• 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:
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:
Click to expand...

You do know there is a difference between a debate and an interview or conversation that happens to be argumentative right? There is a tad of equivocation here to try to make your point (a tactic you employ quite frequently). When he says he will not debate a creationist, what is implied is accepting invitations to an organized formal debate, this is in no way contradictory to being argumentative in other settings.
 
Dragonfly said:
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....
Click to expand...

After the humiliating caricature he 'd made of himself from refusing to debate Craig, of course you'd hardly hear anyone trying to talk about him. Anyway, I'm not talking about that he is a Justin Beiber-like celebrity. :mrgreen:

But yes, he's got prominence in that specific arena about religion/atheism.
 
tosca1 said:
After the humiliating caricature he 'd made of himself from refusing to debate Craig, of course you'd hardly hear anyone trying to talk about him. Anyway, I'm not talking about that he is a Justin Beiber-like celebrity. :mrgreen:

But yes, he's got prominence in that specific arena about religion/atheism.
Click to expand...

I actually think better of him for not debating someone like Craig.
 
Speaking of the Westboro Baptist.....do you know that they got invited to that rally? But Rational Christian and William Lane Craig were rejected?




If it was supposed to be a rally for REASON, why would they invite Westboro?
 
marduc said:
You do know there is a difference between a debate and an interview or conversation that happens to be argumentative right? There is a tad of equivocation here to try to make your point (a tactic you employ quite frequently). When he says he will not debate a creationist, what is implied is accepting invitations to an organized formal debate, this is in no way contradictory to being argumentative in other settings.
Click to expand...

If he's willing enough to waste his time to "interview" and argue with a Creationist - why not at a formal debate? Then he turns around to debate with Kirk Cameron. And a bishop....

He talks nonsense with all this posturing that he eventually contradicts.
 
Dawkins is a fool and his ilk label what they do as "reason" as if others do not follow reason. Not all atheists are like this, but those like Dawkins are very much misguided and propped up by a dogmatic sense of self righteousness.
 
tosca1 said:
Speaking of the Westboro Baptist.....do you know that they got invited to that rally? But Rational Christian and William Lane Craig were rejected?




If it was supposed to be a rally for REASON, why would they invite Westboro?
Click to expand...


In the invite letter that's available online it appears as though they were invited in order for the WBC to be mocked.
 
digsbe said:
Dawkins is a fool and his ilk label what they do as "reason" as if others do not follow reason. Not all atheists are like this, but those like Dawkins are very much misguided and propped up by a dogmatic sense of self righteousness.
Click to expand...

Tosca is a fool and her ilk label what they do as "reason" as if others do not follow reason. Not all christians are like this, but those like Tosca are very much misguided and propped up by a dogmatic sense of self righteousness.

Fixed.
 
foound the following on Rational Wiki

Interview with Richard Dawkins

In 2009, Richard Dawkins interviewed Wendy Wright at her office at the Concerned Women for America for his documentary, The Genius of Charles Darwin. This is considered one of the most frustrating interviews Dawkins gave with evolution deniers - if not the most frustrating interview in the history of the origins debate. It is also an extremely frustrating interview to watch and causes paroxysms of rage and bewilderment in the viewer. Many misconceptions and outright lies were used by Wright to argue that evolution is wrong (e.g., suggesting that Haeckel's drawings are still in textbooks today, that there are no transitional forms, that evidence for evolution is nothing but hoaxes), even after Dawkins corrects her misconceptions or lies, repeatedly, she continues to churn out the same talking points about how there is no evidence. Another terrible thing about this interview is that Wright keeps accusing Dawkins of personal attacks while she is patronizing, not to mention she is, ironically, using a number of ad hominem attacks against Dawkins through the interview, which is exactly what she accuses him of. Another flaw is that she reasons that because Christian morality results in a better environment (as opposed to Darwinian society) it must somehow be true, even though Dawkins says (on several accounts) that he would not want to live in a Darwinian society because of ruthlessness of such a system. To compare the interview to arguing with a brick wall would possibly be the understatement of the century. It's also rather baffling that an uneducated woman like Wright finds courage to talk to Dawkins as if she has some answers that he doesn't, especially on the subject Dawkins has an PhD in and many published works on. She continuously tries to argue that it shouldn't only be scientists doing science, but apparently charlatans should be allowed to debate scientific facts. Wright goes a step further to claim that 'evolutionists' are 'oppressive' because 'they won't let other ideas through. This baffling stupidity extends into her complete disregard for any kind of evidence and ironically, lack of any kind of evidence to support her own claims. The interview is filled with more terrible logical fallacies that one can fathom, plus a lot of subjectively induced neoromantic pathos claims that only serve to 'prove' that 'we should love each human being therefore the Bible is true', a claim subject to more than one logical fallacy. The debate actually got so absurd that, in an attempt to make even the slightest dent in Wright's titanium-plated cranium, Richard Dawkins, the great crusader for reason and against religion and superstition, began trying to explain to the woman that Evolution can be reconciled with Christian faith!
Click to expand...
 
"Deliberately seek to offend religious people", "mockery and ridicule"... I don't think I can ever recall a theist describing what someone like Dawkins, or Hitchins, or other atheists say as what it is. Criticism. The move is always to attribute malice to the speaker, as if they are saying what they have to say for no reason other than to hurt people. It's nothing more than an ad hom attack to discredit the speaker so they don't have to face the argument. That's why they try to tell us that atheism has a dogma. That's why there are suddenly "radical" and "militant" atheists. It's nonsense. When atheists start murdering theists or forcing conversions with violence, then we can be labeled as radical or militant. Right now, we're just people who disagree with theists, and have much much better evidence for our position then they do. Pretending that we're somehow mean-spirited (and that we wouldn't be justified if we were), doesn't change any of that. There is nothing radical in pointing out the harm that comes from religion and religious indoctrination. There is nothing radical in showing how much evidence contradicts holy books, and that essentially no evidence supports them. There is nothing radical in showing how much evidence supports evolution via natural selection, while absolutely none supports a creationist argument. There is nothing radical in atheism, other than that theists are used to forcing us into silence.

Dawkins' motivations are quite clear. He has elaborated on them many times. He is a teacher of science, and when children are afraid to listen to scientific teachings because they have been told that they must submit their intellect to a bronze age myth or else they will be punished forever in fire, he is incensed. He calls this kind of sabotage to the child's future and well-being child abuse, and he is right to do so. Using the threat of fire and torture to keep someone's mind in the ancient past is a terrible crime against that person, especially when it is a child raised in that belief without the adult faculties of critical thinking to escape it. And that's what it is. Using the threat of torture to keep the next generation submissive. That is pure evil, and any moral or rational person should oppose that.

No part of this was construed to offend, mock, or ridicule anyone. Merely to show a side of the issue that some people might not have considered. That might make some people uncomfortable. But that's what speakers like Dawkins do. They show truths that are uncomfortable to some people who haven't considered them. Start considering. You'll be better for it.
 
digsbe said:
Dawkins is a fool and his ilk label what they do as "reason" as if others do not follow reason. Not all atheists are like this, but those like Dawkins are very much misguided and propped up by a dogmatic sense of self righteousness.
Click to expand...

Oh cry me a river. You've dropped the moral axe on anyone who disagrees with your views on sexuality (calling them outright immoral and wrong) -- yet Dawkins is a fool because he argues from a point of evidence? Pfff.

Respect -10.
 
for those who care to learn a bit more about William Lane Craig and the reasons why Dr Dawkins refused to debate the 'philosopher'
William Lane Craig - RationalWiki

  1. Within debates, Craig uses the Gish Gallop, presenting a hailstorm of misrepresentations and dubious statements, wrapped up in a few obvious facts. Since rebutting statements takes up more of his opponents time than it took him to deliver them, he later is able to list out those statements of his which were not replied to, owing to the strictly controlled format and time limit in most debating environments.
  2. He strawmans his opponents arguments and responds to them with an undertone of humour, thereby lessening the credibility of both. He also uses arguments from authority. In friendly audiences, this convinces the public of his upstanding honesty.
  3. He quote mines extensively.
Click to expand...

But Prof. Craig doesn't get invited to some churches where the congregations agree with everything he says about "New Atheism" because: "William Lane Craig has stated that creationism is an embarrassment and that Christianity is compatible with evolution, much to the chagrin of fundies."
 
Dawkins's response to Craig's "demands" for a debate, from The Guardian, 20 Oct 2011

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him
<snip>
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. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"
Click to expand...

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It does appear that Prof Craig thinks slaughtering the children of your enemies is good for the children because their "souls will be saved" How nice.
 
tosca1 said:
You're missing the point though why this video was given. Dawkins said he wouldn't debate with a creationist, remember? He's not supposed to be debating with a creationist! Though he called this an "interview," clearly he was debating with her!

Therefore we can add sleazy tactics among Dawkins' arsenals of tricks!
Click to expand...
"Sleazy tactics" are ALL you use.
A Barrage of youtubes, many bigoted mere edited EXCERPTS, (like the first two of this string), instead of any coherent debate. Six in six pages so far.
A despicable attempt to just Spam the strings/section.
Now with a Duplicate Billboading/youtube string on Dawkins/The 'New Atheists'.

I challenge Tosca1 to debate ANY topic re 'god', evolution, Universe, etc, she personally can discuss instead of Spamming us with nonsensical vids/partial vids.
I would also be glad to discuss any of William Lane Craig's points she feels are strong ones/winners/stumpers.. if she'd have the decency or ability to elaborate them.

You're up.
 
Last edited:
If Tosca1 wants others to respect her religion,maybe she should start off by stating what her own religion says will be the ultimate fate of those who do not adopt her own religious beliefs.
 
It should be noted that Dawkins' discussion with Wendy Wright was not about God, but about evolution. Although Dawkins is an atheist, he provided her with an argument that is compatible with her religion, but she refused to take it -- instead choosing to argue that evolution is propaganda perpetrated by scientists.

 
tosca1 said:
In his so-called, "REASON RALLY" (2012), Richard Dawkins prompted and stimulated his followers to deliberately seek to offend religious people.




Having talked about New Atheism - The Religion of New Atheism - which was co-founded by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens, my "fascination" with Dawkins had prompted me to create a thread in his honor.
This man no doubt caught the attention of atheists - and religious people - all over the world with his radical style of expressing his views, and his call for followers to rise up. He's keen on declaring war.

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


Dawkins can't offend you or me or anyone else unless we allow it. Would Mother Teresa have been offended by Dawkins? Is the Dalai Lama offended by Dawkins? Most probably not. If you truly believe that Dawkins is "declaring war", you have a clear choice. Don't accept the declaration.

Why do you read all the **** about people who don't believe as you do? How does that affect your personal relationship with your God? It shouldn't, unless you invite Dawson and those people into your personal relationship and practice.

Toscal, it seems to me that you spend quite a bit of your time paying attention to people who don't believe exactly as you do. It doesn't seem to make you happy and content. I promise you, it damn sure doesn't make people who don't believe exactly as you do happy and content. So, what's the point?

I'm sure you have a good heart, but history teaches us that no one can be commanded, forced, tortured or argued into becoming a devout believer of any faith. It doesn't work. Just as no honest believer of any faith can be commanded, forced, tortured or argued into leaving their faith. Either way, to force people to leave a religion or to force people to practice a religion is senseless and futile. You probably know that, but you don't seem to act as if you know it.

Dawkins and others don't bother most of us because most of us pay little attention to him or to people like him. If your religion is true and worthy, it will endure. Simple as that. In fact, truth begs to be questioned.
 
Dragonfly said:
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:
Click to expand...

Real intellectuals - and there's a lot of atheist intellectuals - think he's a joke.
Hopefully, those few who got suckered by him - and who mistakenly buy into this so-called "REASON" RALLY - which in itself is a contradiction, as demonstrated by their honorable guest speaker, would take pause and not be so quick to follow the other lemmings jumping off the cliff.

Whether he gets some free air time from my post or not - so what? He is an interesting subject for a forum. I've got to admit, Dawkins really invigorated the issue of religion/atheism/God....especially when he showed his creativity in trying to duck away from Craig!
Who'd have thought he's good at tap-dancing? :lamo
 
Dragonfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate his influence either. Check out Blasphemy Day in one of my posts - where did those guys get the idea? Sure it did not come from Dawkins' alone - but it's still there nevertheless. Is Blasphemy Day - the acts of doing as offensive an insult as they can get - even seems remotely rational at all?

Dawkins' and his ilk (Harris, Myers, etc) caters to that kind of mentality. They are the militant Imams of New Atheism - except they don't call for deaths to infidels.
 
tosca1 said:
Real intellectuals - and there's a lot of atheist intellectuals - think he's a joke.
Hopefully, those few who got suckered by him - and who mistakenly buy into this so-called "REASON" RALLY - which in itself is a contradiction, as demonstrated by their honorable guest speaker, would take pause and not be so quick to follow the other lemmings jumping off the cliff.

Whether he gets some free air time from my post or not - so what? He is an interesting subject for a forum. I've got to admit, Dawkins really invigorated the issue of religion/atheism/God....especially when he showed his creativity in trying to duck away from Craig!
Who'd have thought he's good at tap-dancing? :lamo
Click to expand...

Who are these "Real intellectuals"? Do they happen to agree with you (in other respects other than their opinion of Dawkins)?
 
tosca1 said:
I wouldn't underestimate his influence either. Check out Blasphemy Day in one of my posts - where did those guys get the idea? Sure it did not come from Dawkins' alone - but it's still there nevertheless. Is Blasphemy Day - the acts of doing as offensive an insult as they can get - even seems remotely rational at all?

Dawkins' and his ilk (Harris, Myers, etc) caters to that kind of mentality. They are the militant Imams of New Atheism - except they don't call for deaths to infidels.
Click to expand...

This needs to be stated once more.

Verthaine said:
If Tosca1 wants others to respect her religion,maybe she should start off by stating what her own religion says will be the ultimate fate of those who do not adopt her own religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
tosca1 said:
Whether he gets some free air time from my post or not - so what? He is an interesting subject for a forum. I've got to admit, Dawkins really invigorated the issue of religion/atheism/God....especially when he showed his creativity in trying to duck away from Craig!
Who'd have thought he's good at tap-dancing? :lamo
Click to expand...

What issue would Craig and Dawkins have to discuss? Craig doesn't deny evolution.
 
digsbe said:
Dawkins is a fool and his ilk label what they do as "reason" as if others do not follow reason. Not all atheists are like this, but those like Dawkins are very much misguided and propped up by a dogmatic sense of self righteousness.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why it's best to specify the kind of atheists that do follow Dawkins and his ilks - the New Atheists. I've discussed with regular atheists too and I can say that there are those that shows confidence in their stance as atheists. They are comfortable in their position - and these are the ones who can really discuss with true reason.

Dawkins and his ilks - there's got to be something psychologically askew with them to be harping on like this - if it's not all about money and "celebrity-status" to their niche of followers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom