DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

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.

By passive aggressive I mean tht in one instance you appear passive in the sense that you don't want to offend and then you go and give the analogy of the christian God beng akin to the fat girl. Then when you are called on your behaviour your response is 3rd grade mockery.

 

[Omar B]

You yourself said you like to have fun with religion, so do I. My humor too harsh?

 

[Xinglu]

I do just fine formulating and defending arguments, since it's my job ...

Then it is intentional. Thanks for that clarification. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I know otherwise.

 

[celtic_crippler]

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

I don't think pedophiles represent any threat to politicians as once you commit a felony you can no longer vote.

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.

But at least there's evidence that can actually be debated. The lady in the clip had nothing...

She kept laughing nervously almost as if she perhaps had some doubt regarding her own position. Dawkins came off as being more comfortable with his than she did with hers. Makes you wonder...

But your post reminds me of a guy I knew that's a Jehova's Witness. He was just as sure of his religion even though after I pointed out that his belief system was based on the end of the world and that his denomination had inacurately predicted the end so many times that they finally gave up trying was proof enough that perhaps the rest of what they were filling his head with was probably just as inacurate. He still believes...

Anyway, we were talking about why he wouldn't study martial arts. Because it's so violent and about hurting people (yeah...He's extrememly misinformed on numerous things) and that it went against his beliefs to harm another.

So I asked him if he was so adamant about not doing violence to another no matter what, what he would do if someone broke in his home, began raping his wife, and slitting his toddler's throat if he would simply stand there and not try to stop it... I don't think he ever gave me an answer.

He also never would address my question regarding if his wife and kid were sick and the only thing that would save them was a blood transfusion if he'd actually stand in the way of them recieving one.

....haven't heard from him in quite some time...LOL

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.

No problem. Dr. Michael Stone has done just that for you! There is a scale of evil and descriptions of what consitutes each level.

I watch the show "Most Evil" all the time...great stuff. You'd love it!

Check it out. http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/most-evil.html

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

Um...there's nothing to assume there. Christian Reformation & the Inquisition... 9/11 and homicide bombers... Female castration and mutilation.... unchecked child molestation...

Not saying it's not done some good...but it's responsible for some pretty F'ed up stuff, man!

 

[Xinglu]

You yourself said you like to have fun with religion, so do I. My humor too harsh?

Considering the nature of this discussion, yes. There is such a thing as appropriate use of humor and IMO it went to far here. Between you and I at a pub, that probably would have been funny. But in the middle of a serious conversation/debate with religious folks, it goes from being funny to just outright cruel and inflammatory. It serve no purpose at that point than to escalate things and eventually get this thread locked down.

I for one don't want that, I am enjoying the debate!

 

[Omar B]

Considering the nature of this discussion, yes. There is such a thing as appropriate use of humor and IMO it went to far here. Between you and I at a pub, that probably would have been funny. But in the middle of a serious conversation/debate with religious folks, it goes from being funny to just outright cruel and inflammatory. It serve no purpose at that point than to escalate things and eventually get this thread locked down.

I for one don't want that, I am enjoying the debate!

You and CC have full run of the place, I'm due in a meeting at 4:00. You can insert what you think I would have said.

 

[yorkshirelad]

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.

As my 'Thanks' is still not working. I'll give this a QFT.

 

[Xinglu]

Um...there's nothing to assume there. Christian Reformation & the Inquisition... 9/11 and homicide bombers... Female castration and mutilation.... unchecked child molestation...

Not saying it's not done some good...but it's responsible for some pretty F'ed up stuff, man!

Let's not forget the nine, count em' NINE crusades!

Or the Genocide as outlined in the Bible that started with Joshua invading the "holy land"... :wink:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

I used to work with a person who was quite intelligent, had a phd, worked as a software engineer, and believed in a literal interpretation of creation and did not believe in evolution.

I did not agree with him that the earth was only 4,000 years old, or that dinosaur bones had been placed in the earth by the devil to fool mankind into erroneous thinking, but he was not stupid, he was very good at his work, which required high intelligence.

One could perhaps say that a belief itself is 'stupid', but generally that can only be done if the belief can be proven false. Even though I completely disagree with this man I used to work with, I cannot disprove his belief. So I'm not sure I could call either him or his belief 'stupid'. I could only conclude that I did not agree with him, and that I firmly believe his belief is wrong.

 

[Omar B]

I used to work with a person who was quite intelligent, had a phd, worked as a software engineer, and believed in a literal interpretation of creation and did not believe in evolution.

I did not agree with him that the earth was only 4,000 years old, or that dinosaur bones had been placed in the earth by the devil to fool mankind into erroneous thinking, but he was not stupid, he was very good at his work, which required high intelligence.

One could perhaps say that a belief itself is 'stupid', but generally that can only be done if the belief can be proven false. Even though I completely disagree with this man I used to work with, I cannot disprove his belief. So I'm not sure I could call either him or his belief 'stupid'. I could only conclude that I did not agree with him, and that I firmly believe his belief is wrong.

Wait a minute. The number's 4000 years? I always thought it was 6000? Got a source on that one Bill.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Wait a minute. The number's 4000 years? I always thought it was 6000? Got a source on that one Bill.

I'm quite clear in my memory. His personal belief was 4,000 years, not the 6,000 years sometimes quoted by Creationists. I don't know where he got it, and I did not follow his logic when he tried to explain it.

For what it's worth, he told me that his church taught that Catholics like me 'worshiped Mary' (we don't), believed that the Pope is infallible (he isn't and we don't believe he is), and that we believed that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest. Turns out he was right, we do believe that. Color me surprised).

I've also lived in NC, where I've been informed by all manner of Christians that Catholics are going to Hell because the Pope is the anti-Christ. I will admit I had some fun asking them after Pope John Paul II died how that could have happened. How does the anti-Christ die?

Anyway, the point being that the man was not stupid. I just did not believe what he believed.

 

[arnisador]

Wait a minute. The number's 4000 years? I always thought it was 6000?

"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."

 

[yorkshirelad]

Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest. Turns out he was right, we do believe that. Color me surprised).

.

Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.

I did not get hit, but I did get expelled from Catechism. I had to wait on the front steps of the school for my dad to come pick me up.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'm quite clear in my memory. His personal belief was 4,000 years, not the 6,000 years sometimes quoted by Creationists. I don't know where he got it, and I did not follow his logic when he tried to explain it.

For what it's worth, he told me that his church taught that Catholics like me 'worshiped Mary' (we don't), believed that the Pope is infallible (he isn't and we don't believe he is), and that we believed that not only was Jesus born of a virgin, but that Mary was born of a virgin too (I had to ask a priest. Turns out he was right, we do believe that. Color me surprised).

I've also lived in NC, where I've been informed by all manner of Christians that Catholics are going to Hell because the Pope is the anti-Christ. I will admit I had some fun asking them after Pope John Paul II died how that could have happened. How does the anti-Christ die?

Anyway, the point being that the man was not stupid. I just did not believe what he believed.

Gotta love Southern Baptists. Hell-fire and brimstone and all.

Reminds me of a joke...Know what the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Methodist is? The Methodist won't try to hide from you when you see them at the liquer store. :lol:

Anyway, I don't think beliefs are necessarily always tied to one's intelligence.

Shoot, my sister has a genius IQ but not a lick of common sense. LOL

In all seriousness though, religion fills a void in a lot of people's lives. They need the emotional comfort they get from it for individual reasons. When things go bad and/or they feel they can't deal they can put all their woes on the shoulder's of their diety and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some people need that and some people don't. My stress relief is working out at the gym and doing kenpo, other's is going to mass or church on Wedensday nights.

Whatever floats yer boat.

 

[Ramirez]

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.

You keep coming back to that but once again, this documentary was not about atheism, it was about evolution. Who else was he supposed to pick and do you think any other creationist would have fared any better?

Does he debate Kenneth Miller a biologist who is religious? No because Miller believes in evolution like he does , they ever agree intelligent design is a crock.

Even the Discovery Institute , the champions of ID don't dispute evolution, so why would he debate them?

As a matter of fact on atheism he has debated religious scientists.

 

[Omar B]

Yes, as a child I had to try to wrap my head around Mary as 'The immaculate Conception'. I always asked too many questions (according to Fr McSweeney) and got the cane for it a few times.

I once heard a speaker say "Is it most obvious that it was as stated or that a girl may lie." I always thought that was a bit funny. Who knows, was she engaged to Joseph yet, coulda been him.

 

[Omar B]

"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."

Banana Science Fail!

 

[yorkshirelad]

You keep coming back to that but once again, this documentary was not about atheism, it was about evolution. Who else was he supposed to pick and do you think any other creationist would have fared any better?

Does he debate Kenneth Miller a biologist who is religious? No because Miller believes in evolution like he does , they ever agree intelligent design is a crock.

Even the Discovery Institute , the champions of ID don't dispute evolution, so why would he debate them?

As a matter of fact on atheism he has debated religious scientists.

He doesn't debate Miller because there would be no debate. The conclusion would be, evolution is real and neither would be able to prove the existance/non existance of the deity.

Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'. He cannot prove the non existance of God, so instead goes about cherry picking examples of how stupid believers are. This interview was an example of that. Ramirez, you posted the interview initially with the same intention and to say you didn't would be disingenuous.

 

[blindsage]

Female castration and mutilation....

I'm curious as to which religion promotes this practice?