Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists

[Eudaimonist]

Thank you for proving my point by demonstrating both ignorance and arrogance. You are ignorant in your assumption that I am not well educated and arrogant in your insinuation that you are, as an atheist, smarter and better educated. Your post proves exactly what I described. Thank you for validating my argument so well.

I never said that I thought that you were not well educated, or that I as an atheist am automatically smarter and better educated. You may want to pay more attention to what I do say.

It's not a matter of humility, it's a question of logic. If God exists, as I contend, then to know Him is to possess the greatest knowledge of the universe. To not know Him or to deny Him conversely is the greatest ignorance. If you had the wisdom of Solomon and never accepted Christ you'd be a greater fool that any who did accept Him and was welcomed into His kingdom. This is not a flame or an insult, but Biblical teaching as it relates to Psalms 14:1. Or as we see in Mark 8:

It's pure arrogance. You simply want to cloak that arrogance by wrapping it up in quotes from the Bible. If I were to claim that atheism was the greatest wisdom, you'd call me arrogant in a heartbeat. You want to hold to a double-standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I see that you have deleted sections of my post to alter its intent. I find that to be intellectually dishonest, but not unexpected. Where you don't have answers, just say so.

What exactly is it that you're seeking? How will you know when you find it? Do you think, logically, that if God existed, that someone might have written about Him? There have been many books written about Lincoln. Does that mean He didn't exist either?

Putting words in my mouth? More intellectual dishonesty? I said, I don't "reject God", I reject your claims for the existence of deities being anything more than characters in books. I also reject the claims of the existence of large primates known as "Sasquatch" that are similarly unsubstantiated.

I know there are UFO's. Mostly, all we really know about them is that they are unidentified. Everything else is speculation.

Some people believe them to be of extraterrestrial origin, and have actually contacted humans. Do you deny their claims?

Only if their deity is organic in nature and can be observed.

I asked, is there one - just one - biologist that can provide testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of their particular deity? There isn't, is there?

I've given some suggestions, but nobody has had the guts to try them. Here's one. Go to the oldest minister you know; someone who has been preaching the word of God for many years. Sit down with him and ask him what personal firsthand miracles he has seen or experienced. Dot this three times with three different ministers and I think you'll get some very convincing testimony. The concurrence of three first hand witnesses are enough to send a man to death row. It might be enough to show you the path to eternal life. God is not a part of the physical world that you may go see Him and test Him. He reveals Himself only to His own. If you took time to truly seek Him you could easily find Him. As Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find."

I am not looking for other people who may be deceived, or self-deceived. I asked, how does one tell the difference between accepting the existence of deities and an exercise in self-deception? Something scientific.

As you deleted from my post, I am not asking for conclusive proof, just something testable, falsifiable. You deleted this line since you don't have anything, do you?

Do you not understand what a straw man argument is or are you deliberately using the term out of context, because it doesn't apply. There is no construct here.

The straw man is in telling others what they think, that "An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God". I know I cannot say there is no "God", for I would first have to define what I mean by "God". I know *you* can't even do that. Not in any way that would be of significance.

You mean you're just finding out that the supernatural cannot be tested by natural means? Congratulations! Can you tell me what would be different if the world were created by supernatural means? Further, considering that there is NO viable proven process that allows for origination, can you explain how ANYTHING came into being by natural processes?

I don't need to. I am not the one claiming to know. You, however, must suspect that you cannot demonstrate your "knowledge", as you deleted from my post, "It boils down to the fact that [theists] have no argument but their own incredulity." Does that sum up your position?

Your claims of young age, gap age, or last Thursdayism are without scientific significance. Amirite?

So now God is responsible for you rejecting His explanation of how He created the world

Do not put words in my mouth. I asked a hypothetical question: Did your god make the universe to appear scientifically to be billions of years old as some sort of validation test for a particular interpretation of a book for a particular religion?

There are Christians that accept the theory of evolution, and of life first appearing on this planet billions of years ago. They think you are wrong. Can you not even change their opinion?

in favour of some partially validated

Partially validated? What part do you accept? Gravitational theory? Atomic theory? Germ theory? Or do you think demons cause disease?

and still largely impossible theory of auto-origination?

How did you establish that this was "impossible"? Wishful thinking?

How do you accuse God of being a trickster when He gave you the specific details of how He did it?

"Specific details"? Seriously? Do you mean the bible? "God did it" has no explanatory power. The bible is not evidence.

Talk about arrogant!

Arrogant, to me, would be your putting words in others' mouths, dishonestly modifying the posts you are replying to, making untestable, unfalsifiable, and unsubstantiated statements, and then thinking that you have a theological leg to stand on.

Just sayin.

Do you have anything that might establish gods as more that just characters in books?

 

[Dusky Mouse]

What is this to you? Some game? If God is not roughly what people believe it is and define it as, then all I can say is:
"Not only is the idea that God exists not true, it is not even false." IOW it is even worse that just being wrong.

I've read this twice and have to say, do you not realize that makes no sense?

In addition to that ... If all the theists in the world talk rot about God it is not the atheists' fault.

It is the atheists position to argue that all that rot isn't possible. Only one problem. Atheists can not prove there is nothing, omitting the theist perspective, worthy of the label God.

And while atheists, knowing that fact defeats their entire argument, will say so as to avoid that responsibility; the onus is on the believer in God to afford proof of God.
The onus is on the atheist who argues the human perspective is false because the object is not real. Simply claiming God doesn't exist isn't proof something beyond human imagination and labeled God, does not.

Science is looking for "God" all the time. So far they call it, "Big Bang".
And myriad other terms.

The error atheists express is their aversion to being open minded when they argue they are rationalists and thus superior to theists.

An open mind would realize the limited human intellect, regardless of how rational the egoism of the individual thinker purports themselves to be, can only imagine what God is, or is not.

Anything that would truly qualify as "God", does not comport itself to the confines of our limited intellects as humans. And as such those limited intellects can not proclaim the absolute, as many strong atheists do, that God does not exist.

Reality, well beyond our comprehension, marks all humans as agnostics. We don't know but we're open to finding out or having it proved that something called God is real.
Meanwhile, egocentric humans conceive of Theism. So as to at least think something we believe in reciprocates. We even write Genesis so as to say, we are made in the image and likeness of, that what we call God.

Power, is indifferent to the human condition.
Humans aren't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've read this twice and have to say, do you not realize that makes no sense?

It is the atheists position to argue that all that rot isn't possible. Only one problem. Atheists can not prove there is nothing, omitting the theist perspective, worthy of the label God.

And while atheists, knowing that fact defeats their entire argument, will say so as to avoid that responsibility; the onus is on the believer in God to afford proof of God.
The onus is on the atheist who argues the human perspective is false because the object is not real. Simply claiming God doesn't exist isn't proof something beyond human imagination and labeled God, does not.

The burden of proof - YouTube

Science is looking for "God" all the time. So far they call it, "Big Bang".
And myriad other terms.

The error atheists express is their aversion to being open minded when they argue they are rationalists and thus superior to theists.

An open mind would realize the limited human intellect, regardless of how rational the egoism of the individual thinker purports themselves to be, can only imagine what God is, or is not.

Anything that would truly qualify as "God", does not comport itself to the confines of our limited intellects as humans. And as such those limited intellects can not proclaim the absolute, as many strong atheists do, that God does not exist.

Reality, well beyond our comprehension, marks all humans as agnostics. We don't know but we're open to finding out or having it proved that something called God is real.

I am open to the possibility, and in that sense, I am an agnostic, because I don't know.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I've read this twice and have to say, do you not realize that makes no sense?

No, I don't realize that. It seems to be an apt reply.

It is the atheists position to argue that all that rot isn't possible. Only one problem. Atheists can not prove there is nothing, omitting the theist perspective, worthy of the label God.

Oh, I think I can. It might not be to the satisfaction of a lot of believers, but it has meanwhile dawned upon me that this shouldn't bother me in the slightest. 'Am I convinced?' is something which bothers me much more.

(And 'Yes, I am.' )

And while atheists, knowing that fact defeats their entire argument, will say so as to avoid that responsibility; the onus is on the believer in God to afford proof of God.
The onus is on the atheist who argues the human perspective is false because the object is not real. Simply claiming God doesn't exist isn't proof something beyond human imagination and labeled God, does not.

Here you err too. God firmly rests inside human imagination. It is not true that if all the believers have it wrong, God still can exist. Rather, there needs to be a significant amout of believers to possibly have it right for the claim "God exists" to potentially become true.

Putting "something beyond human imaginantion" makes it fairly hard for anybody to put the label God on it, and even impossible to be right about it. Except, you are willing to accept anything which humans can't understand as God for the sake of humans not being capable to understand.


(In the rest of the post there isn't anything which I'd like to address or haven't addressed already. )

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I've read this twice and have to say, do you not realize that makes no sense?

It is the atheists position to argue that all that rot isn't possible. Only one problem. Atheists can not prove there is nothing, omitting the theist perspective, worthy of the label God.

And while atheists, knowing that fact defeats their entire argument, will say so as to avoid that responsibility; the onus is on the believer in God to afford proof of God.
The onus is on the atheist who argues the human perspective is false because the object is not real. Simply claiming God doesn't exist isn't proof something beyond human imagination and labeled God, does not.

Science is looking for "God" all the time. So far they call it, "Big Bang".
And myriad other terms.

The error atheists express is their aversion to being open minded when they argue they are rationalists and thus superior to theists.

An open mind would realize the limited human intellect, regardless of how rational the egoism of the individual thinker purports themselves to be, can only imagine what God is, or is not.

Anything that would truly qualify as "God", does not comport itself to the confines of our limited intellects as humans. And as such those limited intellects can not proclaim the absolute, as many strong atheists do, that God does not exist.

Reality, well beyond our comprehension, marks all humans as agnostics. We don't know but we're open to finding out or having it proved that something called God is real.
Meanwhile, egocentric humans conceive of Theism. So as to at least think something we believe in reciprocates. We even write Genesis so as to say, we are made in the image and likeness of, that what we call God.

Power, is indifferent to the human condition.
Humans aren't.

You do not understand the burden of proof.

It is you, the theist who must prove that a diety(s) exists. Until then, we skeptics have no duty to take your claims seriously.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

No, I don't realize that. It seems to be an apt reply.

Well, as long as you think so.

Oh, I think I can. It might not be to the satisfaction of a lot of believers, but it has meanwhile dawned upon me that this shouldn't bother me in the slightest. 'Am I convinced?' is something which bothers me much more.

(And 'Yes, I am.' )....



Here you err too. God firmly rests inside human imagination. It is not true that if all the believers have it wrong, God still can exist. Rather, there needs to be a significant amout of believers to possibly have it right for the claim "God exists" to potentially become true.

That what would be "God" in truth, as something that actually does exist as alpha and omega, source, creator, etc... would not necessitate any number of humans to believe in it for it to be potentially true.

The premise that assumes humans have any responsibility at all in the existence of God, by majority consensus or otherwise, simply reiterates the prior statement that we confine God to our limited intellectual expectations. Even that its existence requires our thinking it there.


Pretty much all of your reply including this latter part is a rewording of my own observations so I'll just leave it at that.

Putting "something beyond human imaginantion" makes it fairly hard for anybody to put the label God on it, and even impossible to be right about it. Except, you are willing to accept anything which humans can't understand as God for the sake of humans not being capable to understand.


(In the rest of the post there isn't anything which I'd like to address or haven't addressed already. )

 

[super animator]

This isn't general apologetic guys.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

This isn't general apologetic guys.

And a good thing too else we'd be in the wrong forum since we're discussing philosophy.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree with KW. You're not making any sense and are actually contradicting your own statements. You claimed you use to have a relationship with God and God spoke to you? And now you say that?

I'm not contradicting what I said before because I didn't say that. Never in this thread did I say that I had a relationship with God and God spoke to me. What I said was that I had experiences that YOU (repeat YOU/ Christians) would called an experience of God, or a religious experience.

Do you see the difference?

Something sure happened to make you do a convoluted 180. Especially when I've read you to say in other threads that you don't believe in morality, and are all for incest because when it's between consenting individuals.

So, hows that lack of belief working out for you?

I changed my mind because I learnt to think more critically and to question. I once thought I experienced God, but then I questioned that and saw how it could be just psychology.

I don't think I've ever said that I don't believe in morality on this forum. I've always argued in favour of morality on here. Maybe you just made a mistake, but it would be nice if you didn't say false things about me.

I'm okay with incest between consenting people. Why would I be against it?

My lack of belief is working out pretty well, not that I lost belief on purpose. Why do you ask?

 

[Davian]

And a good thing too else we'd be in the wrong forum since we're discussing philosophy.

I'm pretty sure KWCrazy is plying his apologetics. The site rules are merely suggestions, apparently.

 

[KWCrazy]

Almost nobody.

"Four Hundred Passages in the Bible that Condemn the Globe Theory, or the Flying Earth, and None Sustain It.
This Map is the Bible Map of the World."

You can always find people to discredit anything, but I've never seen anyone post on a website that they seriously believed in a flat earth, as has been represented. The Bible doesn't get into cosmology, though there are things mentioned that people of the era could not know. Such as:

There is a place void of stars in the North Job 26:7
Earth is held in place by invisible forces Job 26:7
Taxonomic classification of matter Genesis
The Earth is round Isaiah 40:22
Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man Leviticus11
Early diagnosis of leprosy Leviticus 13
Quarantine for disease control Leviticus 13
Blood of animals carries diseases Leviticus 17
Blood is necessary for life Leviticus 17:11
Oceans have natural paths in them Psalms 8:8
Earth was in nebular form initially Genesis 1:2
Most seaworthy ship design ratio is 30:5:3 Genesis 6
Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) Job 38:19
Radio astronomy (stars give off signals) Job 38:7
Oceans contain fresh water springs Job 38:16
Snow has material value Job 38:22
Infinite number of stars exist Genesis 15:5
Dust is important to survival Isaiah 40:12
Hubert Spencer's scientific principles Genesis 1
Air has weight Job 28:25 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors Job 38:24
Matter is made up of invisible particles Romans 1:20

Since we are on the subject of misguided beliefs, I might remind you that Isaac Newton was an alchemist. "Newton wasn't even trying to take alchemy in new and interesting directions, opting instead to pursue theories that had long since been disregarded by people who still believed alchemy was possible. His time as an alchemist was mainly devoted to creating the philosopher's stone, which he believed could transmute other metals into gold and grant human beings immortality."

Alfred Russel Wallace, one of the most accomplished biologists who ever lived, also came up with the theory of evolution. Wallace sent Darwin a copy of his theory of natural selection in 1858, before Darwin had published a word of his own theory. The guy who probably beat Darwin to the theory of evolution was also hugely interested in practicing spiritualist seances. In fact, he believed seances allowed him to communicate with ghosts.

Joseph Priestley was a British chemist who was responsible for inventing the process for carbonation and the production of laughing gas, and therefore is indirectly responsible for "David After Dentist" and every soda you've ever enjoyed. Oh, he also discovered oxygen in 1774. Actually, he only went out of his way to discover oxygen in the first place to prop up his belief in the phlogiston theory, which is based on the assumption that there are four elements: water, earth, fire and air.
source

 

[super animator]

I'm pretty sure KWCrazy is plying his apologetics. The site rules are merely suggestions, apparently.

No, this is just a common case of this website being too large and number of mods too small. That and the fact that no one appears to be using the report button.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Or you are.
Let's look at this logically. If the Bible is right

That's a big "if". We're talking about a book that contradicts itself at various points and which, if read literally, makes claims that contradict what we know about the world.

then the one who says there is no God is a fool. If a fool proclaims something is wrong, of what value is that comment? We are said to not take the council of a fool.

"If there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence." - Bertrand Russell

The words and the admonitions are interchangeable. The meaning is the same. You say the Bible is wrong but you have no proof. You cannot say those who lived before have not lived. In fact, ancient cities mentioned in the Bible have been discovered by archaeologists. The fact is, people who have actively sought God have found Him. Those who claim He doesn't exist have never sought Him. We can no more take your word for it than we could if you said that Waldo was never in any of the "Where's Waldo" pictures because you never looked for him.

The statement of that claim as 'fact' is extremely dubious.

Compelling for whom? 85% of Americans know that God is real. Atheists are a small and excessively vocal 15% minority who claim a God they have never sought cannot be found. Seriously, your position is NOT one of enlightenment, but ignorance.[/COLOR]

How do know they have never sought him? You've heard from atheists here who have told you, in no uncertain terms, that they were once religious.

Either you believe in the eternity of matter or you believe in the spontaneous auto-creation of matter from nothingness. neither position is scientifically viable. Either the universe has been here forever or it came from somewhere. it really isn't that complicated.[/COLOR]

On the contrary. There was God. God possesses energy. From His immeasurable energy He created a physical reality and the universe within it. It had a source. It had a point of origination. It didn't come from nothing, it came from the Creator.[/COLOR]

And where did the Creator come from? Presumably you will say something along the lines of "He was always there - he is eternal." If that is an acceptable answer to you, then why is the notion of a necessary universe so implausible to you? To borrow from Sagan, why not save a step?

It's interesting that you should say God possesses energy. Could you elaborate on that? Did God not create energy? Was it always there?

It's not. It IS impossible for me to believe that someone who once used to hang around with Uncle Ned now believes Uncle Ned doesn't exist. Either they never knew him or they're lying now. Saying they thought they knew of a guy named Ned isn't the same as saying they once had a personal relationship with him and now they know he doesn't exist. That's a logical impossibility.

There is a third possibility, one that you refuse to even consider: that someone once believed they shared a personal communion with a deity but, following further thought, has come to understand that was probably not the case.

People can loose their faith. That happens a lot, actually. Sometimes they find it again. It's never God who leaves us, but we who leave God. We let sin distance ourselves from Him until we have such a wall of iniquity between us we can no longer see Him. That is not God's fault. Our lack of faith doesn't cause Him to cease existing. Our lack of faith doesn't make us suddenly more enlightened because now we no longer believe in the only constant truth of the universe.[/COLOR]

Your separation from God should frighten you, not me. I'm not threatened by it. I understand fully that either God's Word will keep me from sin or sin will keep me from God's word.

That seems like something you're trying to convince yourself of.

As for your personal journey, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're lying. I think you're lying to yourself. I think you know full well that God exists and you struggle with it in your own mind, which could explain why you're here and why you feel the need to continuously validate your own skepticism by attacking those who believe. You can't run away from God, though. He sees all and He knows all. You can demand physical proof of God all you want, but you know as well as I do that the ultimate proof of God lies in the conviction of your own heart.

There's no way to take that except the "wrong way." You are accusing me of deceit afterall! Your incredulity at my former faith is no reason to presume that I am being dishonest.

Once again, I think the very notion of a 'former Christian' is frightening to you.

 

[Autumnleaf]

From the OP article:

"When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability," Dawkins told Seth Andrews of "The Thinking Atheist" in a recently-published interview about his latest book, An Appetite for Wonder.

"They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists," Dawkins continued. "They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."


Richard Dawkins has a point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Contempt prior to investigation only breeds ignorance.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Contempt prior to investigation only breeds ignorance.

He has investigated young earth creationism, and witnessed first hand the debating tactics of young earth creationists. There is no ignorance there.

Seriously, what is the point of debating with... this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

Richard Dawkins has a point. I don't blame him. Let young earth creationists fade into a flat-earther-like irrelevance. He shouldn't be keeping them afloat.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

This isn't general apologetic guys.

Maybe it's specific apologetics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That what would be "God" in truth, as something that actually does exist as alpha and omega, source, creator, etc... would not necessitate any number of humans to believe in it for it to be potentially true.

This sounds more like it. What you can't do is ... You cannot just go and pre-emptively change the definition of "God" in such a way that even if you are wrong you are still right. No, if you are wrong you are wrong. And if you are not saying a whole lot then there is not a whole lot for you to be right about.

The premise that assumes humans have any responsibility at all in the existence of God, by majority consensus or otherwise, simply reiterates the prior statement that we confine God to our limited intellectual expectations. Even that its existence requires our thinking it there.

You have some sort of responsibility over your propositions, your beliefs, the things that you claim to be true etc.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You can always find people to discredit anything, but I've never seen anyone post on a website that they seriously believed in a flat earth, as has been represented.

Oh, come on now. That is not a very good criterion to go by, or is it? Fact of the matter is that - even though it may sound totally ludicrous - there were some people who are flat-earthers not too long ago. And maybe still are.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is impossible to know that no such thing as God exists.

Atheists premise is that what is proposed as that what is currently identified as God by all religions has no evidence supporting its particular existence.

It is impossible to know that only one such thing as God exists.

Monotheists premise is that what is proposed as that what is currently identified as gods by all other religions has no evidence supporting its particular existence.

Atheists are just consistent and admit that belief in none of them are justified.

Agnostic Atheism is an absurd title. The Agnostic says, they don't believe there is a God but they're not sure and would be open to proof they are wrong.

Yep. What's wrong with admitting that a tentative conclusion is exactly that? There's no honor in steadfastly clinging to something just for the sake of belief.

"Atheist" and "Atheism" are quite specific according to the Greek etymology that sustains that singular title: No God. A-theos.

Since we're not speaking Greek, that's a nice bit of irrelevant trivia.

Atheist Agnosticism is redundant and an oxymoron.

So you claim, and yet the phrase refers to real people. What other bits of reality do you reject?

There is no proof God does not exist.

The argument from evil is one such proof. You may disagree about the quality of the proof, but it does exist. Again, you seem to argue with reality about reality itself. I know which one I''m going with.

That conclusion is based on what is taught about what God is in theist circles

Yep. Atheists only disbelieve in gods that others claim to believe in. It's not their job to manufacture other gods to disbelieve. Don't blame us if believers can't manufacture something worth believing in.

Meanwhile, many atheists claim science proves God doesn't exist.

Who, exactly?

But science has yet to arrive at a definitive proof as to why all else does.

Does what?