Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 14, 2024, 2:38 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dawkins' Debate Rejections
#11
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
Yes, I agree completely. But for believers it works. They are convinced he is this towering intellect that has atheists peeing their pants, and they draw a sense of security in their world view from that.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#12
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
Personally - I lost interest in debates since Hitchens died. Harris, Dawkins, Shermer and others can be entertaining sometimes, but no one can touch Hitch's no-nonsense delivery and crushing wit.

Damn it. I miss Hitch so much...
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply
#13
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
Yeah, Hitchens was an entertaining public debater at least.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#14
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 9, 2015 at 7:05 am)Pizza Wrote: Craig is a boring and repetitive debater. He reads from the same script in each debate. All you need to do is get him off script to get him stammering. I've heard a few atheists say Craig wins debates. I don't see how. Most public debates don't have any winning conditions. There are no judges giving points or anything close to that. Craig just declares himself the winner because his opponents don't refute every argument he makes like that is how public debates work. That's silly.

The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.

WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#15
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
I agree with it absolutely. Evolution vs. Creationism was settled long ago. Debates give the false impression that there is anything to debate. There isn't. It's settled.

Instead of debating anyone on this subject, educate those who are willing to be educated. Don't argue with someone who insists 1 + 1 = 3.

I'm not a fan of formal debates at all as it is. The tactic Boru mentioned up-thread and related ones are standard procedure for debaters looking to mislead the audience. The format plays right into it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
Reply
#16
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 9, 2015 at 2:56 am)Shuffle Wrote: As most of you know, Professor Richard Dawkins refuses to have any debates with creationists. This is because he feels that it will give them the status of a real scientist. He compared it to a geographer having a debate with a flat-earther and a reproductive scientist debating a person who believed in stork theory.

I wanted to know what you guys thought of this stance. I know it has received heavy criticisms from atheists and theists alike.

Personally, I think he is right. Debates should be discussions between two people about real world problems. Arguing whether or not evolution is a better model than creationism is not a topic that would affect the world. That being said, the discussion of what should be taught in our schools is a topic that would and is affecting our world.


Yeah, I've thought so for quite a while.  Look what happened with that last Hamm vs Science Guy 'debate'.  The debate is supposedly based on science, but the pseudo-science guy (Hamm) just picks and chooses the science that serves him while redefining or ignoring what doesn't.  That isn't really a science based debate.
Reply
#17
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
Dawkins understands.

[Image: 3qUUq.jpg]
Reply
#18
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 9, 2015 at 4:53 am)Alex K Wrote: ... This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. ...

Yes, debating is a skill, so that who appears to "win" a debate is not necessarily the one who is most reasonable or is speaking the truth. Indeed, bold lying can be an effective strategy in a debate. I would never do a formal public debate with anyone about anything.

Anyone who is serious about a topic should research it rather than just listen to a debate about it. Who "wins" a debate is more about the debaters than about the subject under discussion.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#19
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 9, 2015 at 11:07 am)Esquilax Wrote: The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.

WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.
Kalam is Craig's baby. He wouldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of that.

More on Craig, his cumulative case for Christian theism is moot, since he never really puts forward a clear idea of what a personal god is. Like a person how? Given the vastness, complexity, and mysteriousness of the universe, the cause of everything likely can't be anything like a human mind or that can be honestly called "a personal mind (Craig's words)."
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#20
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
Craig is a con man.  He makes money telling ignorant fools about some silly fucking god.

The whole basis of all religion, really.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Dawkins, Rowling, Sunak et al on Trans Issue and Women's Rights. Nishant Xavier 63 5258 July 15, 2023 at 12:50 am
Last Post: Paleophyte
  Dawkins loses humanist title Silver 165 11986 June 6, 2021 at 1:45 am
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
  Richard Dawkins interviews Saudi Arabian atheist Rana Ahmad AniKoferBo 2 952 July 22, 2020 at 12:40 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Ricky Gervais won Dawkins award this year Fake Messiah 13 2935 September 6, 2019 at 8:25 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Dawkins writing kid's version of "The God Delusion" - you mad bro? Silver 35 7488 August 2, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Geoff Robson has a hardon for Dawkins Silver 7 1966 May 10, 2018 at 5:55 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  What are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins? NuclearEnergy 96 16128 December 6, 2017 at 3:06 am
Last Post: Bow Before Zeus
  Where to Debate Theists? Cephus 27 6792 April 13, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: Nanny
  Hitchens, Dawkins, Hawking, Ehrman, Coin, Sagan: Where are the Woman? Rhondazvous 44 5342 January 14, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Last Post: Mr Greene
  John Lennox and Richard Dawkins TheMonster 8 2514 October 14, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Last Post: TheMonster



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)