Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
markdohle

Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate

31 posts in this topic

I'm too dumb to understand, God did it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think determining who destroys who depends on one's perspective. It's just a debate between two guys and I don't think either one can prove the truth of their differing points of view. I enjoy watching these debates, though and I'm glad they are available to us.

I also don't think these debates will sway anyone's opinion on the subject, and I do consider one's perspective here one's personal opinion. I don't think all the evidence is in, and the question will probably never be settled finally either way.

Thanks for posting the video, it's a good example of these debates.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as much as Biden or Ryan won their debate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sciencetoohardtryreligion.jpg
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supernatural explanations are not science. End of story.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it nice when videos are released with the title dictating the outcome based on one persons opinion? :unsure2:

I'll make up my own mind thank you......I am capable.....really.....I am....... :tu:

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm too dumb to understand, God did it.

God of the gaps is long dead as argument or even a taunt at theists, they moved on beyond that but the irony is that Dawkins and the like still hold on to dead and destroyed philosophical arguments. Seems like the atheist cant move on past the 40s. Catch up with contemporary arguments and reasonings from both sides!

Destroying people like Dawkins is a simple

Task in such arguments and a bit unfair on him. Hes a good biologist but that's it, he is not acquainted with other standards of knowledge, philosophy, history, philosophy of science etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God of the gaps is long dead as argument or even a taunt at theists,

No it isn't. Creationists use it all the time. For example, a creationist may ask what happened before the big bang. A scientist may not be exactly sure, so the creationist will use this ignorance as a justification for their beliefs.

they moved on beyond that but the irony is that Dawkins and the like still hold on to dead and destroyed philosophical arguments. Seems like the atheist cant move on past the 40s.

Why the 40s? And creationists STILL use arguments that have been disproved. Such as the "argument" that there is no evidence for speciation, even though there is. (It's quite ironic that there is no evidence for a god, though, and they still hold on to that belief.)

Catch up with contemporary arguments and reasonings from both sides!

I haven't seen ONE good argument justifying the belief in any god.

he is not acquainted with other standards of knowledge, philosophy, history, philosophy of science etc.

I don't see how science can't disprove God. Besides, you don't need to know about religion to denounce it as fairytales. Do I need to be a leprechaun-ologist to know that leprechauns don't exist? Didn't think so. All you need to know is that there is no evidence in favor of such nonsense to demote it to fiction.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supernatural explanations are not science. End of story.

Short and to the point..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. Creationists use it all the time. For example, a creationist may ask what happened before the big bang. A scientist may not be exactly sure, so the creationist will use this ignorance as a justification for their beliefs.

Scientists and science can't know what was before the big bang empirically that's the point! Science scope ends at singularity. However you will take a scientist explanation for what was before as gospel even if it's unproven and illogical! That's blind faith mate! Yeah creationist may use it as justification but not theists.

Why the 40s? And creationists STILL use arguments that have been disproved. Such as the "argument" that there is no evidence for speciation, even though there is. (It's quite ironic that there is no evidence for a god, though, and they still hold on to that belief.)

That's creationists for you predominantly christian creationists. Not me not theists at large. What atheists cling on to with dear life are philosophical premises from the early 20s to 40s, these premises have long been destroyed only for some atheist scientist to regurgitate the garbage! God of the gaps is a dead argument too!

I haven't seen ONE good argument justifying the belief in any god.

Just cause you ain't seen ONE, don't mean ain't out there does it? It also begs the question what arguments have you seen ;) if any.....

I don't see how science can't disprove God.

Clearly your not aware of how science functions, it's limitations etc. Go ahead try and disprove with evidence upto your standard, the very same empirical standard you expect from theists ;)

Besides, you don't need to know about religion to denounce it as fairytales. Do I need to be a leprechaun-ologist to know that leprechauns don't exist? Didn't think so.

I never said you had to, but it's a field dealing with the subject. Just cause there is not evidence for something does not negate it's existence. Ie hobbit small people are fairy tales until bones of such were discovered in indonesia etc. Don't get me wrong I'm not for a minute suggesting leprechauns could exist, I don't believe they do based on reasoning not solely lack of evidence.

All you need to know is that there is no evidence in favor of such nonsense to demote it to fiction.

What would evidence be like if it did exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on.... AGNOSTIC Dawkins?

When the hell was Dakins ever an agnostic?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on upon reflection and a second viewing, I believe the Christian theist was using the god of the gaps argument at large. Therefore both lost, Dawkins arguments were smashed but the theists case was a self defeatist argument (god of the gaps), which is also long dead and destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who destroys whom?

Lennox: "The basic question is : Is it true, or not?"

Dawkins: "And that is the basic question. It's completely irrelevant if it's comforting, if it gives you hope, if it gives you happiness. That has nothing to do with whether it is true.

Lennox: "That I agree with."

The video is about an apple and a pear having a discussion.

.

Edited by Abramelin
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God of the gaps is long dead as argument or even a taunt at theists, they moved on beyond that but the irony is that Dawkins and the like still hold on to dead and destroyed philosophical arguments. Seems like the atheist cant move on past the 40s. Catch up with contemporary arguments and reasonings from both sides!

Destroying people like Dawkins is a simple

Task in such arguments and a bit unfair on him. Hes a good biologist but that's it, he is not acquainted with other standards of knowledge, philosophy, history, philosophy of science etc.

It would be more accurate to say that the minority fundamentalist point of view of the 'literal creationist' has attempted to distance itself from the modern mainstream Christian 'god of the gaps' perspective.

The 'god in the gaps' belief is absolutely fundamental to modern Christianity.

Of course it's absolutely fundamental to religion and why humanity felt the need to invent religion to find ways to explain the gaps in our knowledge in the first place.

Which is why the majority of mainstream Christianity has completely accepted Evolution as fact and worked it into their ideology.

That's how a religion survives and remains relevant in an evolving society, not by clinging to a belief that allegorical creation myths are actually literal truths and denying the progress of proven scientific fact

But this isn't "news".

This rise of militant fundamentalist literal creationism is a modern US led problem, which is completely at odds with the 'progress' that Christianity has made in the last few hundred years culminating in public acceptance of evolution, even if only as a 'tool' of divine creation.

What the fundamentalists have done in response to this progress within the mainstream church is to decide to distance themselves as far as possible by publically embracing the most obvious allegories as literal fact.

Gods forbid they should ever feel that they have 'won' against science, they would surely then be emboldened and start to embrace other even more unsavory literal interpretations of scripture!

These people are a Christian version of the Taliban. No better than that. While their power is weak they might smile and be pleasant, but they are dangerous deniers of progress who given any opportunity would be as 'good' for Christainity as the Taliban are for Islam.

But as I say, thankfully they are simply a vocal minority who must be opposed. Again, thankfully the mainstream faiths are already doing this, the Church of England even went so far as to issue an official appoloogy to Charles Darwin conceding in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

http://www.telegraph...-evolution.html

You say that Dawkins isn't acquainted with "other standards of knowledge, philosophy, history, philosophy of science etc". Well his 'creationist' opponents most surely are not! Fundamentalist 'theology' is hardly a worthy opponent is it?

Edited by Atlantia
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant, really, because people will have faith and believe regardless of whether or not he/she/it exists. What matters is how people let faith affect their lives and try to use their beliefs to shape their culture and politics. That is what any productive atheist vs. theist debate should be about, not trying to answer unanswerable questions.

Edited by Cybele
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists and science can't know what was before the big bang empirically that's the point!

That's god of the gaps.

Science scope ends at singularity.

There are some pretty good ideas as to what happened before the big bang, though, that creationists blatantly ignore. You can find them by Googling "What happened before the big bang?"

However you will take a scientist explanation for what was before as gospel even if it's unproven and illogical!

Are you telling me that the idea of God isn't as equally or even more as illogical?

That's blind faith mate! Yeah creationist may use it as justification but not theists.

Not really. Just because we can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's false. And as I've said, there are pre-big bang explanations.

That's creationists for you predominantly christian creationists. Not me not theists at large. What atheists cling on to with dear life are philosophical premises from the early 20s to 40s, these premises have long been destroyed only for some atheist scientist to regurgitate the garbage! God of the gaps is a dead argument too!

You used the god of the gaps argument that there is no idea as to what happened before the big bang, even though that is false.

Just cause you ain't seen ONE, don't mean ain't out there does it? It also begs the question what arguments have you seen ;) if any.....

I have seen many. Why don't you provide a good argument?

Clearly your not aware of how science functions, it's limitations etc. Go ahead try and disprove with evidence upto your standard, the very same empirical standard you expect from theists ;)

Science doesn't say, "Let's disprove God", it says, "Is there a god out there?" So far, scientific evidence (more of a lack of it) has led me to believe that there is no god.

I never said you had to, but it's a field dealing with the subject. Just cause there is not evidence for something does not negate it's existence. Ie hobbit small people are fairy tales until bones of such were discovered in indonesia etc. Don't get me wrong I'm not for a minute suggesting leprechauns could exist, I don't believe they do based on reasoning not solely lack of evidence.

Couldn't the same argument apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What would evidence be like if it did exist?

I don't know. There is no evidence, however.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4f39e_ORIG-TheBertStare.jpg
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the first to note that Dawkins is an atheist, not an agnostic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the first to note that Dawkins is an atheist, not an agnostic?

Sorry to have to be the one to correct you Arbitran, but Richard Dawkins has claimed an innumerable amount of times that he is not an atheist; rather, he is an agnostic, but he is atheistic in the same way as he is "a-faery-istic".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to have to be the one to correct you Arbitran, but Richard Dawkins has claimed an innumerable amount of times that he is not an atheist; rather, he is an agnostic, but he is atheistic in the same way as he is "a-faery-istic".

Intriguing. As a considerable Dawkins-ite myself, I'm surprised I hadn't heard that. In any case, I would certainly classify him an atheist: he doesn't believe in god, ergo, he's an atheist in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since man can desighn a watch and that watch never fails then we must believe in a creator. First 45 seconds wth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intriguing. As a considerable Dawkins-ite myself, I'm surprised I hadn't heard that. In any case, I would certainly classify him an atheist: he doesn't believe in god, ergo, he's an atheist in my book.

Yes, I would also.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins, like everyone else, can call himself whatever he likes. But what he chooses to call himself is uninformative about the question of interest: what does he believe about the ontology of God?

He believes that there is no god. That's it, that's as much confidence as any human being can muster about any contingent question: believe that the truth is some way rather than another, but acknowledge, however scrupulously, that you might be wrong. To be "atheistic" in the same way that most people are "afearyistic" is the most assertive way anybody possibly could be atheistic.

Atheists who play the agnostic card pay their respects to a Scottish theologian named Fiint, who, alarmed at the rising popularity of a non-atheist alternative to his favorite superstitions, wrote a book in which he distorted the history of Huxley's adoption of the word agnostic, ignored how the word passed into the langauge, and revived an obscure earlier usage in philosophy (yup, not knowing something), as if this was what Huxley "really meant."

Bull#. Huxley coined the word because everybody else in his debating club had an "-ism," and "Huxleyism" would have been vulgar or comical. Huxley probably never knew enough philosophy to have heard of the word being used before he hit upon it. Other people adopted his term, in part because it sounds cool, and in part because a lot of people who don't believe in the local gods also believe that the question of God is nowhere near being answerable except on prioristic grounds, which they find shaky as a guide to belief.

The only known indicator of human belief is a disposition to act. There is no reason to suppose that a believer (or believer-that-not) himself would know the contents of his own beliefs except to observe his own behavioral disposition. For example, only people who believe that there probably is no God would pay good money to put that slogan on the sides of buses.

It is not a discriminator of certainty or uncertainty that you would believe differently if compelling evidence were adduced. That is a tautology, it is what compelling means. I would change my belief in the Pyhtagorean Theorem if compelling evidence arrived.

Nevertheless, I am certain that the Pythagorean Theorem is true. There is no contradiction. I am also certain that compelling contrary evidence will never arrive, because there can be no such evidence, another thing of which I am certain. To believe something about anything is to believe something about the prospects for contrary evidence being adduced.

The bottom line, then, is that if Dawkins' self-description is accepted, then it must be amended for clarity to say that he is a Flintian agnostic. So are you, so am I, so is the man behind the tree. "Flintian agnostic" is a pretentious synonym for "human being." None of us knows with literal certainty the right answer to any contingent question.

As such, to say that Dawkins is a Flintian agnostic is uninformative about his views on the question of God. The ordinary term for his viewpoint about that is atheist. He believes there is no God; he believes this in just the same way, indeed, that he believes there are no faeries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.