"One should doubtless keep an open mind...though open at both ends, like the food pipe, and have a capacity for excretion as well as intake." -- Northrop Frye, 'The Great Code'
Monday, July 8, 2013
Debate: Atheism vs theism
A seven year old debate worth revisiting, Richard Dawkins vs David Quinn. The winner, David Quinn, easily:
No wonder Dawkins has a lengthy list of those people he "will not be bothered to debate" (his words).
When he exits his self dictated parameters of debate he gets his ass kicked.
He likes to preach to the choir and be adored by his snotty group of self important religion haters.
He's big with the gays and their sycophants in the baby boomer, spoiled brat, liberalretardian crowd because religion has the audacity to say "Hey you aren't supposed to do that!" or "You aren't the centre of the universe!" and they can't stand that.
Dawkins doesn't like to engage in a debate on free will because he knows he's beaten when it comes to that point. You can't have morality without free will and you can't have free will in a deterministic universe. Dawkins is too chicken shit to admit it so he refuses to egage on the point.
I've always wondered about Dawkins' hate for religion. He likes to dress himself up as some noble, pure defender of the truth.
I think though, it may be some thing as simple as plain old envy. Dawkins' work as an evolutionary biologist has really added very little to what was already understood in the field.
Other scientists in fields where there are truly groundbreaking and undreamed of discoveries to be made are literally leaving Dawkins behind to eat their intellectual dust.
Scientists are people too and want to be celebrated and praised by the community at large for their work. But Dawkins probably realizes that there are no real earth shaking discoveries to be made in evolutionary biology. So if you can't be famous, be infamous. And how better to be infamous than the oldest trick in the book - - offend someone and let their outrage propel you to fame. AND ..... as always Christians are right up there on the top 10 list of whipping boys.
He wrote God Delusion for the cheap fame that offensive controversy brings. There was greater greater purpose in his mind than that.
No wonder Dawkins has a lengthy list of those people he "will not be bothered to debate" (his words).
ReplyDeleteWhen he exits his self dictated parameters of debate he gets his ass kicked.
He likes to preach to the choir and be adored by his snotty group of self important religion haters.
He's big with the gays and their sycophants in the baby boomer, spoiled brat, liberalretardian crowd because religion has the audacity to say "Hey you aren't supposed to do that!" or "You aren't the centre of the universe!" and they can't stand that.
Dawkins doesn't like to engage in a debate on free will because he knows he's beaten when it comes to that point. You can't have morality without free will and you can't have free will in a deterministic universe.
Dawkins is too chicken shit to admit it so he refuses to egage on the point.
I've always wondered about Dawkins' hate for religion. He likes to dress himself up as some noble, pure defender of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think though, it may be some thing as simple as plain old envy. Dawkins' work as an evolutionary biologist has really added very little to what was already understood in the field.
Other scientists in fields where there are truly groundbreaking and undreamed of discoveries to be made are literally leaving Dawkins behind to eat their intellectual dust.
Scientists are people too and want to be celebrated and praised by the community at large for their work. But Dawkins probably realizes that there are no real earth shaking discoveries to be made in evolutionary biology. So if you can't be famous, be infamous. And how better to be infamous than the oldest trick in the book - - offend someone and let their outrage propel you to fame. AND ..... as always Christians are right up there on the top 10 list of whipping boys.
He wrote God Delusion for the cheap fame that offensive controversy brings. There was greater greater purpose in his mind than that.
Oops sorry it should read: There was NO greater purpose in his mind than that.
ReplyDeleteDavid Quinn certainly owns Dawkins in the debate. But Dawkins loses the argument himself when he uses the term "sure as hell" to make his point.
ReplyDelete