem to be devoid of any real commitment. Why then is he afraid of debating someone who is reputed to be the best or rather the strongest mouthpiece for the opposition? Why is he running scared of Craig?

I suspect that the simple reason is because Richard Dawkins knows too well what a debate of that nature may do to him and his influence with this rapidly expanding quasi-religious New Atheism. As one of the four horsemen for Atheism in these times he has an image and a reputation to protect. By the way, the arguments that these New Atheists offer are neither different from that of atheists of the past century nor are they any more sophisticated. Richard Dawkins has seen clips of Craig where the unscientific and sometimes patently illogical and irrational presuppositions of latter-day New Atheists were graciously laid bare. For now, Richard Dawkins maintains that he is too busy to debate Craig—even as he runs to the bank with the handsome profit that a sophomoric treatment of the God Hypothesis has earned him. LOL, let’s not begrudge the man the fruit of his labors okay? As things stand now, it  appears that none of the shrill and highly regarded mouthpieces of the UK atheist and humanist community is willing to stand up and be counted. Of course, it’s always easier and fashionable for belligerent New Atheists to cajole and to mock on various web fora and in YouTube videos’ comments section. I suppose when Craig is done and gone, they’ll emerge to attack and discredit whatever he might have said. Nonetheless, I can’t help wondering how the rest of the high church of ‘internet atheism’ feel about this sort of spinelessness from their much adored high priests.

Truly, far from being dead or a delusion, the God-issue is alive and well in the US, the UK and many other parts of the world. Unbelief it would appear is not really anchored upon the realization that there is no God; rather it seems to be a willful and concerted refusal to accept one higher than oneself to which one must give account. It seems to me that this New Atheism isn’t so much as a result of a genuine failure to see glaring evidence that calls for a creator; it seems to be anchored on a desire to rid one of moral accountability to some moral law-giver; a petulant fist-shaking at a God who as it were, failed to prevent some personal calamity from befalling one.

Conclusively, I wish to point out with very earnest tones that the truth or the falsity of beliefs and worldviews are not decided by the outcome of a debate. Inasmuch as there is no doubt in my mind that a debate with Craig will expose the laughable superficiality and the gross misrepresentations in Dawkins’ best-seller, I would not take that to mean then that the existence of God for example, has been conclusively proven or established. Likewise, if Richard Dawkins were to somehow demolish Craig’s argument in that debate, it wouldn’t also mean then that the existence of God has been refuted. It will simply mean that one side has succeeded over the other in making a compelling case for their worldview. Nevertheless, it still falls on you to honestly and sincerely weigh the evidence and choose in the teeth of mankind’s incomplete knowledge of himself, his surroundings and the universe on a grand scale.

I really see no reason why Craig's supporters are so enthralled by what he says. The fact is that all the premises on which he bases his arguments have been shown not to actually demonstrate what he claims. If you disagree, you may bring them up for discussion. I for one can understand that the humanists are not interested in formally debating someone like him, many it seems are more interested in having a discussion with him. The problems as we see lies in the debate format. It has been shown that once he is interacting with someone who is also knowledgable in philosophy and argumentation, he more often than not, loses.
He on the other hand often shies away from discussions but prefers debates where he can simply run from a script so it is understandable that people are no longer interested in that.

As you have pointed out, the truth and falsity of beliefs aren't decided by debate, but by what actually works. This is the core of the problem with theology and its associated arguments. They simply do not rationally match what we have so far discovered. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the entire so called discipline of theology refers to an empty set though sometimes arbitrarily populated with some objects that are unqualified. Though I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

I think Craig would be better served by engaging in discussions rather than debates with people who do not share his views. There are lots of them out there.

Op how dare u put up such a topic to ridicule one of the 'gods of atheism'

Trust u'll get attacked by the atheism Evangelist here very soon.

BTW One of the atheists here can go there to defend the deluded fellow behind the book 'god delusion'