Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the contrary, he's a very wise, well read and respected philosopher. Tho, I do agree he's no theologian - which is basically someone who makes a conscious decision to be trained and indoctrinated in intellectually dishonesty. Fortunately one does not have to be a theologian to rip apart religion, creationism and The Bible.
Actually...his best tactic really is to just sound snooty and to insult believers. Frankly, he's just not very good at it.
Quote:
Ahh no. It wasn't a joke at the time (well it was, just not to Mr. Comfort and his followers).
I'm sorry, but Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron were sickeningly serious when they did the banana video. Only since it became such a laughing stock did Comfort start backpedaling (away from one cliff and toward another, if I may say so) and claiming it was a joke.
The only overwhelming evidence that came out of Mr Comforts famous Banana video was Rays appalling ignorance.
In New Zealand he was a joke, that's why he went to the US, & as for Kirk Cameron the failed actor, well, this is probably the only gig he could get.
I agree with you spotted 1, they were deadly serious all right, and you were correct again when you described it as sickening.
And this is the guy who wants to debate Dawkins? how could you debate a buffoon like Comfort and his intelligent banana with a straight face?
Can't blame them for trying to pretend the video was a joke. The sheer level of stupidity on that video was only matched by the number of creationists who not only believed the video but also copied it and pasted it on forums just like these as "proof" that creationism was real.
I have been to a few of Richard Dawkins lectures ( as he lives very close to me) and also seen him in many debates with theologians , including the Archbishop of York. I really have seen no sign of him being terrified of anyone and being "chicken".
In person Dawkins is actually a very self-effacing modest man though I appreciate that his public persona can be a little grating and tinged with arrogance.
He is an extremely kind and thoughtful man and I admire him greatly , a fantastic quick and razor sharp mind twinned with great knowledge and erudition. His academic endeavours alone are exceptional and his never-ending struggle to bring a little rationality to religion does indeed upset many people.
His lectures and debates are always informative and funny as well as being entertaining and enlightening. He reveres knowledge and does not suffer fools gladly but is constantly debating with people of different faiths and philosophies. He even acknowledges when he has been bested . An Oxford colleague of his recently joked that if Dawkins stopped debating other people he might have solved half of the world's problems by now .
He is locally famous for never shying away from a good argument. not bad for a man whose email inbox contains daily death threats from religious nuts to himself, his partner and family. The man lives for debate for Goodness sake. It is his Oxygen.
He does however always to my knowledge refuse to debate with fundamentalists claiming quite rightly that there is no point as reason and common sense will never be part of the discourse.
He is perfectly happy to debate with great theological minds ( and always show respect and restraint IMO) as long as they are not nutters.
He can be abrasive and sometimes this translates into arrogance but on the whole I must admit I find him very charming as well as being an intellectual giant. And one who never shies from debate, or controversy.
The idea of him being afraid of some religious nutter is ludicrous though a little funny. I think if he can hold his own with Muslim Scholars he can challenge some Christian fundamentalist.
I guess he sees no point, as intellect and reason would have little to do with it. Seems fair enough to me. Some people are incapable of rationality and strict intellectual rigour.
One of oxford's most prestigious Academic department is the one of Theology so it is simply silly to accuse him of being somehow shy of those people. It is impossible for Him as an Oxford Don to ignore Theology and some of his Intellectual teeth so to speak will have been sharpened in debates with many well respected members of the Department.
Oxford University prides itself on having a pretty multi-cultrual, multi-faiths staff and environment so Dawkins at the heart of OU could have hardly survived and built his prestigious career without many scraps with the "other side " ....
I find it hard to believe how demonised he has become among a certain group of people. Many Senior Theologians have a great deal of respect for him because his opinion as sharp as they maybe are always founded on Intellect and Knowledge not empty words and actions.
Last edited by Mooseketeer; 07-05-2009 at 12:13 PM..
While I do agree with the OP that Dawkins should at least entertain a debate, my question for Dawkins and, more so, for Hitchens is this: Why the heck do they refuse to awknowledge the existince of such religions as Gnosticism? At no point has Dawkins ever approached the Gnostic "faith" (we consider "faith" to be useless and pretty close to sin)
I think I know the answer: We believe in Evolution, understand that there is a good chance GOD, as a "supernatural entity" does not exist, refuse to submit to any authority, including the authority of our creator, whom we hate, or any dogma, consider the existince of Jesus Christ, our lord and liberator, to be possibly a Myth and even if he didn't exist, it's the teachings that matter, not the person, and we agree that there is a strong possibility that this whole thing is BS and we are just praying to our minds...that, and we, along with a few other faiths, have no history of violence or oppression what so ever, even in cases when we were the majority in certain areas and times and had the resources to be oppressive if we so desired.
In other words: Dawkins and his kind know good and well that they cannot disprove anything we "believe", and hence, he just ignores us, much the same way the young Earth creationists ignore radio carbon dating.
In that sense, I do believe that Dawkins, Hitchens should meet up with the Christian fundies and go bowling or something, because they both have allot in common...
I find it hard to believe how demonised he has become among a certain group of people. Many Senior Theologians have a great deal of respect for him because his opinion as sharp as they maybe are always founded on Intellect and Knowledge not empty words and actions.
Quite so, Mooseketeer, however the endlessly terrified theist fundies must continue to denegrate those who represent the most valid threat to their fantasy world. The clock's ticking on stupid mythology, and the rift between those who want to understand the real world grows hourly.
Knowledge through the application of science, or even a sample reading of it is popular articles (Scientific American, for example, who do a very good job of explaining the latest findings in simple terms to those no petrified of truth) grows by the minute.
Christianity clings to old ideas. Stein proves it, and panders to the scientifically illiterate who choose to live in their darkness.
On his speaking tours, he so roundly puts down the assembled druids and acolytes that even the more rational Christians in the audience laugh the fundies out of the room. You know, the ones who came well-armed (so they thought) to put him away?
My challenge to any of the argumentative Christian posters here: find and attend his next speaking tour, and stand up and ask your special question. You know, the one you think he's terrified of.
But a warning: have a friend be prepared to catch you when you fall over backwards from the shock-wave of intellectual honesty, truth and logic that hits you.
Otherwise, shut up. At his level of understanding, you know nothing, or you wouldn't be saying what you insist on muttering, as though you were even slightly literate in biology or evolution or astrophysics or chemistry.
On any and all of these areas of knowledge, Ben Stein is OBVIOUSLY a flaming and stupid man, unafraid to prove it on national TV. Amazing. It's be like me trying to give a detailed lecture of the Old Testament to a bunch of Christian academics. I wouldn't be so bold, and yet he feels somehow qualified?
It's you who are quaking in your boots, but you defend your mythology with outright falsehoods, deflections and, well, yes, lies. Good Christians, all of you, lying like doormats. You guys can't even defend yourselves here on C-D when we ask simple logical questions.
What does ray comfort even have to say? The only argument religious people can give to dawkins is one based on a book thousands of years old written by humans but claimed to be written by god (how do we know god inspired it? Because the book itself says so!). In other words dawkins will be arguing against basically nothing, a faith, something that can't be proven and he will waste his time. How can you argue against a faith that is based on nothing? It's already illogical in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stein's a moron! He just proved it!
