Richard Dawkins - will he debate the existence of God?

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
I quote one of the wags on that site:

"A little known fundy web site promotes a debate between an internationally known scientist and author and an ex jail bird fundy nut job who was jailed for abusing children. You are taking the piss mate."

Now that's a reply!
:rotfl: Seems to be a perfunctory analysis by a nut job fundy Dawkinsite.
 

csuguy

Well-known member
uck... I read the thread you started over there. As if any of the issues their bringing up have anything at all to do with Enyart's credentials or ability to debate the topic! I started an account over there some time back but, as you've said, they are not a welcoming bunch. If you can actually get the debate going that would be awesome, but I don't think its going to happen...
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure Dawkins is 'out' as he would never have been 'in'.

I refer you again to the statment:

"A little known fundy web site promotes a debate between an internationally known scientist and author and an ex jail bird fundy nut job who was jailed for abusing children. You are taking the piss mate."

That sums it up.
:rolleyes: Seeing as how the first time you quoted that was just a couple posts up, I don't think you needed to refer us to it again. Don't be a tool.
 

Wamba

`
LIFETIME MEMBER
I quote one of the wags on that site:

"A little known fundy web site promotes a debate between an internationally known scientist and author and an ex jail bird fundy nut job who was jailed for abusing children. You are taking the **** mate."

Now that's a reply!




Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Let me see... Oh, right!


Ad hominem! Ad hominem!
 

johhny-turbo

New member
I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.
Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
At any rate I don't think anybody here ever thought Dawkins would take this offer seriously. Personally I like Hitchens's style better, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that, either.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?
Oh come on.

Here is the problem - there is no evidence that can be considered "scientific" to support the existence of God.

So you have to fall back on personal experience (which is subject to interpretation, as millions do to "prove" all sorts of things that cannot be demonstrated, including contradictory religious beliefs), or you have to fall back on various logical arguments which, as Wittgenstein noted about philosophy, just becomes a discussion about the meaning of words.

ID was all about trying to put some scientific muscle behind Paley's watchmaker argument, but it has been a total failure in that department, as demonstrated by how the DI and others have pretty much given up on it. After all the smoke clears, ID is no more than an argument from personal incredulity.

So you are left with faith - this is what you believe. Dawkins has stated that God's existence is as likely as Russel's idea that there is a teapot orbiting in space - you can't actually prove that it is not out there, but there are pretty good reasons to doubt. You can read what he has to say here, and see for yourself.

The kicker is that, so far, science has not had to invoke "God did it" to explain anything about the natural world. Quite the opposite, so far, all the things we have found out about the world shows that it works according to natural principles.

All the objections (the origin of the cosmos, the transition from non-life to life, the DNA molecule, etc.) do not constitute proof of God, but simply a lack of knowledge. "We don't know" is not the same thing as "God did it." You may believe that God did it, but that does not make you right (or wrong, as of yet).

So what is the point of a debate? He's made his case, people have responded over and over - what would a verbal joust prove?
 
Top