Richard Dawkins is a super coward

reply to post by windword


Sounds like your upset that I have you cornered more than anything....


That's usually what people do when they feel outgunned. Answer those questions though please.....


I know it's hard to speak on things that you're ignorant about(Christianity and scripture), but I forgive you. You still have time to learn.

reply to post by sdb93awd

Do you find Christians to be a violent people when you interact with them?

I find them to be emotional abusive, and, intellectually dishonest.........

What does Christianity have to do with the creation story? What's their angle, do they have a dog in the race? Yep, the God of the Old Testament, that demands worship and calls for murder, theft, slavery and rape, and claims to be "The Creator. That's their God.

reply to post by windword


The creation story is incredibly vague. What are you even talking about with this whole dog in the race thing. I've been trying to demonstrate that the Genesis account is not even in contradiction with science.....

I'm sorry that you are so naive about God's character. He's great. I love him and he has helped many people I know overcome difficult things in life as well as offer them hope......which isn't really all that bad even if it's malarkey.


So you are afraid of Christians?


lolololol im sorry. im sorry. that was mean. It's perfectly ok to be afraid of things........




As far as emotional abuse is concerned.........

-Have you read Dawkins' book? All he does is emotionally abuse Christianity based off of his disagreement with young earthers. He attacks the one thing in life that means more to us than anything just because some people are young earthers. He says people like me and my wonderful family should be ridiculed and humiliated..........thats unfair and unfounded abuse at the top of the best seller list.

reply to post by sdb93awd


What questions?

reply to post by windword


So it isn't intellectually dishonest for Dawkins to ridicule young earthers and then extrapolate that into saying that Christians should be ridiculed?

Why is he afraid of anyone that isn't a young earther or a clergymen?

Also what is the creation story? How detailed is it? Do you understand the genre, history, or the interpretive possibilities?



This whole thing is just such a microcosm how little most atheist types know about scripture......It's disheartening to know that such an idiotic attack on Christianity has markedly impacted so many intelligent people such as yourself out there......Its just like D vs R and its leading us nowhere. Being a gnostic atheist is just as insane as being a young earther. No question.

reply to post by sdb93awd


So you're a "young earther".

So it isn't intellectually dishonest for Dawkins to ridicule young earthers and then extrapolate that into saying that Christians should be ridiculed?

Not if what he says is true.

Why is he afraid of anyone that isn't a young earther or a clergymen?

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you're basing your question on an assumption, that RD is afraid. You should read the link that I provided so that you can avoid the pit falls of intellectual dishonesty.

Also what is the creation story? How detailed is it? Do you understand the genre, history, or the interpretive possibilities?

God did it all, the Bible tells us so. The creation story is based on the theme of a creator god and his exploits, where science has no need to consider god in it's investigations.

reply to post by windword


Maybe I jumped the gun when I thought of you as an intellectual.

Nothing I have said would indicate that I'm a young earther.

Not if what he says is true.

So you're of the opinion that Christians should be ridiculed? Because he disagrees with young earth creationists? That's absurd and you darn well know it.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you're basing your question on an assumption, that RD is afraid. You should read the link that I provided so that you can avoid the pit falls of intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry, but this assumption is obvious given the stated facts of the scenario. He's clearly ducking Craig and his excuses have been clearly shown to be in contradiction with his other actions.

God did it all, the Bible tells us so. The creation story is based on the theme of a creator god and his exploits, where science has no need to consider god in it's investigations.

Thank you for your honest response. Now I just know that you revel in your ignorance. At one point in this discussion you seemed reasonable.......You keep forgetting that science and Genesis are not in contradiction.

Oh BTW, are you personally afraid of Christians?

As this thread has progressed I simply see no reason that Dawkins should be considered anything less than a coward.

For an esteemed academic, he sure is making himself and his minions seem feeble and weak when confronted with something other than blind young earth creationism.

He is the opposite of a champion.

The fact that he published an excuse and that his excuses within the excuse were contradictory tell us everything that we need to know.

sdb93awd
reply to post by windword

 

Maybe I jumped the gun when I thought of you as an intellectual.

Nothing I have said would indicate that I'm a young earther.

Well, you said this.

He attacks the one thing in life that means more to us than anything just because some people are young earthers. He says people like me and my wonderful family should be ridiculed and humiliated..........

You see how it is when someone bases their arguments on assumptions? Although, I didn't bring up the young earth theory, you did, nor have I made any argument for or against creation or the young earth theory. My debate with you is with WLC's approach in his debate and why RD won't debate him.

Not if what he says is true.

So you're of the opinion that Christians should be ridiculed? Because he disagrees with young earth creationists? That's absurd and you darn well know it.

Do you think Dawkins' scholarship should be devalued because your feelings were hurt by what he wrote in his book?

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you're basing your question on an assumption, that RD is afraid. You should read the link that I provided so that you can avoid the pit falls of intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry, but this assumption is obvious given the stated facts of the scenario. He's clearly ducking Craig and his excuses have been clearly shown to be in contradiction with his other actions.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you are assuming a false premise is a fact.

False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”

God did it all, the Bible tells us so. The creation story is based on the theme of a creator god and his exploits, where science has no need to consider god in it's investigations.

Thank you for your honest response. Now I just know that you revel in your ignorance. At one point in this discussion you seemed reasonable.......You keep forgetting that science and Genesis are not in contradiction.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Sarcasm, personal insults, accusations and assumptions being levied without addressing the question in debate, in order to distract or to derail the topic, are tactics of intellectual dishonesty. They are also TROLL tactics.

Since all that you have done is present intellectually dishonest arguments in a troll like fashion, never addressing any of the issues that Dawkins put forward as to why he refused to debate Craig, I have to conclude that Richard Dawkins won't debate William Lane Craig because Craig is also intellectually dishonest, and more. His proponents, like you, are also intellectually dishonest and trolls to boot!

i]reply to post by windword

You see how it is when someone bases their arguments on assumptions? Although, I didn't bring up the young earth theory, you did, nor have I made any argument for or against creation or the young earth theory. My debate with you is with WLC's approach in his debate and why RD won't debate him.

It's not an assumption. Read his books.

Do you think Dawkins' scholarship should be devalued because your feelings were hurt by what he wrote in his book?

Nope. I simply pointed out the hypocricy in your statement about Christians being emotionally abusive.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you are assuming a false premise is a fact.

Given what we have already discussed, how are his published excuses not self contradictory?

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Sarcasm, personal insults, accusations and assumptions being levied without addressing the question in debate, in order to distract or to derail the topic, are tactics of intellectual dishonesty. They are also TROLL tactics.

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question. YOU responded with sarcasm and I pointed out that you were reveling in your ignorance. How am I the troll?

sdb93awd

i]reply to post by windword

 

You see how it is when someone bases their arguments on assumptions? Although, I didn't bring up the young earth theory, you did, nor have I made any argument for or against creation or the young earth theory. My debate with you is with WLC's approach in his debate and why RD won't debate him.

It's not an assumption. Read his books.

I've read many of his book. My favorite one is "Battle of the Sexes."

Do you think Dawkins' scholarship should be devalued because your feelings were hurt by what he wrote in his book?

Nope. I simply pointed out the hypocricy in your statement about Christians being emotionally abusive.

My statement? What statement? Do you mean my personal observation that Christians can be emotional abusive?

This is an intellectually dishonest argument because you are assuming a false premise is a fact.

Given what we have already discussed, how are his published excuses not self contradictory?

How are they? Cite an example. So far, you haven't addressed any of Dawkins responses to WLC.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Sarcasm, personal insults, accusations and assumptions being levied without addressing the question in debate, in order to distract or to derail the topic, are tactics of intellectual dishonesty. They are also TROLL tactics.

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question. YOU responded with sarcasm and I pointed out that you were reveling in your ignorance. How am I the troll?

What question?

You're not making your case. But you ARE making mine.

reply to post by windword


You're not picking up on things too quickly sir.

I've read many of his book. My favorite one is "Battle of the Sexes."

Then you should know how often Dawkins attacks the lowest common denominator of Christians(young earthers). He then uses these attacks on the LCD and extrapolates that into: "Christians should be humiliated". Talk about being intellectually dishonest and incredibly naive.

My statement? What statement? Do you mean my personal observation that Christians can be emotional abusive?

Yes. The books you have read by Dawkins are incredibly naive as well as being emotionally abusive towards a whole group of people. Most of these people, mind you, do not fit into his attacks of the lowest common denominators.

Also, someones faith is incredibly important to them. Unfounded attacks on Christianity are worse than racism. Naive people attacking things that they clearly dont understand is like a hillbilly attacking a black person...........only somebodies faith is far more important to them then their skin color usually.

How are they? Cite an example. So far, you haven't addressed any of Dawkins responses to WLC.

Been over this maybe 10 times. His published excuse contradicts his excuse that WLC is not woth his time.

Also, his refusal to debate him on moral grounds is in direct contadiction to Dawkins wastimg his time debating clergymen as well as young earth creationists. It's only reasonable for me to conclude that he is afraid of Craig because his cookie cutter attacks will be futile...

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question. YOU responded with sarcasm and I pointed out that you were reveling in your ignorance. How am I the troll?

You called me a troll after you ducked a question of mine with sarcasm and after I pointed out the fact that you obviously revel in ignorance.

reply to post by sdb93awd

Then you should know how often Dawkins attacks the lowest common denominator of Christians(young earthers). He then uses these attacks on the LCD and extrapolates that into: "Christians should be humiliated". Talk about being intellectually dishonest and incredibly naive.

No, no. Dawkins doesn't attack anyone personally, in his books or in his debates. He's attacking the theory. If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, so much so that you feel the need to have to attack, then the problem is your's not RD's.

The question is "Why does Dawkins make you feel humiliated?"

His published excuse contradicts his excuse that WLC is not woth his time.

I don't see how.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

Clearly, Craig has offended Dawkins' sensibility. His reason for declining is clear and has nothing to do with "wussing out".

Also, his refusal to debate him on moral grounds is in direct contadiction to Dawkins wastimg his time debating clergymen as well as young earth creationists. It's only reasonable for me to conclude that he is afraid of Craig because his cookie cutter attacks will be futile...

Please quote, for me, one time that any of the clergy that Dawkins has debated has justified the murder of 10's of 1000's of children to be the kindest thing to do, and that the true sympathy should go to their killers.

You called me a troll

You're behaving like a troll, as I pointed out, by using tired, worn out intellectually dishonest tactics. If you had read the LINK you'd understand.

after you ducked a question of mine

What question?

with sarcasm

Pot, meet kettle!

and after I pointed out the fact that you obviously revel in ignorance.

Another intellectually dishonest tactic that's not worthy of being addressed any further.

sdb93awd
reply to post by windword

 

This whole thing is just such a microcosm how little most atheist types know about scripture

Oh, REALLY?



I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. If we were face to face right now I'd ask you to give me a Bible quote so that I could give you the chapter and verse.

But I'm an Atheist so I guess you're more "educated on scripture" than I could ever be in my 18 years of strictly Christian "educated" childhood and adolescence.

Tell me, though. As a Christian, how many books have you read about Islam? Buddhism? Hell, SCIENCE?

Typically, your faction is the one selectively under-educating itself and claiming to know all things about certain topics.

reply to post by LightOrange


Nice video!

But I disagree the premise that atheists and agnostics know more about the Bible and Religion than evangelicals and Catholics, because they study in order to better argue against religion. I think that most atheists and agnostics were raised in religious environments and tried like hell to make sense of their religion by pouring over scriptures and books. Finally, coming up empty, they abandoned religion and they know why.

reply to post by windword


I tend to agree. I posted the video for the survey that it cites since it's hard to say it's biased when it's coming from "the pew forum".

The commentators in the video obviously have a will to make excuses for why the religious tend to be more ignorant of scripture and their own faith than atheists and agnostics.

Really I think the reason that believers scored lower is because they grew up in a family that didn't need any reasoning behind their faith. Many believers tend to veer away from circumstances that would test their faith, so it's easy to see why so many haven't really learned much about it beyond the rhetoric that is shouted at them with zeal from behind a podium at their Sunday service.

The real funny thing I find about people who support William Lane Craig is how they could possibly see a link between his arguments and an organised religion. WLC's arguments support agnosticism at best. How you get from his arguments to a single god who wants to micromanage your morals, sex life, life views, views on creation, and how you feel about your enemies and deligates such requests through other human beings is a stretch I have yet to see any reasoning behind.

reply to post by windword

The real funny thing I find about people who support William Lane Craig is how they could possibly see a link between his arguments and an organised religion. WLC's arguments support agnosticism at best. How you get from his arguments to a single god who wants to micromanage your morals, sex life, life views, views on creation, and how you feel about your enemies and deligates such requests through other human beings is a stretch I have yet to see any reasoning behind.

I agree. WLC makes these wild "quantum leaps of faith"! "If this, then God!" "Tada"! "If God, then the Bible is true!"

Uh, no.

I'm happy to admit that a god exists, providing that god is defined as the consciousness of the collective of everything that exists. But, no, his / their god doesn't exist within existence, but outside of existence, and through its will, and it's will only, created the universe in one word and the wave of its magic hand!

Um, no.

reply to post by windword

No, no. Dawkins doesn't attack anyone personally, in his books or in his debates. He's attacking the theory. If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, so much so that you feel the need to have to attack, then the problem is your's not RD's.

Read his books again. He makes money attacking Christianity based off of only young earth creationist views. Also, his comments about Christianity prove his complete and utter ignorance about scripture. He looks like a bafoon to anybody that actually has read the Bible.

He probably knows that he's being stupid.......but his audience wants to hear that there is no God so he attacks the lowest common denominators of Christianity to sell books to the LCD of atheism. He also says that Christians should be publicly ridiculed. These are people instructed to love EVERYONE, mind you.

I feel bad for his apparent ignorance and I feel bad for the LCD's of atheism because they think that he actually knows what he is talking about with regard to intelligent design theories.

Clearly, Craig has offended Dawkins' sensibility. His reason for declining is clear and has nothing to do with "wussing out".

You still haven't figured this one out huh?

Please quote, for me, one time that any of the clergy that Dawkins has debated has justified the murder of 10's of 1000's of children to be the kindest thing to do, and that the true sympathy should go to their killers.

All clergymen believe what is written in the Bible. They all worship the God of the Bible.

What question?

Also what is the creation story? How detailed is it? Do you understand the genre, history, or the interpretive possibilities?

This is the question you ducked.

reply to post by LightOrange

Typically, your faction is the one selectively under-educating itself and claiming to know all things about certain topics.

All I've claimed here is that Richard Dawkins is afraid of William Lane Craig. I do KNOW that.

I've made my case excruciatingly clear. I've yet to hear one thing showing me that his excuses are valid.

He knows that his weak arguments against "young earthers" won't hold water against a stout opponent like WLC and I'm sure he'd like to continue selling books to idiots.........They may not sell as well after he gets humiliated.

reply to post by sdb93awd


Did god ask Mary before impregnating her?

WHATS THAT? .....NO!!?!?!?!?!? That's rape my friend.

Then the case is closed, you worship and support rape.