The first point I want to make is that Craig acted very immaturely when he used an empty chair to critique Dawkin's arguments in the God delusion. I have no problem critiquing what someone claims, in writing or speeches, but to do it in such a satirical way, without being a comedian, was poor taste to me.
Anyway, back to the point of this discussion.
Dawkins lays out his case here for why he won't debate Craig- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … lane-craig
1. If someone takes an abhorrent position, then debating them legitimizes that position.
2. Legitimizing that position is irresponsible.
3. Therefore, if someone takes an abhorrent position, then debating them is irresponsible.
Assuming the reasons are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. This is a valid argument. But validity is not necessarily soundness.
I don't think premise 1 is justifiable. This would lead to all pro-life people refusing to ever debate with a pro-choice position. Our society is already divided enough when we do talk to each other!
Where I think Dawkins goes wrong is that debating someone doesn't necessarily legitimize that position. Would engaging in a formal debate with a member of the KKK legitimize the KKK's positions? I don't think so.
While it is true that Craig defends genocide, without any apparent hesitation, I think the best thing for Dawkins to do would be to make sure he brings that point up in a debate with him, and expose Craig for the Christian hack he is (since he is willing to defend anything the Bible says happened, no matter how atrocious).
However, even if Craig does defend genocide (which I haven't seen him actually do openly in a formal debate with any atheist, only in writings, but I could be wrong on this), it doesn't negate the rest of his arguments at all! The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral arguments for God's existence all would still need to be addressed, and if Dawkins believes those arguments are so easily demolished, he should take Craig on and do just that.
Craig has already shown himself to be a Christian hack. Dawkin's has turned down many others who are far more intelligent than Craig.
Dawkins is a rude pretentious twit,and Craig is an immoral twit without a mind of his own. The debate would only be a ground for posturing and would never resolve anything anyway.
Is that because he's one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists and those who are scientifically illiterate believe he's rude and pretentious?
I am speaking of his personality only. I have no problems with him expressing his views on any matter he wishes. It's the delivery that bothers me.
I have met and chatted privately with Dawkins in a hotel lobby while he was waiting for his ride to a lecture he was giving at the local university. He was very nice and had no problem taking a picture with me. How do you even know his personality?
lol...so you're a Dawkins fanboy...that's hilarious
Because I spoke to him personally, I'm a fanboy? Where do you get these ridiculous notions?
I'm just teasing you dude. Having a bit of fun, that's all.
I would think the fact that you asked of you could have a picture taken with him suggests you are a fan.
By definition, a fan (aficionado) is someone who is enthusiastically devoted to something. Getting a picture taken with a famous scientist doesn't really meet that criteria.
He can be pretty obnoxious (and I say that as someone who agrees with him). I am going from how he acts in interviews and other appearances. N>1.
I have not seen any such interviews or appearances where he was abhorrent, loathsome and hateful.
No one said he was. Obnoxious and pretensious is what we said
You might want to check the dictionary, then. That is exactly how obnoxious is defined.
And YOU know that that is not the common use "definition" of the word. you know most people use obnoxious in the same way they use "annoying"
NO ONE uses the word obnoxious to mean hateful. Grow up. You know you're wrong.
Don't pretend, either,that you've never heard of lingual drift. I'm sure it's in a science book somewhere.
You might want to contact the dictionary publishers so they'll conform to your personal opinions, but I doubt they will.
It is so sad that you simply don't have the ability to admit you are wrong, even when you perfectly well know you are.
Then, the dictionary is wrong, too. Please make sure you make them aware of that.
Isn't it funny how language has stayed exactly the same throughout history for thousands upon thousands of years?
Are there any scientific theories that explain this amazing phenomenon?
The words I used were "pretty obnoxious". Which is hardly an usual state for anyone who achieves celebrity status. I was just indicating that finding the man unpleasant is not automatically a doctrinal issue. He might just be unpleasant.
Or he doesn't bend over backwards to appease religious people, like almost everyone else.
If someone was pushing that we teach Greek mythology along side evolution and the Big Bang, what would your reaction to that person be?
Also imagine presidents would even, at least in words, support that position as well! And they would use the Greek mythology to deny climate change, evolution, and equal rights for gay people.
If Dawkin's admirers conduct themselves in the same fashion, how could you expect them to see anything wrong with his behavior?
If there is something wrong with his behavior, could you point it out, specifically?
Probably not to you, ATM. I expect you either find Dawkin's arrogance and obnoxiousness quite acceptable, (in light of the brilliance you and he both believe he possesses), or perhaps you can't even see it at all. So no, I don't expect you would see any problems with his behavior regardless of what I cited.
No, I have found everyone who has some problem with Dawkins is because they have a problem, not him. Requests for him to speak come in by the boatloads around the world, people line up to see him in droves. He is one of the most popular scientists and authors on the planet.
Arrogance is not a virtue, yet is a trait displayed by Dawkins. Ignorance is not a desired position to be seen in yet one Dawkins has no problem assuming, at times.
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist. But expecting your area of expertise to be the end all answer to everything, plus to be unwilling, or unable, to think or function outside of your area of expertise can cause both of the aforementioned, and other, less than desirable personality traits to become pronounced when interacting with others and attempting to comment in areas outside of your area of expertise.
Show me where you see that? Most folks who say things like are merely irked by what he says and not how he says it.
As I suspected.
I stopped bothering to listen to Dawkins a while back. I never had a problem with the fact that he possessed an opinion, I simply find the way he shares it to be distasteful. Then again, I can say the same about you.
So, you have nothing, as I suspected. It's a problem with you, not him.
I have nothing that suits your fancy. His demeanor remains the problem. Sorry if not fawning in awe at his every utterance offends you.
You keep complaining but offer no valid complaints.
I'm not certain where your confusion lies. We can, and do, judge the character of a person by their demeanor. If you don't like this, I understand. If you don't understand this, you don't understand a basic point in human interaction. To unilaterally insist that anyone who finds Dawkins to be a bit on the obnoxious side has nothing to back up this opinion shows your inability to observe impartially. Prominent and outspoken atheists are among those who consider his demeanor an embarrassment to the cause. But, they probably aren't blinded by adoration.
I don't follow Dawkins much, but if he's smarter than the vast majority of the population, then why can't he be a little snooty to backwards, ignorant people who aren't willing to educate themselves?
Interesting. His fans are arrogant, close-minded and pretentious as well? Who would have guessed that?
I'd explain, but your post clearly implies that you wouldn't understand the explanation.I will say this. If he wanted to be snooty to evolutionary biologists, he might be able to argue that as acceptable behavior.
Edit. I just did a quick search. It appears Richard Dawkins has not firmly established a claim to a particular IQ level. So, you might revamp your claim to one that he is better educated in evolutionary biology. I think you could argue that more effectively.
More complaining with no valid complaints. Still waiting for you to show something that would support your assertions? Nothing but emotions?
Exactly. Your emotions are the only thing standing in your way of understanding. Free your mind ATM. You'll enjoy it. I promise.
If freeing your mind means fabricating lies, no thanks.
I apologize if you find my opinion offensive. This is not an emotional judgment. Simply comparing behavior patterns. Determining which patterns are commonly agreed to be socially acceptable and which aren't. Many of his fall into the category of not. The fact thatyou not only refuse to admit he does come off as arrogant and presumptuous, at times; while even those who agree with, apparently, most of his views readily bemoan this fact leads me to believe you are incapable of voicing an unbiased opinion in the subject. Not surprising. If you are purposely ignoring the facts. You are lying to me. If you can't accept the facts. You are lying to yourself. Who cares if the guy is obnoxious? We all are at times. Just not quite so publicly as he is.
Apparrently sharing an opinion equates to "fabricating lies" in your worldview.
It's pretty strange how anyone who has a differing opinion than YOURS is a lie fabricator.
Do we all work at the same lie fabricating factory? I don't think so. I suppose Emile could be working the day shift while I work nights.....
Fabricating lies is fabricating lies and opinions are opinions. However, some believers opinions here are little more than fabrications, like your post here, for example.
There are most definitely some honest believers here who share their opinions without the need to fabricate lies. They have been acknowledged as such by every single non-believer on these forums, including me. The fact that you and Emile have decided not to be one of them has nothing to do with anyone but yourselves.
He can't, and knows it. To review the exchange would force him to review the lies he has fabricated. He likes to ignore them.
I agree. I've noticed he simply does not have the ability to answer a question directly as well.
It doesn't bother me at all if someone thinks my opinions and beliefs are strange, but I do have issues with being called a LIAR for expressing them.
Thanks for proving my point and janesix's. All either of us have done is offered opinions. You attempt to pervert them in order to validate a false assumption, on your part. Neither quote you used constitutes a lie.
I just did.
Here's another one...
"I've noticed he simply does not have the ability to answer a question directly as well."
Your delusional belief that I am fabricating lies is your problem to ponder and resolve. I'm laughing at your inability to allow for a difference of opinIon, in the interim. Unlike others who might be willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to garner some semblance of courtesy from you, I have no intention of being dishonest in order to placate you. All I have done is offer an honest opinion. As usual, you have offered nothing but derision in response. Since you have nothing of value to share, I'll leave you to your petulance at this point.
What is really hilarious about this thread is that is shows folks aren't interested in what Dawkins actually says, they are far more concerned with how he says it, yet they are completely incapable of showing exactly those concerns. Most believers don't even listen to Dawkins but are more than happy to jump on the I-hate-Dawkins bandwagon.
The should call these forums "HypocrisyPages"
My, my. Looks like you and I might be two peas in a pod. It seems we both feel that if anyone has a problem with the one we worship, it is their problem, not his!
Not sure where you get the ridiculous notion that I worship anyone or anything. I have said in the past that worshiping is one of the worst things anyone can do or demand. It does nothing but diminish human nature to that of mindless robotic programming.
Dawkins seems to consider himself "king of the Brights." "Brights" are what he calls those who agree with him and what he considers himself to be. Nothing arrogant about that, right?
Dawkins also seems to believe his views should be forced upon children. Although not saying that directly, that is about what it adds up to. Here is an interesting excerpt from a Salvo Magazine interview by Marcia Segelstein of Dinesh D'Souza, which speaks to this and gives an impression of Dawkins which I share. The entire article can be viewed here:
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/sa … lstein.php
'What is your reaction to Richard Dawkins's suggestion that the state should stop parents from raising children to believe in God?
Dawkins argues that parents do have rights over their children, but that those rights are not absolute. Just as parents are not permitted to beat their children, they should not be allowed to brainwash their children into their religious faith. In a sense, argues Dawkins, you are retarding your children's future development by implanting myths into their young heads that they will have a very difficult time getting rid of later.
I have two thoughts about this. First, I think it represents a little bit of desperation on the part of modern atheism, by which I mean that this apparent willingness to tell parents what they can and cannot do borders on the totalitarian. This idea that the state should intervene in parenting practices shows that there is a kind of hard edge to the New Atheism.
At the same time, with a guy like Dawkins, you always have to pause because he knows so little about subjects outside of biology. In certain sectors of society, there's an awed reverence of Dawkins because he is a very learned and eloquent defender of Darwinian evolution. He has explained it beautifully and written about it very well. We often forget that the guy is a biologist, however, who actually doesn't know a whole lot about anything else. His knowledge of history is poor; his knowledge of philosophy is abysmal; and his knowledge of theology is non-existent. When Dawkins wanders out of his field, he thus makes uninformed and often idiotic statements. So while in some ways I feel indignant about what he says, I also feel almost a sense of pity for him. The poor fellow is wandering around in intellectual fields where he is such an innocent. "
That is false, he never said such a thing. In this article, he talks about the Brights movement and how he thinks it well become a meme.
http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essay … ights.html
Can we therefore say that your claim is dishonest? You fabricated it?
Another false claim that can be refuted by simply reading the article I linked.
Yet, another fabrication?
Yet, another fabrication, with a clause.
From the link, a blatant lie...
"We often forget that the guy (Dawkins) is a biologist, however, who actually doesn't know a whole lot about anything else. His knowledge of history is poor; his knowledge of philosophy is abysmal; and his knowledge of theology is non-existent. When Dawkins wanders out of his field, he thus makes uninformed and often idiotic statements. So while in some ways I feel indignant about what he says, I also feel almost a sense of pity for him. The poor fellow is wandering around in intellectual fields where he is such an innocent."
Sorry, but Dawkins is well versed in religions, philosophies and history, especially when he researches theology.
Because brain washing children is child abuse. Simple, really.
One thing I do appreciate, bBerean, is that you're focusing back on the subject matter.
by TMMason6 years ago
I enjoy this video so very much.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1Abaa.. ah... ah... aba... what?I love that video... not to mention the fact that he never answered the question. Yes, I have read his...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Did Richard Dawkins direct Atheists to deride and ridicule religion?
by Julianna5 years ago
If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins he now admits he cannot disprove that God does not exist. On a scale of 1 to 10, he states he is a 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ostic.html Interesting not...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
Yep. "In a debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, atheism poster boy Richard Dawkins admitted there's a god. Well, a chance of one. A very small chance..."http://now.msn.com/living/0224-dawkins-...
by Captain Redbeard5 years ago
So alot of people have said to me that the athiest do not want to abolish religion and even have said it was a ludicrise thing to even say I thought I would find a clip of Dr. Richard Dawkins, whom I love listening to...
by Sooner284 years ago
After reading a critical thinking book recently, the author stumbled upon something that I think was much more fundamental than she realized, since it was only mentioned in passing and not taken up again ANYWHERE in the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.