Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[smax]

[quote='ManMachine' pid='428084' dateline='1365298053']


[quote]It's never a good idea to advise others on how to hold a debate, especially if you lack the ability to identify Judao/Christian ideology poorly disguised as liberal-humanism. [/quote]

Quite a presumption on your part. Too bad it's completely baseless.

[quote]What the hell is 'shared humanity' and what makes you think it's a good idea to 'preserve it'? [/quote]

I know this is merely an attempt on your part to appear superior in intellect, but anyone working with a fundamental reading level and understanding can see this is a ridiculously stupid question, as well as a contradiction on your part.

[quote]Christianity is alive and well and hiding under the rocks in your head.[/quote]

I think this is your way of saying, "I can't relate to your transition so I'm going to attempt to discredit it."

It must suck for you having to find out that all the "clever" lines you like to create aren't actually all the difficult to read between.

[Mystical]

Well according to this guy in the Catholic forums: Richard Dawkins is the high priest of atheism So maybe he should debate Christians as to the validity of atheism as a non-religion.


I belong to a faith that has a set of dogmas, and you belong to a faith with dogmas as well. Atheism is full of materialist dogma and has it's own high priests, such as Richard Dawkins. But surely, the capacity for love and the desire to thrive is the same in both of us. So, the question insofar as I can reason is what do we do about that collectively? How can we love and thrive and grow together without regard to the contexts we are wrapping around reality with our theologies?

[ManMachine]

---

It's never a good idea to advise others on how to hold a debate, especially if you lack the ability to identify Judao/Christian ideology poorly disguised as liberal-humanism.

---

Quite a presumption on your part. Too bad it's completely baseless.

... and despite the fact I went on to point it out, you still missed it.

What the hell is 'shared humanity' and what makes you think it's a good idea to 'preserve it'?

I know this is merely an attempt on your part to appear superior in intellect, but anyone working with a fundamental reading level and understanding can see this is a ridiculously stupid question, as well as a contradiction on your part.

What you have read as an attempt on my part to 'appear suporior' is socratic questioning. By attempting to get you to consider what you mean when you say we must 'preserve' our 'shared humanity', I am illuminating the Judao/Christian anthropocentrism that lies behind your statement.

It's not a contradiction.

Christianity is alive and well and hiding under the rocks in your head.

I think this is your way of saying, "I can't relate to your transition so I'm going to attempt to discredit it."

It must suck for you having to find out that all the "clever" lines you like to create aren't actually all the difficult to read between.

You assumed incorrectly. Perhaps you should not try to 'read between' lines and pay more attention to what's actually in them.


MM

[Justtristo]

Richard Dawkins gave his reasons why he will not debate William Lane Craig and they are pretty reasonable to me.

However I cannot understand why William Craig Lane will not debate his former student John Loftus.

Anyway a joke;

Q: What do you call a group of people debating?
A: Mass Debating

[smax]

... and despite the fact I went on to point it out, you still missed it.



What you have read as an attempt on my part to 'appear suporior' is socratic questioning. By attempting to get you to consider what you mean when you say we must 'preserve' our 'shared humanity', I am illuminating the Judao/Christian anthropocentrism that lies behind your statement.

It's not a contradiction.



You assumed incorrectly. Perhaps you should not try to 'read between' lines and pay more attention to what's actually in them.

Just because you used the words Judao/Christian and Liberal Humanism, doesn't mean that you made a valid point. As I said from the start, it's just a ridiculous and baseless presumption on your part.

And, your observations are not direct, therefore, all one can do is attempt to read between the lines.

Even at that, you are making poor use of words to indirectly imply your wild presumptions.

Not to be too bold here, but I find your approach to be cowardly. You are clearly affraid to speak plainly about what you think. And, while you probably think that makes you appear clever, it actually just causes many of your points to get lost.

Just an observation. But, unlike yours, at least I was able to provide some examples of how mine are AT LEAST based on something.

You still have yet to support yours.

[ManMachine]

---

... and despite the fact I went on to point it out, you still missed it.



What you have read as an attempt on my part to 'appear suporior' is socratic questioning. By attempting to get you to consider what you mean when you say we must 'preserve' our 'shared humanity', I am illuminating the Judao/Christian anthropocentrism that lies behind your statement.

It's not a contradiction.



You assumed incorrectly. Perhaps you should not try to 'read between' lines and pay more attention to what's actually in them.

Just because you used the words Judao/Christian and Liberal Humanism, doesn't mean that you made a valid point. As I said from the start, it's just a ridiculous and baseless presumption on your part.

And, your observations are not direct, therefore, all one can do is attempt to read between the lines.

Even at that, you are making poor use of words to indirectly imply your wild presumptions.

Not to be too bold here, but I find your approach to be cowardly. You are clearly affraid to speak plainly about what you think. And, while you probably think that makes you appear clever, it actually just causes many of your points to get lost.

Just an observation. But, unlike yours, at least I was able to provide some examples of how mine are AT LEAST based on something.

You still have yet to support yours.

---

Isolating my replies out of context does not mean you should ignore that context. In my original reply I used quotes from your post (the quotation marks are a clue) I subsequently specified the issue I was addressing. I can't see how much more direct you want me to be?

The reason for my socratic question is not to provide a counterpoint but to strip away the hyperbole and analyse the premise behind the statement you made at the end of your post. It is a legitimate form of debate, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

Let's dispense with the deflection and get back to the question, are you going to explain what you mean by 'shared humanity' and what you mean when you say we should 'preserve it'?

Just so you are clear, I am attempting to show that I believe there is a Judao/Christian ideology behind those statements which would seem, in the context of your OP, to undermine your entire position.

The ideology I am referring to is an anthropocentrism that cannot be reasoned or even inferred from any available scientific evidence I know of but comes straight off the pages of the Book of Genesis and is adopted by most modern humanists under the guise of liberalism.

By uncovering the Judao/Christian influence behind the liberal-humanist morality that informs your statement we have grounds for a potentially interesting debate that could demonstrate why your approach is not a good approach for Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist (not a theologist or philosopher) and the author of The Selfish Gene, the essential matter of which lies at the heart of my question.

Although I suspect we won't get that far.


MM

[Cyberman]

a claim for the existence of a material creature cannot be properly compared to a claim for the existence of a transcendent immaterial creator god.

I agree.

---

Debate is not really a good way to know whether Christianity is true or not, because the winner in the debate is the one who can persuade ignorant people the most.

Congratulations, you just gave the most accurate description of religious indoctrination I've ever read.

Debate success is all about popular appeal, it is like an election, it proves nothing.

Would you still say that about debates in which your 'side' won? Assuming there are any, obviously.

Christianity is an intricate and deep philosophical system that was not made to win an election or a popularity contest, it was made to enlighten the earnest soul who will seek of it on its own terms.

If I didn't know better, I might say that this is in contradiction to your first statement by way of special pleading.

That said, Richard Dawkins is a fool

Oh dear, must I really quote my favourite bible verse again?

[smax]

---

Just because you used the words Judao/Christian and Liberal Humanism, doesn't mean that you made a valid point. As I said from the start, it's just a ridiculous and baseless presumption on your part.

And, your observations are not direct, therefore, all one can do is attempt to read between the lines.

Even at that, you are making poor use of words to indirectly imply your wild presumptions.

Not to be too bold here, but I find your approach to be cowardly. You are clearly affraid to speak plainly about what you think. And, while you probably think that makes you appear clever, it actually just causes many of your points to get lost.

Just an observation. But, unlike yours, at least I was able to provide some examples of how mine are AT LEAST based on something.

You still have yet to support yours.

---

Isolating my replies out of context does not mean you should ignore that context. In my original reply I used quotes from your post (the quotation marks are a clue) I subsequently specified the issue I was addressing. I can't see how much more direct you want me to be?

The reason for my socratic question is not to provide a counterpoint but to strip away the hyperbole and analyse the premise behind the statement you made at the end of your post. It is a legitimate form of debate, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

Let's dispense with the deflection and get back to the question, are you going to explain what you mean by 'shared humanity' and what you mean when you say we should 'preserve it'?

Just so you are clear, I am attempting to show that I believe there is a Judao/Christian ideology behind those statements which would seem, in the context of your OP, to undermine your entire position.

The ideology I am referring to is an anthropocentrism that cannot be reasoned or even inferred from any available scientific evidence I know of but comes straight off the pages of the Book of Genesis and is adopted by most modern humanists under the guise of liberalism.

By uncovering the Judao/Christian influence behind the liberal-humanist morality that informs your statement we have grounds for a potentially interesting debate that could demonstrate why your approach is not a good approach for Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist (not a theologist or philosopher) and the author of The Selfish Gene, the essential matter of which lies at the heart of my question.

Although I suspect we won't get that far.


MM

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Now I understand what your motivation is, and why it is that you posed such a ridiculous question. And, actually, I still don't get the "shared humanity" inquiry, but I'll address it nonetheless.

You, I presume, are a human being. I am a human being. We share this. Pretty damn simple.

Why you would asked the importance of preserving it is equally puzzling to me. Is it your take that the human race is better off extinct?

As for your comparison of my views to that of Judeo/Christians, again, this is baseless. You're obviously making lots of ridiculous assumptions because you're offended that I would even have the gall to question the great Richard Dawkins. As such, I must have some hidden Christian agenda that even escapes me.

Clearly you buy into the idea that all human beings are innately selfish, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

I disagree, and I happen to think that idealogy is counter-productive.

At the same time, I don't subscribe to any notion that morality is a god-given sense either.

As I said before, I believe that people generally have a sense of survival, not only of self, but also of their race and species.

In fact, it's been proven time and time again.

[ManMachine]

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Now I understand what your motivation is, and why it is that you posed such a ridiculous question. And, actually, I still don't get the "shared humanity" inquiry, but I'll address it nonetheless.

You, I presume, are a human being. I am a human being. We share this. Pretty damn simple.

You are saying we share a biological identity, i.e. we are both human beings. No 'struggle' is necessary to 'preserve' this 'pretty damn simple' scientific observation.

Why you would asked the importance of preserving it is equally puzzling to me.

See above.

Is it your take that the human race is better off extinct?

It doesn't matter what you or I think about the extinction of our sepcies, one day, it will happen. That is a fact of evolution, it's got nothing to do with any notion of being 'better off', that is an irrelevance.

But - and this is the interesting bit - to you it is relevant. To you, against all scientific reason, there is a 'struggle' to be had in 'preserving' our 'shared humanity'.

If scientific reasoning is not behind your belief in its relevance (and we have seen that it can't be) then it must be worth investigating what is.

As for your comparison of my views to that of Judeo/Christians, again, this is baseless. You're obviously making lots of ridiculous assumptions because you're offended that I would even have the gall to question the great Richard Dawkins. As such, I must have some hidden Christian agenda that even escapes me.

Dawkins is a competent evolutionary biologist and I recognise him as such. Other than that his philosophical ideas and especially his arguements against religions are weak and I find him tiresome and poorly informed. He is certainly not above criticism and I'm first in line when it comes to taking his debates apart. 'Great Richard Dawkins'... no, certainly not.

As for my comparison of your position with Judao/Christian morality, I think we have removed any scientific support for your position and it remains to be seen what lies beneath.

Clearly you buy into the idea that all human beings are innately selfish, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

I disagree, and I happen to think that idealogy is counter-productive.

At the same time, I don't subscribe to any notion that morality is a god-given sense either.

As I said before, I believe that people generally have a sense of survival, not only of self, but also of their race and species.

In fact, it's been proven time and time again.

Isn't the idea of 'preserving' our 'shared humanity' a little selfish, or is being selfish 'counter-productive'?

You seem to be suffering from moral dissonance.

Morality is not derrived from scientific endeavour, as we all know science is disinterested enquiry (or so it claims to be), there exists a perception that technology provides us with a moral structure but this is a myth, technology is neither good nor bad, it is the use to which humans put it that is measured against an existing morality that provides us with this value system.

So, the question remains what morality has informed your value system?


MM

[smax]

You are saying we share a biological identity, i.e. we are both human beings. No 'struggle' is necessary to 'preserve' this 'pretty damn simple' scientific observation.

Two can play this ridiculous game of yours. You call yourself ManMachine. Are you a man, or are you a machine? It is impossible to be both. Why are you claiming such an obvious contradiction?

It doesn't matter what you or I think about the extinction of our sepcies, one day, it will happen. That is a fact of evolution, it's got nothing to do with any notion of being 'better off', that is an irrelevance.

But - and this is the interesting bit - to you it is relevant. To you, against all scientific reason, there is a 'struggle' to be had in 'preserving' our 'shared humanity'.

If scientific reasoning is not behind your belief in its relevance (and we have seen that it can't be) then it must be worth investigating what is.

This is why I called your presumptions about me baseless. Because you believe it is futile for a human being to desire the preservation of his/her species, you conclude that any such desire must be impractical and perhaps even unknowingly theistic. That is an arrogant and, again, baseless conclusion on your part.

You didn't prove that my view is non-scientific, you just proved that you are far less resolved and motivated than myself. You just proved that you are a quitter who lacks any level of creativity or sense of perseverence. You just proved that you are completely closed minded and would have been better off being born in the dark ages.

Because you can't think of any way that the human species can survive, you assume that it is impossible. You are the skeptic who, 100 years ago, could never see us traveling into space. You are the skeptic who, 300 years ago, could never see us flying or using automobiles.

You speak of evolution but you have no belief in it. You think we've come as far along as we are ever going to.

Now, since I've shown that it is I, and not you, who believes in human evolution, who's the Theist now?

Perhaps we should investigate the reasons behind your fatalist views.