Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig

Link. He writes:
Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder....

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
I have to admit Dawkins has class. He continually turns the tables on believers. Listen, we would refuse to debate a Holocaust denier, a spokesperson for the KKK, or a militant Muslim. Why would we? Doing so legitimizes their position. He refuses to debate an apologist for genocide even though Craig speaks for the majority of evangelicals in America. It appears that Dawkins doesn't care that Craig's view is a majority view. It's just not right for him to legitimize such an absurd position, and I can admire that.