DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Xinglu]

The problem is, as you said she proffered ideals, not evidence as to why she objects to evolution. I'm sorry, but I don't need God to exist to tell me that I should treat others with respect. If her entire moral and ethical compass is dependent upon God existing, what does that say about her? I just have a problem with her entire argument. As CC said, it was an emotional argument, not a logical one. And I personally have no use for emotional arguments.

I'm sorry to admit that Dawkins was nicer to her than I would have been. Then again, I would not have sought someone like her out to debate. I would have chosen someone more capable of arguing the science. However, she is a public figure in charge of a international organization opposing evolution, so it is her fault for accepting Dawkins invitation to debate and walking in unarmed.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Your hostility and insulting behavior isn't very logical for an atheist who merely chooses not to believe in a Creator. It sounds rather like someone who feels hurt by religion and who wants to attack religion in return.

Blasphemy!! Off with his head!! And I’m not kidding; many places in the world, many loving religious people would do so.
Religion, just because it is religion does not get a bi; it can be criticized and mocked as well as anything else, that’s what free speech is about. Just because it hurts your feelings is of no concern to anyone but yourself.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You would say that wouldn't you. Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile.

I would hope that I would feel the same way even if I were not a Christian, because it is the words you use that are offensive (as you intended), not their truth or falseness. In fact, I was a non-Christian for a significant part of my life, and I can say I would have found your choice of words offensive back then too.

It is true that 'the truth' is not hostile.

However, you presume that your truth is 'the' truth. It may be. It may not be. There is no way to prove it one way or the other.

And you were not stating 'the truth', you were using words calculated to invoke an emotional response.

"I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem..."

Well, doesn't change the fact that those things happened and I find the belief system absurd.

These things did happen, and you are entirely within your rights to find religious belief absurd. I find much that is absurd about it myself.

And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.

This is both true and false. The practices of religion and believers in various religions both harms and enriches us, in a variety of ways. One could debate such things for hours, but there is no doubt that organized religion has both harmed and helped humanity.

But that's not my point. My point wasn't that religion hasn't harmed humanity. My point was that you're not a passive atheist, who chooses not to believe in God and lets others go their own way. You're anti-religion, and you seem determined to be as rude as possible in describing your revulsion. The intent is not to inform, the intent is to cause pain and distress.

Please do not be disingenuous; the "I'm just speaking the truth" innocent face doesn't play well with this audience.

I get it. I just don't care for it.

With respect, this reminds me a great deal of your response towards fat people. You made it clear in the past that you do not just dislike them, you enjoy saying rude and insulting things about them. It appears to me that you get your kicks hurting people who are or believe things you don't like. I thought you had pretty much stopped doing things like that on MA, but here we are again.

 

[Gordon Nore]

The problem is, as you said she proffered ideals, not evidence as to why she objects to evolution.

My recollection of the interview is that she quibbles with the way evidence is presented -- she seemed oddly preoccupied with the use of drawings, as if evolutions should produce photographs of animals evolving. Presumably she has a Polaroid illustrating her positions.

 

[Xinglu]

My recollection of the interview is that she quibbles with the way evidence is presented...

And offers no counter-evidence or evidence to support her quibbles or assertion that evolution doesn't exist.

 

[arnisador]

Seems like every christian no matter what an atheist says will interpret it as being hostile towards religion, the truth is not hostile.

As scientists, there's no more hostility to religion than to flat-earthers, astrologers, or the like. They're all simply wrong.

And we are all hurt by the church and it's atrocities in the old world and new for in the name of god.

Yes, as members of society, there's the evil done by and in the name of religion, which is well worth opposing. A Richard Dawkins quote was given up-thread:
"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors [...] urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."

 

[blindsage]

The atheist movement is about 20% of the US population and growing. Higher in other western countries. That’s a huge demographic, bigger than the Muslims and the Jews. I’m surprised some politicians haven’t made overtures towards them. Political suicide?
Its funny in a very sad way, the most distrusted minority in the US are atheists. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
Glad to know bigotry and prejudice are alive and well. So much for religious people being loving, tolerant and understanding.

I would hazard to guess the most distrusted minority in the US are pedophiles....but maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Omar B]

I would hope that I would feel the same way even if I were not a Christian, because it is the words you use that are offensive (as you intended), not their truth or falseness. In fact, I was a non-Christian for a significant part of my life, and I can say I would have found your choice of words offensive back then too.
It is true that 'the truth' is not hostile.
However, you presume that your truth is 'the' truth. It may be. It may not be. There is no way to prove it one way or the other.
And you were not stating 'the truth', you were using words calculated to invoke an emotional response.
"I like thinking of the christian god as a fat girl with low self esteem..."
These things did happen, and you are entirely within your rights to find religious belief absurd. I find much that is absurd about it myself.
This is both true and false. The practices of religion and believers in various religions both harms and enriches us, in a variety of ways. One could debate such things for hours, but there is no doubt that organized religion has both harmed and helped humanity.
But that's not my point. My point wasn't that religion hasn't harmed humanity. My point was that you're not a passive atheist, who chooses not to believe in God and lets others go their own way. You're anti-religion, and you seem determined to be as rude as possible in describing your revulsion. The intent is not to inform, the intent is to cause pain and distress.
Please do not be disingenuous; the "I'm just speaking the truth" innocent face doesn't play well with this audience.
I get it. I just don't care for it.
With respect, this reminds me a great deal of your response towards fat people. You made it clear in the past that you do not just dislike them, you enjoy saying rude and insulting things about them. It appears to me that you get your kicks hurting people who are or believe things you don't like. I thought you had pretty much stopped doing things like that on MA, but here we are again.

Poor thing, my thoughts on religion make you sad. You seem to taker personal offense like I'm addressing you, unless you speak for all religion.

I still have yet to see how religion enriches anything as you say. Except for the the heads of the church themselves.

Send your money to Jesus Christ
Mail order your eternal life
Bend your mind, make you turn around
Don't believe it when they tell you
That even god needs money
God needs money from you

 

[blindsage]

Yup. I'd prefer not to stand on the side of the entity that tortures people for the thought crime of disagreeing with it.

If, of course, your assumption that if there is a God then it must be the one that fire and brimstone Christians claim is true.

 

[arnisador]

The nice, polite lady asserts that there is evidence against evolution.

Would anyone happen to know what evidence she may be referring to?

It wouldn't matter. There's evidence against relativity and against quantum theory--namely, one another. Evidence against one theory doesn't provide support for any other theory--that's a false alternative ("If you're wrong then I must be right."). Certainly one can criticise evolutionary theory...but if people knew how little is known about what really makes gravity work I doubt they'd ever fly again.

Criticism and response is a normal part of all sciences (even mathematics; witness Isaac Newton vs. everyone else over the calculus). If imperfection were enough to rule out a theory from being applicable, we'd be treating arterial bleeding by applying leaches to let more blood out. Would you really want to know how little is understood about why most medicines work? This is the hypocrisy of the creationist--any creationist who flies in a plane or takes an antibiotic is a hypocrit w.r.t. science.

 

[yorkshirelad]

The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid. Again, the existance of the deity is not provable in the negative or the affirmative. It is an argument that will never end because no one knows. The most logical position for a scientist would be agnostic because, as stated before, why would any scientist discount the possible. When it comes to unicorns, vampires, purple people eaters ect, some people believe in all the above. I have a friend who believes in the teachings of David Icke. He thinks that the world is ruled by a select group of powerful families who are, in fact reptiles who appear human to the populace. I don't agree with him, but I don't mock his beliefs, because I have no way of knowing if what he tells me is in fact reality.

Conclusion,

Yes, evolution is fact.
We have no way of knowing if the deity exists or not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As scientists, there's no more hostility to religion than to flat-earthers, astrologers, or the like. They're all simply wrong.

Science makes no statements about the validity of religion, because it is unfalsifiable.

But beyond that, it should be clear by a simple reading of recent posts in this thread that some choose to respond to religion not simply to state their disbelief, but to make hostile, rude, insulting statements. They do not make similar statements about flat-earthers or etc, do they? This is anti-religion, which is certainly not science, even if science could disprove religion.

And again - the inability to prove the non-existence of religion does not make religion true; I am quite aware of that. But the failure to disprove it also does not make it false. It makes it 'unknown'.

Yes, as members of society, there's the evil done by and in the name of religion, which is well worth opposing.

What is the scientific description of evil? I thought good and evil were moral concepts, which cannot be measured by science. I know how red an apple is, I know how sour a lemon is, but how evil is it? Let me know how that is measured, and in what units.

However, let us assume that religion has done evil to mankind. That may justify antipathy towards religion; that's a personal judgment.

Antipathy towards religion is not simple atheism. It is a declaration of hostility towards those who do have a religious belief.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Poor thing, my thoughts on religion make you sad. You seem to taker personal offense like I'm addressing you, unless you speak for all religion.

I still have yet to see how religion enriches anything as you say. Except for the the heads of the church themselves.

You have this annoyingly purile passive aggressive thing going on Omar. First you say you mean no offense as you offend, then offend once more when you're responded to.

examples of religious enrichment; Mother Theresa's order in Calcutta, St. Vincent de Paul's outreach, The Salvation Army. That's just three examples off the top of my head. I could probably find a hundred more in an hour with a simple Google search. These are examples of religious organizational enrichment. There are countless people all over the world who have had their personal lives enriched by religion personally.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid.

Remember Sinn Féin? They were the legal arm of the IRA. It was difficult for them to claim that they were not engaging in terrorist attacks against the UK when the IRA kept blowing things up. They said it with a more-or-less straight face, but no one believed them.

Some self-professed atheists in this thread insist that atheists have nothing against religion, they just don't personally believe in it, while other self-professed atheists claim a personal antipathy against religion and cheer Dawkins on.

I realize not all atheists are not the same, but when the first group claims that Dawkins was NOT engaging in the behavior you describe, it doesn't really hold water when other atheists in the same thread insist that yes, he is, and he's right to do so.

 

[Xinglu]

Bill - +1 for handling that well. I'm not religious in the slightest and while I enjoy poking some fun at religion, I do not enjoy going out of my way to say inflammatory things designed only to hurt people and get a negative reaction from the religious so that I can point out their hypocrisy when they respond in kind. It is poor argumentation and I think you handled that well.

Omar - this is the second time on this thread that you have attempted to get an explosion out of people. The first time when presented with a logical counter argument (presumably not the reaction you wanted) you moved on to easier targets and never responded. This is just like the bully on the playground looking for easy targets, where you can get the reaction you want unchallenged by those not afraid of your inflammatory words and who can see through the very transparent facade.

Of course, there is the real possibility that you just are a poor at formulating and defending arguments. And if that is the case, then there is a lot you can do to improve, and I'm sure many members here would be willing to teach you.

Peace be with you.

 

[Marginal]

The woman in the interview is uninformed, period. This does not excuse the fact that Dawkins cherry picked the interview to make the majority of believers appear stupid.

Biblical literalists are stupid no matter how the debate is framed.

 

[Omar B]

You have this annoyingly purile passive aggressive thing going on Omar. First you say you mean no offense as you offend, then offend once more when you're responded to.

examples of religious enrichment; Mother Theresa's order in Calcutta, St. Vincent de Paul's outreach, The Salvation Army. That's just three examples off the top of my head. I could probably find a hundred more in an hour with a simple Google search. These are examples of religious organizational enrichment. There are countless people all over the world who have had their personal lives enriched by religion personally.

Ok, those are a couple examples. But me, passive aggressive? Sounds more like you don't like what I'm saying about the business of religion. As stated before, I'm just saying my part, I'm sure you are a fine person, it's the organizations and what they've done in the name of god.

 

[Omar B]

Omar - this is the second time on this thread that you have attempted to get an explosion out of people. The first time when presented with a logical counter argument (presumably not the reaction you wanted) you moved on to easier targets and never responded. This is just like the bully on the playground looking for easy targets, where you can get the reaction you want unchallenged by those not afraid of your inflammatory words and who can see through the very transparent facade.

Of course, there is the real possibility that you just are a poor at formulating and defending arguments. And if that is the case, then there is a lot you can do to improve, and I'm sure many members here would be willing to teach you.

Wait, I missed something? What didn't I respond to? Was it the agnostic thing? I made two posts about my point on that, was there more?

I do just fine formulating and defending arguments, since it's my job ... unfortunately, this forum isn't my job, it's entertainment while I sit at my desk when I look away from my work for a bit.

 

[Sukerkin]

{Delete}

I had produced a fairly comprehensive counter-argument with regard to the moral 'balance sheet' of religion but then remembered why I wasn't going to get involved in this in the first place.

You'd think that thirty odd years would have genned me up sufficiently on the futility of trying to use logic, reason, history and unbiased observation to convince the religiously oriented of the insufficiency of their position.

To all of rational mind and scientific bent who have made comment here, it really doesn't matter what you say, how well you argue or what evidence is presented - the faithful will always be so until they change their own minds.

And, to be honest, that is fine. Just as long as they keep it to themselves, speachify only with like minded individuals and don't construct a global institution whose sole purpose is to maintain a degree of social manipulation that fills the coffers of that organisation ... and then seek to eliminate all who don't believe in the same unprovable 'truth' ... oops.

That is the only problem I have with all organised religions. The individual low-level members of any church are more than likely to be pretty good hearted people. When aggregated into a hierarchy of faith, however, an awful inversion occurs.

Anyhow. We're a long way from where this thread started and altho my intentions were good (we know what that road leads!) I'm not helping. So a big "Shush!" to me and off I go.

 

[Xinglu]

But me, passive aggressive? Sounds more like you don't like what I'm saying about the business of religion.

It has nothing to do with the ideas behind what you say, rather with how you say them.