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, 3:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dawkins' Debate Rejections
#41
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation. I don't think the adversarial format is well designed to get at the truth, and I regularly refuse invitations to take part in formal debates." The god delusion/Chapter 8/ Section 1 ~ Richard Dawkins

I think that settles it.
"organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority" -- Richard Dawkins
Reply
#42
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
I think dawk understands the less he says the better off he is. His "science conclusions" are weak at best. Unlike myself, I just keep running my mouth and am at the point where I have a negative IQ.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Reply
#43
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 28, 2015 at 9:09 am)comet Wrote: I think dawk understands the less he says the better off he is.  His "science conclusions" are weak at best.  Unlike myself, I just keep running my mouth and am at the point where I have a negative IQ.
Is english your first language?
Reply
#44
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 9, 2015 at 7:03 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The problem with debating evolution/creation is that biology is a VERY complex subject.  Someone like Ken Hamm, for example, could ask, 'If evolution is true, how did woodpeckers evolve?'  This isn't a question that can be answered in the one, three, or five minutes usually allowed for responses in a debate.  When the biologist in the debate tries to answer, topics like morphology, co-evolution and habitat pressure tend to make audiences glaze over.

Boru

I wish I could give you 5 or 6 kudos. They should have a super kudos. This is the whole truth. The format of a formal debate just isn't suitable for real understanding of what someone like Dawkins has to say. Christians would feel the Christian apologist won simply because he was always able to come up with little clever quips and come-backs, while Dawkins would be tongue-tied by the sheer stupidity of a question like how did woodpeckers evolve.

Religious beliefs are not best on intellectual argument. Asking Dawkins to debate the matter is like asking someone to play an AM radio program on an FM radio.

When I was a Christian, no argument that Dawkins or anyone else might devise could have disabused me. I may have walked away shaken, but I would not have walked away feeling that my beliefs were wrong. Nor would I have been caught dead in the same room with one of Dawkins’ books. Anybody whose mind is not open enough to read what he has already written will not benefit from a debate with him
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.

I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire

Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
Reply
#45
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
That's basically it. Dawkins (I think, but it may have been someone else) has proposed moderated online debates. Basically what we do here, but each response would be moderated by a panel agreed upon by both parties. The responses could potentially be held up from posting if they are off-point, non-responsive, etc.

I think Dawkins and other biologists would come off MUCH better doing this than on a stage.

Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Reply
#46
RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
(August 28, 2015 at 5:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That's basically it.  Dawkins (I think, but it may have been someone else) has proposed moderated online debates.  Basically what we do here, but each response would be moderated by a panel agreed upon by both parties.  The responses could potentially be held up from posting if they are off-point, non-responsive, etc.

I think Dawkins and other biologists would come off MUCH better doing this than on a stage.

Boru

You'd never get creationists to agree to any moderated panel because they wouldn't be able to pull all of the dishonest crap that they do on stage.  Online, you can take as much time as you need to answer all of the questions in as much detail as you need, something the creationists simply do not want.  They want to Gish Gallop across the stage and pretend that their complete lack of any actual answers is reasonable because there are time limits and scientists can't answer a dozen questions, thrown at random, in that amount of time.  As has been said though, science isn't done on a stage, it's done in a laboratory.  Turning it into a stage show, especially with inherently dishonest creationists, is a complete waste of time.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide mankind that cannot be achieved as well or better through secular means.
Bitch at my blog! Follow me on Twitter! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
Reply
#47
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.

There's a saying I heard in grade school: Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

I've failed many times to follow that.

All told though, I agree with Dawkins.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
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: 2 Guest(s)