Richard Dawkins vs Conall and Donall

[MoreCoffee]

Ah the Wendy Wright interview. Cringe worthy.

What would you call a person who blithely ignores the evidence?

A dawkinsonian?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Including Conall & Donall.

They are cartoon characters. Clever, quite right about the arrogance and the condescending superiority evident in many of Professor Dawkins' publis statements. So I say three cheers for Conall and Donall!

 

[HitchSlap]

A dawkinsonian?

Nope, a cdesign proponentsist.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Argument from incredulity!

Who would have thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyB1wTV3Tj0

Oh cmon, he's engaging in formal debates here, in which it's acceptable to call out someone's logical fallacies.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh cmon, he's engaging in formal debates here, in which it's acceptable to call out someone's logical fallacies.

Those were not formal debates!

You've got to be kidding to write things like that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nope, a cdesign proponentsist.

What's cdesign?

 

[HammerOfThor]

she says "show me the evidence" ... he responds "where did you study science"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrOscFu1y8

Conall and Donall were spot on accurate

No, he said "but the evidence is there, go to the museum and look at it!"

 

[HammerOfThor]

Those were not formal debates!

You've got to be kidding to write things like that.

Well the first one was, and I wasn't going to bother watching the entire video. It would be very helpful if you posted the time at which you are referring to when you post videos so I can get some context for what you're referring to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, he said "but the evidence is there, go to the museum and look at it!"

He said that later; perhaps he thought that the "I'm a professor of biology in a reputable university while you're an ignorant religious fundamentalist" wouldn't be as effective for her as it is for him.

In any case he did in fact say what I wrote; namely, where did you study science as his reply to her show me the evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

What's cdesign?

You are a cdesign proponentsist.

And yes, listening to WW contradict Dawkins on ToE is akin to a six year old explaining to Stephen Hawking how black holes behave.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are a cdesign proponentsist.

And yes, listening to WW contradict Dawkins on ToE is akin to a six year old explaining to Stephen Hawking how black holes behave.

How do you know that? I don't promote any design at all. Mind you, I can see that you're post is attempting to turn this into a discussion about the folk chatting in here and away from Conall & Donall versus Cartoon-Richard-Dawkins. So your post is derailing the thread, right?

Now, The Cartoon-Richard-Dawkins is very similar to the actual Richard Dawkins in the video clips I provided, isn't he?

 

[HammerOfThor]

In any case he did in fact say what I wrote; namely, where did you study science as his reply to her show me the evidence.

Oh yes you're right, someone I missed that the first time around. It would seem more uncalled for if she wasn't presenting herself as a spokesperson on the issue.

Also you're a Catholic right, so shouldn't you be agreeing with Dawkins on this?

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you know that? I don't promote any design at all. Mind you, I can see that you're post is attempting to turn this into a discussion about the folk chatting in here and away from Conall & Donall versus Cartoon-Richard-Dawkins. So your post is derailing the thread, right?

Now, The Cartoon-Richard-Dawkins is very similar to the actual Richard Dawkins in the video clips I provided, isn't he?

You asked what cdesign was.

And yes, the cartoon clip is very similar to the actual Richard Dawkins videos you posted. This is known as confirmation bias, a dishonest tactic of cdesign proponentsits.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh yes you're right, someone I missed that the first time around. It would seem more uncalled for if she wasn't presenting herself as a spokesperson on the issue.

Also you're a Catholic right, so shouldn't you be agreeing with Dawkins on this?

I believe that biological evolution is a most excellent explanation for the biological diversity we see today. That isn't the issue though, is it? I am sure that the Lutheran Pastor who created Conall & Donall most likely thinks biological evolution is an excellent explanation too. The point is that Richard Dawkins argues that Christianity specifically and religion in general is wrong because:

• God in Christianity is a meanie
• Religion is all absurd myth that is instantly dispelled when a chap understand the great truths of science

Conall & Donall accurately point out how arrogant and condescending that stated view is.

 

[HitchSlap]

I believe that biological evolution is a most excellent explanation for the biological diversity we see today. That isn't the issue though, is it? I am sure that the Lutheran Pastor who created Conall & Donall most likely thinks biological evolution is an excellent explanation too. The point is that Richard Dawkins argues that Christianity specifically and religion in general is wrong because:

• God in Christianity is a meanie
• Religion is all absurd myth that is instantly dispelled when a chap understand the great truths of science

Conall & Donall accurately point out how arrogant and condescending that stated view is.

Would you describe a doctrine that claims a person is damned to hell with weeping and gnashing of teeth, unless they worship and devote their lives to a deity, as arrogant?

 

[HammerOfThor]

[*]God in Christianity is a meanie

Actually the argument I've seen him use most is that religion is usually a product of your birth parents' religious views and your geographical location of birth.

[*]Religion is all absurd myth that is instantly dispelled when a chap understand the great truths of science

On the contrary, when asked, Dawkins has repeatedly stated that many scientists believe in both evolution and religion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Would you describe a doctrine that claims a person is damned to hell with weeping and gnashing of teeth, unless they worship and devote their lives to a deity, as arrogant?

No. Would you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Actually the argument I've seen him use most is that religion is usually a product of your birth parents' religious views and your geographical location of birth.

On the contrary, when asked, Dawkins has repeatedly stated that many scientists believe in both evolution and religion.

Then why does he say precisely those things in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

Specifically; he says that god is mean and nasty and hence unworthy of faith.

He also says that religion is absurd "bronze age" mythology that is dispelled by the light of science properly understood.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then why does he say precisely those things in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

Specifically; he says that god is mean and nasty and hence unworthy of faith.

He also says that religion is absurd "bronze age" mythology that is dispelled by the light of science properly understood.

Well, the man does have a point, doesn't he.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Then why does he say precisely those things in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

Specifically; he says that god is mean and nasty and hence unworthy of faith.

He also says that religion is absurd "bronze age" mythology that is dispelled by the light of science properly understood.

Again, can you please put the time at which those things occur in the video. I'm not going to watch an hour and a half video just to get some context.