Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Debating creationists does not serve the purpose of convincing them. It is for the benefit of their audience who might not otherwise hear these arguments.

QFT.

That's why I admired Hitch's tour of the U.S. Bible Belt. When you listen to those debates with various pastors and clerics the number of cheers going out for him was usually quite high, surprising given the location and usual demographic.

[robvalue]

I think creationism will die out, literally, in a few generations. At least in the West. I can't keep up with what nonsense is going on in the "atheist unfriendly" countries.

Without creationism we have the theist making excuses for why their book is nonsense from page 1, so it's going to be a much tougher sell. Hopefully the books will finally be recognized as "something some guys wrote".

[BitchinHitchins]

"You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe" - Carl Sagan

This puts it perfectly. Sometimes, it is pointless to debate such fundamentalists because of this point. However, there are other times in which their arguments need to be put to rest. Not in the pursuit of convincing them that they are wrong, but merely to expose their foolish viewpoints.

[robvalue]

Sadly creationism is the perfect example of religion getting in the way of education. If your personal beliefs demand you really believe that evolution doesn't happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old, that requires keeping well away from actual science. It's taking a shoddy account from one book and placing it above every science book in the world.

We had an example of a creationist who finally gave up that fundamental view on this forum, I won't name them. They're still a Christian, but they are now able to learn all about evolution without the fear that it will tear their bubble apart.

[BitchinHitchins]

Sadly creationism is the perfect example of religion getting in the way of education. If your personal beliefs demand you really believe that evolution doesn't happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old, that requires keeping well away from actual science. 

I fully agree that the two cannot possibly co-exist. It is quite sad that people do not have the desire to learn how the world we live in actually functions. 

Also, I would like to say that I really enjoy your blog rob! You were totally right about America and the extreme hostility towards atheists that people here display. I live in the south which is a scary place for atheists. I am sure I would get fired if someone at my work place found out I was atheist. Oh, how I wish I could live in England.

[Shuffle]

Oh, how I wish I could live in England.

Or Sweden.

[robvalue]

Sadly creationism is the perfect example of religion getting in the way of education. If your personal beliefs demand you really believe that evolution doesn't happen and the earth is only a few thousand years old, that requires keeping well away from actual science. 

I fully agree that the two cannot possibly co-exist. It is quite sad that people do not have the desire to learn how the world we live in actually functions. 

Also, I would like to say that I really enjoy your blog rob! You were totally right about America and the extreme hostility towards atheists that people here display. I live in the south which is a scary place for atheists. I am sure I would get fired if someone at my work place found out I was atheist. Oh, how I wish I could live in England.

Thanks very much! I'm glad you like it

Ugh, I'm sorry to hear that. I feel for you. That is terrible.

[GenericAthiest]

It's true, it is waste of time. Someone who believes that the earth Is 6,000 - 10,000 years old are in gross error and are hiding away from the truth. It's like saying "the sky Is black", how can you argue with someone who is delusional.

[TubbyTubby]

how can you argue with someone who is delusional.

You can argue with them all year long, discussion and reason with delusionals is impossible though.

[T.J.]

I wouldn't debate them, either. The whole point of debating to me has always been to at least consider what the other side is saying, and see how well your arguments hold up under scrutiny and reevaluate your stance accordingly. One side won't even consider what the other one is saying, despite evidence in support of the fact, and the other already has considered it and that's why they think it's hogwash in the first place. What's the point?