Richard Dawkins is a super coward

People like Craig use various incarnations of what is known as the "Gish gallup". It's basically the old adage if you can't provide them with facts, baffle them with b/s (and plenty of it). There obviously are no facts in support of a biblical god so these used car salesman/creationist "philosophers" have to dress up their logical fallacies, untruths and partial truths the best they can. Nothing much about it seems honest, or looks like a search for truth has even be considered. If you have to go to these lengths to make an imaginary being relevant, or to try giving him an existance via gobbledegook and doublespeak, surely something becomes obvious. Then again, if you believe the bible and its god in any literal sense you have lost touch with reality anyway (at least to that extent).

It probably looks impressive to their fans, but that's about all.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, argues that public debates with creationists do little to further the cause of quality science education. Among her reasons are that (1) creationists usually fill the audience with their supporters, who are unlikely to have the educational grounding necessary to understand the arguments presented in favor of evolution, (2) evolution is a complex set of ideas that are not amenable to simple explanation in a short debate format, and (3) creationists make many simplistic but convincing-sounding arguments against evolution that take a significant amount of time to refute.

Some have also questioned Craig's honesty.

www.youtube.com...

Dawkins is right not to take self promoting entertainers like this seriously, or at least use them to his advantage. Wonder what Craig will try next, begging? He is of no academic consequence anyway and little consequence of any sort outside of creationist cult circles, which away from certain parts of the US shrinks quite dramatically.

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either..................................... I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine..................................................... I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year

rationalwiki.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.theguardian.com...

According to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson - there is saying in scientific community that every scientific truth goes trough three phases:

1. People deny it

2. Conflicts with the Bible

3. They say they knew it all along

This is what will happen to evolution or abiogenesis, with further reading of scripts and 'adjusting it' they will figure out that Evolution is Exactly what Bible said.

Richard Dawkins is trying to put some sense into people, in the hope that there is part of brain that will question beliefs with scientific breakthrough. He should have listened to Hitchens that he should just ridicule religion, the same way Hitchens did.

SuperFrog
This is what will happen to evolution or abiogenesis, with further reading of scripts and 'adjusting it' they will figure out that Evolution is Exactly what Bible said.

Yeah, quite the scientific fount of knowledge/magnum opus, the bible. Gets a bit iffy beyond "in the beginning" though. Regardless how science discredits it, no doubt the more inventive and imaginative believers will find a way.....

sdb93awd
reply to post by adamtash

 

I have got half way through this post and have got to say as a historian there is no proof that Jesus either the man or the son of God existed. I just had to add that and now I am going to finish the rest of the post.

Almost every single historian will tell you that Jesus of Nazereth was real.

Sorry but no.
No proper historian worth his salt will tell you anything other than:
There is no physical evidence, no artefacts, nothing hand written by him, and no contemporary written evidence from other sources.
All sources that mention Jesus are after the fact and can only be classed as hearsay. There is no Roman contemporary documentation saying Pilate executed any one called Jesus, in fact no mention of Jesus at all. No mention of Nazareth in the first century either.

The historians that tell you Jesus existed are basing this on bad practice, namely hearsay and conjecture, and the ones that use personal bias are not historians in the modern academic or any other sense.
Unfortunately this bad practice is getting more common, I suspect because it sells books and documentries.
But it leads to the situation where the general readership is confused and false facts get regarded as real.
If you look on the wiki entry for historical Jesus you can see how this happens, "all historians etc", but no proof is offered and the references do not constitute all or most or any thing other than one person's opinion on the rest of the historians.
The fact of the matter is that no contemporary evidence exists and any true historian will tell you in the absence of evidence anything else is by definition conjecture.
Biblical scholars are different most, though not all, will say a historical Jesus did exist, but they use the gospels as a source, whereas a historian should not because of questions of authorship and dates.
Historians can trace a religion based on a Jesus but not a physical historic figure.

Richard Dawkins needs to eat some sage, before he fades away and the intelligent design wins.

reply to post by thewholetruth


As long as people strive to gather more knowledge and the populace become more intelligent then intelligent design will be the one falling into obscurity.

Dawkins is a pretty busy guy for his age every week I see a new interview or event he attended sometimes three or four pluses I know he is cofounder of several organizations and founder of his own. Overall atheism is growing exponentially.

reply to post by Grimpachi


They are dumbing us down ... just like the old sci fi films warned! We are not to believe in anything. Surely if we loose that sense of belief and wonder, then we loose hope and if we loose hope then love is impossible!!

We MUST believe in something, regardless of if it is really there or not.... we must have that choice and not have it denied to us!!!
We are being conditioned, please wake up everyone...

'V' SPRINGS TO MIND




hx

reply to post by happinness


Oh I know there is a concerted effort to dumb us down but that is coming from the religious right. Especially in Texas where they are trying to stick creationist monotones in school text books. This year even the companies that produce the text books said enough and refused to produce the garbage they were pushing for.

If you need to believe in a narnia that's fine but there is no need to push it on others.

I have very little repect or time for Dawkins.


He is exactly what he campaigns against.


He moans about religius militants and that those that force there beliefs on other and have little repect for atheists yet he does exactly that.

reply to post by crazyewok


I hope you at least have respect and time for scientifically-grounded facts.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Ihope you at least have respect and time for scientifically-grounded facts.

Yes IM a Microbiologist.

And although I do believe in a god, I also accept most of Evolution and the Big bang theory. There are hard facts that cant be ignored.

What I don't like about dawkins is the fact he cant seem to have any respect for anyone with different opinion or views. I think fundamental Christians that believe the world was made in 6 days ect and pretty silly but I respect there right to believe that as long as they don't hurt anyone else, same with any religion or lack of religion.

I just don't like the man and view him as no different from a religious wack job who preaches with the same disrespect and closed mindedness. Even if I thought 100% of what he said was true, doesn't mean I have to like him or how he presents his views.

I do not consider Dawkins as the primary apologist for Evolution.

He is, instead, a popular writer on the topic.

(Please note that as student of science, I see significant problems with the mechanisms of historic and current theories of Evolution in being able to explain the observed).

reply to post by Grimpachi

I respect what you are saying about the religious element. It is any belief system no matter what it is. My Daughter believed in the tooth fairy and it brought her great joy as a child when she found a pound coin under her pillow and her tooth gone. They ultimately don't want us to believe in anything. That is the scary part.
I personally believe that there are aliens. I also believe they can cloak themselves in to anything or anyone they want.
If some one wants to pray for a dying relative or friend and that person recovers, then believing in something in part must only be good.
Actually I must add, its not a belief, I have met them.

Even here in England nursery school kids have to wear a little uniform now. In my area at least. I find that disgusting!
Yet they are gradually removing in a very subtle way religious education from schools. No tooth fairy for them poor little mites. Nothing to look forward too. Soon it will be all gone. Xmas will be for givers and takers and hold no special significance.


Sad


hx

Is Dawkins a freemason? I believe that he is.
He is also part of the establishment, through and through.

reply to post by happinness


Well children will be children however when children grow up they should put away childish things that includes childish beliefs.

Your sentiment seems to be along the lines of “Why take away faith if it helps get people through the day?”

I’ve never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone’s reasoning would increase their chances getting through the day. When one has a more reliable form of reasoning they are then more capable of crafting conditions that then enable them to navigate life’s obstacles. When one embraces reason only then they can legitimately have hope.

Maybe he's averse to circular arguments.

Intelligent Design Debates are an exercise in stupidity. I used to fall victim to the futile exercise until I remembered a simple universal truth.

I don't have a belief about the Universe.

Do I care how (or if) it started?

Nope.

Not following or caring about any other person's beliefs frees me up to do things I enjoy doing. Like pointing out how stupid it is to debate Intelligent Design, from either side.

Just don't.

crazyewok

Yes IM a Microbiologist.

And although I do believe in a god, I also accept most of Evolution and the Big bang theory. There are hard facts that cant be ignored.

I'm curious to know exactly what it is about evolution that a microbiologist doesn't accept?

Prezbo369

crazyewok

Yes IM a Microbiologist.

And although I do believe in a god, I also accept most of Evolution and the Big bang theory. There are hard facts that cant be ignored.

I'm curious to know exactly what it is about evolution that a microbiologist doesn't accept?

Didnt say I didnt accept anything. Not in any absolute way anyway.

Just not everything about evolution is known and alot of research is being done. If we knew everything then we would have no need for evolutionist anymore Last I saw there were still alot of queations and alot of puzzle pieces to be put together. We dont have a 100% clear picture yet.

And seeing as Im a Microbiologist who area is Infectious diseases and human Immunology Im not really in a place to make judgements on the area of evolution. Not in a academic sense anyway.

I have opinions of course but nothing really absolute.


All I know is that the therory of Evolution does not disprove or prove god. Its just a how not a why. And I dont know if we can ever work the why out, not at the moment which is where personal beleifs come in.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Did you actually read Ewok's post? Then why are you asking a question that assumes the exact opposite of what s/he actually said? Go back and read it again. For real this time.