An administrator from Conservapedia who goes by the username Conservative has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate on the following topics, in the following terms as posted on the following topics...
I think that the only thing to be said is that this speaks for itself…
No this little clip does not get to the substance, the meat, of the debate with James White (of Alpha and Omega Ministries) but it is just quite the oddity especially considering that Dan Barker has engaged in hundreds of debates.
One issue that comes up in the second video is that the Jehovah’s Witness claims that the Bible does not state that Jesus raised Himself up from the dead.
According to the Bible God, the Triune God, each member of the Trinity, raised Jesus:
John 2:19-21 "'destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.' Then the Jews said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of His body."
Interesting question, as Richard Dawkins has stated, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Yet, he has stated the following of David Berlinski:
For a supposed expert Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman does not seem to understand how to handle the contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible. This may be why he is known as a very good textual critic specifically but is equally known as a poor representative of Judeo-Christian theology and a chronic mishandler of the text.
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 (even though he is so very, very wrong at least the same cannot be said of Christopher Hitchens).
One issue that is discussed in the debate is Ken Humphreys’ claim that Christianity is fraught with fraud from beginning to end. He proposes his beginning point to be the claimed letter to have been fraudulently written in the Apostle Paul’s name.
If given the slightest opportunity he most certainly will yet…opportunity is being withheld via Richard Dawkins’ self-serving selection of refusing to debate certain personages.
As for William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins has stated, “I've never heard of William Craig” and that he will not debate this stranger as “A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!” He has further “elucidated”
Following is an interesting trailer from the 2009 AD debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig.
Christopher Hitchens asks whether the debate would be a David vs. Goliath situation and he states that it will be a Goliath vs. Goliath. Quite true: a Goliath of substance vs. a Goliath of empty emotive rhetoric (as an aside; you may want to read A Lie About Goliath?).