• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dawkins' Profile

tosca1 said:
My feelings over this man is mixed with pity, and anger, and awe.
Click to expand...

Since you've now started multiple threads about one man - you actually appear to be more frightened than anything.

Are you scared he's starting to make sense to you?

Does he make you question your own beliefs?

There's been very little mention of him around here until you started to bring him up rather consistently.

So few, around here at least, have really given him much attention. You have changed that.

I'm not sure it's going like you'd planned it would either. :lol:
 
Amadeus said:
No, it's not. Your original video is intentionally edited to make that Dawkins appear mean-spirited, whereas his actual intent was to challenge absurd concepts (which I mentioned).
Click to expand...

Well, that's your view. Mine is different. Of course he's forced to tone-down given the purpose/goal of said Reason Rally - to change negative stereotypes about atheists. But the message is still there for his followers. And it's not just the concepts....it's also the believers that he'd urged to be mocked and ridiculed.

Furthermore, there are other evidences why I would stick to my assessment of Dawkins....if you'll bear with me and follow the rest of this thread.
As shown from my point regarding Wendy Wright's "interview," :roll:.....Dawkins have a hard time being honest to say the least, in my view.


Interview: Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith
by Barbara J King
March 26, 2012

In my original post, I questioned whether Dawkins was the best choice to be headline speaker at the March 24 Reason Rally in Washington, given that one of its goals was to change negative stereotypes about atheists.
In insisting that he does not insult people who believe in God, only their beliefs, Dawkins tries for a distinction I find problematic.

On his blog last year, Dawkins called a person named Minor Vidal a "fool" for his expression of thanks to God after surviving a deadly plane crash. (To be fair, Dawkins called "billions" of other people fools, too, in the same post.)

Another example comes from Saturday's rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to "mock" and "ridicule" that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it's best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were "Mock them. Ridicule them." So by "them" did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn't seem so to me.
How much does that distinction matter? When it comes to religion, does demeaning a person's belief not also demean the person?
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/...s-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith

That site has the audio interview.
 
I'm not really interested in your interpretation of Dawkins, since you've already shown yourself to be dishonest. Otherwise you would have apologized by now, rather than try to reinforce what you previously presented.

Perhaps you should re-read the 10 Commandments. There's something in there about bearing false witness that might interest you.
 
Dragonfly said:
Since you've now started multiple threads about one man - you actually appear to be more frightened than anything.
Are you scared he's starting to make sense to you? Does he make you question your own beliefs?
There's been very little mention of him around here until you started to bring him up rather consistently.
So few, around here at least, have really given him much attention. You have changed that.
I'm not sure it's going like you'd planned it would either. :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking the same thing about Dawkins. :lol:
Thus I've said in my OP, that I feel pity for this man.

Here is a man who obviously enjoys the limelight and celebrity-status he's garnered from his militant stance against God - not to mention the financial gains by his books and speaking engagements. But by his own admission, it's obvious that deep inside, he's become an agnostic.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
Click to expand...
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph

If he is to remain credible to his atheist followers - he has to remain an atheist.

Yet he seems to be torn by his leaning towards agnosticism. He has a big battle raging inside him, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins recants someday and become another Anthony Flew....or maybe even become a Christian. His viciousness is mostly centered on Christianity - therefore, if he's ever to be converted to any religion...it will be most likely to Christianity.
 
tosca1 said:
If he is to remain credible to his atheist followers - he has to remain an atheist.

Yet he seems to be torn by his leaning towards agnosticism. He has a big battle raging inside him, I think. I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins recants someday and become another Anthony Flew....or maybe even become a Christian. His viciousness is mostly centered on Christianity - therefore, if he's ever to be converted to any religion...it will be most likely to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Dawkins doesn't have followers in the religious sense. He has people who respect his opinion, because he's earned it.
 
Amadeus said:
So what is your point? That Dawkins is selective in his debates? That he should debate everyone who challenges him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Click to expand...

He contradicts himself! He says he doesn't want to debate with creationists - and who does he debate with??? Bishops and other creationists!

Then he asked her: "Where did you study science?" Is he kidding? :mrgreen:
 
Amadeus said:
I'm not really interested in your interpretation of Dawkins, since you've already shown yourself to be dishonest. Otherwise you would have apologized by now, rather than try to reinforce what you previously presented.

Perhaps you should re-read the 10 Commandments. There's something in there about bearing false witness that might interest you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not really interested with your assessment either. My assessment of Dawkins isn't only grounded in that first video in the OP.
And no, I'm not bearing false witness since I'm giving my evidences to prove my point.
 
Amadeus said:
Dawkins got flustered because he was trying to reason with someone who was immune to evidence.
Click to expand...

I think he got flustered because he didn't bank on Wendy Wright to be aggressive.
 
tosca1 said:
Well, I'm not really interested with your assessment either. My assessment of Dawkins isn't only grounded in that first video in the OP.
And no, I'm not bearing false witness since I'm giving my evidences to prove my point.
Click to expand...

You did bear false witness. Posting evidence to support the original sin does not negate the sin itself.
 
Amadeus said:
Hitchens is not Dawkins. This thread is about Dawkins.
Click to expand...

They adhere and promote the same thing. I'm showing the influence of these prominent figures.
 
tosca1 said:
I think he got flustered because he didn't bank on Wendy Wright to be aggressive.
Click to expand...

Debates aren't measured by who gets flustered, but rather by who has the best argument. Do you agree with Wendy's argument?
 
tosca1 said:
They adhere and promote the same thing. I'm showing the influence of these prominent figures.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Hitchens was an aggressive anti-theist, who broke theistic arguments over his knee through sheer intellect and wit. Dawkins is a different animal entirely.
 
Amadeus said:
You did bear false witness. Posting evidence to support the original sin does not negate the sin itself.
Click to expand...

So okay, I'm a sinner. Big-time sinner. Happy now?
 
Tosca1,

I'm not sure where you're getting all this "celebrity and limelight" stuff from.

Dawkins rarely gets mentioned - unless it's from you.

You're giving him more spotlight than anyone else around this forum recently.

And outside of "religious debate" threads on internet forums I NEVER hear his name mentioned anywhere.

He's far less a "celebrity" than the Westboro Baptists....
 
tosca1 said:
So okay, I'm a sinner. Big-time sinner. Happy now?
Click to expand...

I'm not judging you. As long as you don't attempt to compound your mistake, I have no quarrel with you.
 
tosca1 said:
I'm showing the influence of these prominent figures.
Click to expand...

Influence? On who?

People who don't believe in god don't need influence from Dawkins to be non-believers.
I'm sure many non-believers have never heard of him.

Far stronger influences of non-belief can come directly from believers.
 
So this video asks: Is Dawkins a fraud?





And yet, Dawkins was very willing to debate with Kirk Cameron.
 
Dragonfly said:
Influence? On who?

People who don't believe in god don't need influence from Dawkins to be non-believers.
I'm sure many non-believers have never heard of him.

Far stronger influences of non-belief can come directly from believers.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the militant stance they promote. To seek to ridicule and mock.
 
tosca1 said:
And yet, Dawkins was very willing to debate with Kirk Cameron.
Click to expand...

Who didn't show up for the debate, after having challenged Dawkins. Funny how that works out.
 
Amadeus said:
Who didn't show up for the debate, after having challenged Dawkins. Funny how that works out.
Click to expand...

I know. Just like Dawkins with Craig.

But isn't that funny? He's willing to tackle Kirk Cameron and yet even when people from all sides - religious and secular - were clamoring to see him face Craig, he's got unbelieveable tons of excuses. Unless of course, Dawkins thinks he's not a "heavy weight" enough for the likes of William lane Craig. He is scared of Craig.

What's so utterly ridiculous about Dawkins' is the way he belittles William Lane Craig as an excuse to avoid having to engage him.

Dawkins does not make any sense at all - whether by his comment or by his behaviour!
 
tosca1 said:
I'm talking about the militant stance they promote. To seek to ridicule and mock.
Click to expand...

It's only militant because it opposes what you believe. Would you have a problem with him if he were specifically calling for the mocking or dismissal of Satanists that were trying to interject their far out beliefs in to public discourse? Would you have a problem with him mocking someone that tried to say unicorns created humans 6,000 years ago?
 
tosca1 said:
I'm talking about the militant stance they promote. To seek to ridicule and mock.
Click to expand...

And I'm suggesting to you that their "influence" (your word) is far FAR less influential than you seem to think.

I'm saying you're blowing their ability to influence people way out of proportion.

I'm also saying people like you are doing a far better job of promoting their message than they'd otherwise be doing on their own. Irony. Ain't it great? :lol:
 
tosca1 said:
I know. Just like Dawkins with Craig.

But isn't that funny? He's willing to tackle Kirk Cameron and yet even when people from all sides - religious and secular - were clamoring to see him face Craig, he's got unbelieveable tons of excuses. Unless of course, Dawkins thinks he's not a "heavy weight" enough for the likes of William lane Craig. He is scared of Craig.

What's so utterly ridiculous about Dawkins' is the way he belittles William Lane Craig as an excuse to avoid having to engage him.

Dawkins does not make any sense at all - whether by his comment or by his behaviour!
Click to expand...

Would you have a problem with Dawkins refusing to debate with a child?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom