Silversoul said:

All I'll say is that Dawkins sure knows how to pick easy targets.

---

Pscientist said:

Silversoul said:

All I'll say is that Dawkins sure knows how to pick easy targets.

---

wrong

tough targets refuse to debate Dawkins out of fear of public humiliation

---

Pscientist said:

Why would he waste time publishing the examples of people who refused to debate him.. theres no gain, no advancement.

Its obvious that religious people take every opportunity to point out every debate Dawkins refused to partake in, but thats low brow personal attacks, the fact of the matter is a religious debate between Dawkins and  a "tough target" like an academic theologian would be pointless, the evidence is there to prove evolution, anyone who denies that fact is utterly ignorant to basic science

and I may be able to find a video of him saying something similar in a minute.

---

Pscientist said:

Silversoul said:

All I'll say is that Dawkins sure knows how to pick easy targets.

---

wrong

tough targets refuse to debate Dawkins out of fear of public humiliation

---

Silversoul said:

But they could demolish his frequent assertions about religious moderates providing cover for the extremists.

---

Matt1128Y said:

Here's another video of Craig listing some arguments for God's existence:

---

god exists because its a possibility, thats science you can trust

reasons 1-3 are the exact same things worded slightly differently,

to imply because of god we have morals is ridiculous, watch a mother gorilla or crocodile protect their young, is that instict or morals? Is how humans behave instict or morals? We are a social animal that originated in small packs, we had to "scratch each others backs" if we wanted our own back scratched, this is the basis for the development of morals among humans

reason 5. god is a possibility, god exists,


the flying spaghetti monster is a possibility, the flying spaghetti monster exists.

6. personal experience

often exaggerated and misunderstood, Ive had countless unexplainable psychedelic experiences, none of which are instantly a possibility because of it,

citricacidx said:

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the
water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the
retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on
to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish
crawled out of the ocean with its......mutant fish hands... and it
had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this Retard
frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a...
monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with
that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed
another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

---

lmao thank you for that. gotta love south park

Quote:

god exists because its a possibility, thats science you can trust

---

Quote:

to imply because of god we have morals is ridiculous, watch a mother gorilla or crocodile protect their young, is that instict or morals?

---

Quote:

Is how humans behave instict or morals? We are a social animal that originated in small packs, we had to "scratch each others backs" if we wanted our own back scratched, this is the basis for the development of morals among humans

---

Quote:

often exaggerated and misunderstood, Ive had countless unexplainable psychedelic experiences, none of which are instantly a possibility because of it,

---

Silversoul said:

All I'll say is that Dawkins sure knows how to pick easy targets.

---

Pscientist said:

Why would he waste time publishing the examples of people who refused to debate him.. theres no gain, no advancement.

Its obvious that religious people take every opportunity to point out every debate Dawkins refused to partake in, but thats low brow personal attacks, the fact of the matter is a religious debate between Dawkins and  a "tough target" like an academic theologian would be pointless, the evidence is there to prove evolution, anyone who denies that fact is utterly ignorant to basic science

and I may be able to find a video of him saying something similar in a minute.

---

Silversoul said:

I don't think any serious academic theologian would debate him on evolution.  That'd be silly.  But they could demolish his frequent assertions about religious moderates providing cover for the extremists.  I know that serious academic theologians are not afraid to debate Dawkins, because they've debated Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom are much more competent debaters than Dawkins.

---

i agree. dawkins has his facts straight about evolution but would have a very tough time debating a scholar on religion. but really, i don't think dawkins picks the easy targets as much as he tends to target the religious extremists who, in my opinion, deserve his brand of ridicule.

personally, i would like to see academics confronting these idiots rather than hardline atheists like dawkins. from what little time i've spent formally studying religion, the sentiment that these people are fools is there, but for some reason there seems to be no drive to put them in their place. i don't get it.