Richard Dawkins Stumped Speachless

Proof these people are makeing up evolution and spreading lies to our kids. Dawkins couldn’t even answer a simple question because there is no answer to it.

Advertisements

23 Comments »

  1. 1
    Forrest Says:

    Fake. The long pause is Mr Dawkins realizing he’s been conned by propagandists, and trying to decide how to proceed.

    From the man’s web site:

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14255&start=0

    A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don’t have the reference with me (I’m in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil’s Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

    Doesn’t god tell people not to lie?

  2. 2
    theism Says:

    How do we assume God feels about deception in his name?

  3. 3
    Darron S Says:

    Just more Lying For Jesus… and it’s not even very clever video editing. The video cut of Richard saying “I am a … sex … maniac!” is much more well produced!

  4. 4
    panj Says:

    Blind fools. Don’t you know who he is? You should because you have been waiting for him for 2000 years.

  5. 5
    Simon Says:

    Here’s a simple question:

    For what meaningful purpose did your god create us?

    Ready? Go…

    tick tick tick…

  6. 6
    angryxtian Says:

    Hy mr tic tock. That’s a realy ignorant question. Go read John 3:16. We ARE teh purpose God made us.

  7. 7
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Thanks for responding with a stupid comment that made no sense at all, angry.

  8. 8
    angryxtian Says:

    Only max nos ense if you refuse to understand it’s all simpler than 1 + 1, if you only let God into your heaart. As long as your refuse Him, you’ll never understand.

  9. 9
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    As long as you refuse evolution…you’ll never understand.

    I thought I’d try one of the theists’ stock explanations, and it wasn’t very satisfying. So I’m still none the wiser as to why theists continue to use such ridiculous arguments. In essence they are saying, not until you stop not believing, will you ever be able to believe. Does anyone else think this is entirely inadequate?

  10. 10
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Angry:

    I’m not just refusing it, I am not denying the evidence, I am just confounded by your irrelevant response, which stated

    “We ARE teh purpose God made us”

    When I asking what the point of God’s existence is, not what he’s done, but why he exists, what is the purpose of his existence?

  11. 11
    anderswc Says:

    The reason for God’s existence is not centered around man. One explanation I agree most with for the reason for God’s existence is glorify Himself. This may sound a bit conceited, but when you think about it, God IS the most powerful person in the entire universe. He has the right to pat himself on the back.
    I feel that people shouldn’t trick Dawkins or anyone else into a debate. Everything should be above board. But on the other hand, why is Dawkins unwilling to have an interview with anyone who doesn’t already believe what he believes? It seems to me that if he really believed that what he said was true and that he could defend his claims, he would welcome opportunities to explain it to others.
    As to the claim that Dawkins is the antichrist, I really don’t think that he is. As far as I know he’s not from roman descent. He’s not making himself a friend to the Jews, and he’s too easy to befuddle. He’s simply another person just like the rest of us. He believes (incorrectly) that God does not exist and that we came from soup (or aliens as “Expelled” would lead us to believe). I don’t think the man is stupid, he simply doesn’t want to see the facts.
    The atheistic claim that bothers me most (and I hear it all the time) is that Christians are the ones who are causing all the problems in the world. I think this assumption by non-Christians will lead easily to the worldwide persecution of the church when the time comes. As we have seen in history, give a group of people a title or description (as was done with Black and Jewish people in the past centuries) and it’s easy to “dog them out”. The same will soon be done to Christians. Call them Stupid, Backward, and a problem for society, and it will be easy to claim that the best solution is to remove them from our communities.
    I might seem far out for this (and I pray that I’m wrong) but I feel that we’re on the brink of great church persecution throughout the world. We may not be thrown to lions, but we will find it hard to get jobs, go to school, and do other “normal” things in life because we will be viewed as “social retards”.

    anyway

  12. 12
    theism Says:

    @Anderswc; you ask “I feel that people shouldn’t trick Dawkins or anyone else into a debate. Everything should be above board. But on the other hand, why is Dawkins unwilling to have an interview with anyone who doesn’t already believe what he believes?

    You’ll be surprised to know the man does this all the time … but not in his home after being lied to by the people who just gained entry. I don’t think many people would have reacted so charitably.

  13. 13
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    I’m sorry anderswc, but the idea that Christians are on the brink of international persecution is delusional and insulting to those people who actually are persecuted against. Christians still possess overwhelming power and influence, particularly in the United States. And I fail to see any evidence that even if atheists became more influential they would seek to murder, disadvantage or even inhibit Christians ability to believe what they want. You will find that all most atheists want from organised religion is secularisation; the removal of religion from politics, work places, public schools etc. The also want religion to stop inhibiting science. Read Dawkins and Hitchens and it is abundantly evident that they do not seek to destroy religions or their followers, nor do they even consider this possible. You will recognise that their passionate polemics are not fueled by hatred, but by a frustration that religion continues to seep into all parts of public life, and as Hitchens says “poison everything”.

    Do you even really honestly hear atheists say continuously that Christians are the ones causing all the worlds problems? I don’t believe you for one moment, as I hardly ever here the comment, unless it as a reply to the tired old unfounded Christian claim that Christians are more moral than Atheists. This debate has been well covered elsewhere, so I am not going to get into it here. But if any religious group is labeled negatively in political and social debates it is atheists, who are considered immoral just because they can be ethical without dogma. You will hear this argument continuously in political debates, in fact any time people appeal to “Christian values” or “family values” in politics they are implying that atheists do not have values. But you won’t see me crying that we are on the verge of persecution, you will hear me reject their arguments and refuse to be considered inferior to the religious.

    As for your comment on facts, let me paraphrase Bertrand Russell, who said that man does not seek knowledge, he seeks security. Therein lies the reason we have religion, especially in the face of contrary scientific evidence.

  14. 14

    Undergroundnetwork, how can you be ethical without dogma? What is your basis for morality?

    As for the matter of this video, everyone seems to be avoiding the million-dollar question: how would Richard Dawkins answer that query? Richard Dawkins himself said that they misrepresented him, and yet he didn’t bother to correctly represent himself.

    And as far as the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, Christians are not persecuted, and I will grant that. But to say that Christians are not persecuted around the world is simply a gross misinformation. Just look at http://www.persecution.com. Maybe they are not being persecuted by atheists, but they are still persecuted for their beliefs.

  15. 15
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Chris, I am well aware that Christians are persecuted throughout the world, particularly in the middle east. I was vague on that I know. What I was addressing is the notion that Christians face potential persecution in westernised nations, which is absurd.

    Unfortunately my computers having problems watching videos online, so I cannot view the footage to reply to the query as to how Dawkin’s would answer it. You may well find he already has on his website.

    http://richarddawkins.net/

    I doubt I will be able to convince you hear, but your ethics are innate. Altruism is beneficial to our species existence and is a product of evolution. This has been covered more than enough times and I’m frankly perplexed that you haven’t stumbled across this point elsewhere. Again, this is covered on Dawkins.net and in numerous other resources online and in entire libraries of books.

    I can see why Dawkins has tired of debates with creationists, one does hear the same tired arguments continuously. But debate IS healthy for all involved and occasionally one is confronted with a new and interesting idea, that gives one food for thought.

  16. 16
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    “I doubt I will be able to convince you hear”

    I mean here!

  17. 17

    So in a sense, undergroundnetwork, you and Stephen Dawkins have grown tired of reasoning with me, though I’ve not grown tired of reasoning with you. And yet, it is unlikely you have ever heard any of my reasonings on ethics. You made some very strong claims against my ethical beliefs without even knowing what I would say about them.

    I did not ask you to convince me about anything; I asked you to be accountable to the general statements about ethics you were making. If it is not practical for you to support such general statements on this blog, then this is not the place to make them. In other words: don’t say things you aren’t willing to defend.

  18. 18
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Ok Chris, Please indulge me! Tell us all why one cannot be ethical without dogma? Tell me how those of us who do not follow scripture are therefore not ethical, or tell us what dogma instead replaces scripture for us non-believers. I wish to hear your reasonings on ethics, because you seem to think I have not heard of them. If this is the case, I would sincerely like to hear a new argument. I also do not think I made any claims against your ethical beliefs, and I would actually like to know your reasoning for claiming that without dogma there are no ethics.

    Oh, and it’s Richard Dawkins not Stephen. And we have not tired of reasoning with you and others, we have tired of reasoning with tired arguments. so please provide something fresh!

  19. 19

    Actually, that’s not the first time I’ve mistakenly referred to “Stephen Dawkins.” I keep phonetically getting Dawkins mixed up with Stephen Hawking. I think God had me do that to remind me that no matter how rational I think I am, I am still very fallable and it is only by his mercy that I am ever right about anything. So I may very well be wrong on this account and I thank you for your patience in bearing with me.

    With that said, I think it is becoming increasingly important that you address my original answer. I raised my question in light of what you said here:
    undergroundnetwork: “But if any religious group is labeled negatively in political and social debates it is atheists, who are considered immoral just because they can be ethical without dogma”

    I’m not certain where you acquired the idea, but I never said you could not be ethical without dogma. My ethics are based on dogma, and I admit that is what I am used to. Since you do not have dogma, I asked what the basis for your own ethics were, which I think is a valid question.

    undergroundnetwork: “I also do not think I made any claims against your ethical beliefs”

    I think you’re saying that my ethics are innate and saying that I’ve already been proved wrong time and time again by people I’ve never met are fairly strong claims against my ethical beliefs. Maybe you could prove that my ethical beliefs are absurd, but even if you did, that still would not present a justification for your own ethics, which by this point I’m sure I’m not the only one on this thread wondering what it would be.

  20. 20
    undergroundnetwork Says:

    Hi Chris,

    Unless you do not believe what so ever that ethics are innate, I have not said you’ve been proved wrong. I would welcome you too to clearly state where ethics are from. You said it was unlikely I had heard any of your reasonings on ethics, I still would like to hear you on this. Ethics and religion is certainly an interest of mine and I’m always keen to hear new opinions, especially ones that conflict with my own.

    I think a post I’ve been writing covers most of what you’re asking for from me. It is not complete yet,(I’m pretty busy with uni work) but I’ll be posting it on my blog in the next few days.

    This previous post does somewhat cover it too:
    http://undergroundnetwork.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/breaking-the-monopoly-of-morality/

    Sorry to have to keep you waiting.

    Cheers,
    Paul

  21. 21
    theism Says:

    Chris Johnson made a fair observation:

    As for the matter of this video, everyone seems to be avoiding the million-dollar question: how would Richard Dawkins answer that query?

    I can’t speak from Dawkins; he has several choices, and might have picked a different one.

    In 1974, a bacteria was discovered that could digest nylon. We can all agree that nylon hasn’t been on the planet all that long … clearly this is new information in the genome! On that note, the same is true for bacteria we see growing immune to antibiotics.

    If you’d like more detail, the answer is a bit mathematical, since we’re talking about DNA and information theory. Still, it’s worth reading about the frame shift mutation that let the nylon-eating happen.

    Underground is alluding to something … the people in this video aren’t the first ones to ask this question. Biologists since Darwin have been asking the same thing. If it were impossible for mutations to add complexity over time, intelligent, educated people wouldn’t “subscribe” to the theory of evolution by the hundreds of millions.

  22. 22

    Thank you for pointing me in a good direction and providing the link, theism. I am a computer programmer and am very intrigued by DNA and will look more into that.

    I seriously weigh the fact that hundreds of millions of intelligent, educated people have subscribed to the theory of evolution, though as I explain in my essay at http://www.silentorb.com/translucence/2008/05/science-is-not-reality.php, the whole world can believe something and still be wrong. I think my beliefs will be most in line with reality if I approach convention with both humility and skepticism.

    As to mutating complexity, I am writing a series of essays that provide strong evidence that the idea of simple systems producing complex systems is absurd. I posted the first component of that argument at http://www.silentorb.com/translucence/2008/04/survival-or-functional.php and I am still trying to find anyone who can provide a substantial argument against it. I think this is important because if my proposals are not proved wrong then evolution is scientifically illogical.

  23. 23
    Frank Baptiste Says:

    *speechless


RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: