Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
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: November 2, 2026, 5:51 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
|
 (June 20, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I am saying that if you put a level of burden on another party you should accept the same burden on yourself. Dawkins uses many logical fallacies as well. for one he loves the genetic fallacy. That you're a certain just because you were born into it. And then he often appeals to emotions.  RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
June 20, 2015 at 6:33 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 6:34 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(June 20, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Won2blv Wrote: for one he loves the genetic fallacy. That you're a certain just because you were born into it. And then he often appeals to emotions. Ugh... Quote, please.
"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
 (June 20, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Won2blv Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: I call BS. I think I've read nearly everything the guy has written, and that sounds uncharacteristic. Can you document that this has been a common occurrence with him?
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
 (June 20, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Won2blv Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: I call BS. Those are claims, not examples. Try again.  RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
June 20, 2015 at 10:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 10:37 pm by nihilistcat.)
Craig is a freak who I think wears lip gloss or some shit, and for some reason he reminds me of pee wee Herman (my apologies to pee wee).
I remember when Dawkins said this on prior occasions, I think his reasoning was ... he'll only debate a bishop or higher (or words to that effect). In other words, Craig is too lowly for Dawkins to bother with (although his aversion to Craig based on his literal interpretation of even the most disturbing parts of the buy-bull is a new one, but definitely a great reason to not debate that slithering piece of cockroach feces).
In the god delusion dawkins uses the genetic fallacy as one of his reasons why he does not believe in god. He also says that you would have to explain god if he is saying that the explanation first requires an explanation which I am sure is a fallacy in its own. And he constantly appeals to emotion every time he talks about god with animosity in the way that he treats people immorally, according to his view, in the bible. He doesn't explain how these actions are immoral, he just makes you feel like they have to be since they are hard to stomach
 RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
June 21, 2015 at 3:22 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2015 at 3:26 am by robvalue.)
So... by "equally disingenuous" you actually meant neither of them are disingenuous? Or is WLC disingenuous? A little bit disingenuous maybe?
You are welcome to simply retract the comment of course.  (June 20, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Won2blv Wrote: In the god delusion dawkins uses the genetic fallacy as one of his reasons why he does not believe in god. So, you were asked for specific examples. Can you quote this passage? It's bee ten years since I've read TGD and I didn't find it a very memorable book to begin with -- help an old guy out. (June 20, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Won2blv Wrote: He also says that you would have to explain god if he is saying that the explanation first requires an explanation which I am sure is a fallacy in its own. Can you clarify what you're saying here? (June 20, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Won2blv Wrote: And he constantly appeals to emotion every time he talks about god with animosity in the way that he treats people immorally, according to his view, in the bible. He doesn't explain how these actions are immoral, he just makes you feel like they have to be since they are hard to stomach This is true. But the appeal to emotion is part of skilled rhetoric, logical though it may not be. The book he wrote was a polemic, not a university paper, designed to convince laymen, not provide an objective view. (June 20, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Won2blv Wrote: In the god delusion dawkins uses the genetic fallacy as one of his reasons why he does not believe in god. He also says that you would have to explain god if he is saying that the explanation first requires an explanation which I am sure is a fallacy in its own. And he constantly appeals to emotion every time he talks about god with animosity in the way that he treats people immorally, according to his view, in the bible. He doesn't explain how these actions are immoral, he just makes you feel like they have to be since they are hard to stomach Examples please
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
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
