Is Richard Dawkins afraid to debate the best?

Still hanging in there, eh, Chuck?

Let’s review:

Airportkid (Post #25) QUESTION: What, specifically, makes atheism a problem?

Chuck (Post #26) ANSWER: … one thing about atheism specifically I have issue with, it's with defining morality. I contend secularization advocating individuals to be their own moral agents has had some unpleasant unintended consequences. For example, there is a gender imbalance due to sex-selection abortion in many parts of Asia.

Airportkid (Post #31) LISTS ISSUES WITH RELIGIOSITY, SAYS, The examples of "morality" I see exhibited by religiosity are to my mind repugnant and deeply IMmoral.
ASKS LOGICAL FOLLOWUP QUESTION: So who's right?
ASKS HOW CAN ONE TELL: 90% of the "defense" thrown up in the bible quotes thread is assertions that the passage cited isn't saying what it says but something else. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU ARRIVE AT THE INTERPRETATION? You can't say the bible because you're saying it doesn't say what it appears to be saying, it's saying something else. HOW DO YOU GET TO THE SOMETHING ELSE? What informs that?

Chuck (Post #33) FAILS TO ANSWER. COMPLAINS BITTERLY.

Chuck (Post #34) DECLARES WITHDRAWAL FROM DISCUSSION WITH A RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why should I ever attempt to give you a thought out answer again?

Airportkid (Post #35) ANSWERS RHETORICAL QUESTION: To make your case and refute mine.
INVITES FURTHER CRITICISM OF ATHEISM: Dismember my arguments. Rebut their logic, rebut their premises, rebut their conclusions. Show why what you believe demands it be believed in. Show why what I believe is a chimera, a sham, faulty.

Chuck (Post #39) DOES NOT WITHDRAW FROM DISCUSSION. BUT FAILS TO ANSWER. COMPLAINS BITTERLY. RESORTS TO PERSONAL ATTACK: … you would not be tolerated very long in person. You have horrible social skills …

Chuck (Post #42) PROLONGS DISCUSSION WITH MORE COMPLAINING. STILL FAILS TO ANSWER.

Chuck (Post #48) STILL FAILS TO ANSWER, DECLARES AIRPORTKID’S LISTING OF ISSUES WITH RELIGIOSITY AS UNCONSTRUCTIVE: … don't you think listing a litany of alleged crimes by religion is running counter to a constructive discussion?

Chuck (Post #51) STILL FAILS TO ANSWER; LIKENS THE DISCUSSION TO EXTREME PHYSICAL TORTURE: … why are you any different from the Spanish Inquisition?

Chuck (Post #54) STILL FAILS TO ANSWER; INVITES ALL TO ADOPT A TONE DIFFERENT FROM HIS: … if everybody could get in a non-combative tone, that would definitely be helpful.

Airportkid (Post #60) CHALLENGES CHUCK’S ASSERTION THAT AIRPORTKID’S LIST OF ISSUES IS UNCONSTRUCTIVE: What about that list is false, exaggerated, or inappropriate?

Chuck (Post #61) FAILS TO ANSWER. LECTURES AIRPORTKID BY DUMPING A BIG BUNCH OF PATRONIZING, SANCTIMONIOUS BILGE THAT ENDS WITH: Don't dump a bunch of issues all at once. ound:

DESPITE HAVING NEVER ANSWERED ANY QUESTION BUT THE VERY FIRST ONE, DECLARES IT’S TIME TO ASK A QUESTION. BUT FAILS TO ACTUALLY ASK A QUESTION. SUBSTITUTES INSTEAD A DEMAND FOR A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY: … prove to me there is no God.


So, at this juncture, the backlog of unanswered questions from me is:

1. What informs interpretation of a bible that doesn’t say what it apparently says.
2. What is false, exaggerated or inappropriate about my list of issues with religiosity?
3. What beyond “morality†might make atheism a problem?

The backlog of unanswered questions from "non-combative" Chuck is:
1. Why are atheists any different from the Spanish Inquisition?

One of the most amazing (and baffling) aspects of this whole too-de-rool is that I’M the one asking to be criticized. Smack MY belief, I say, again and again. Prove ME wrong. Chuck is so victimized by my issues with religiosity (religiosity, mind, not Chuck himself) he’s totally blind to the fact that I’m practically begging him to pick up the rhetorical baseball bat and take hard swings at something he regards as a menace. One of those posts of his back there even posits a theoretical turning of the tables, us atheists constantly badgered to defend our position. I’d like nothing MORE than to explain it, defend it to someone who questions it. But you gotta question it!

So, maybe it’d move things along to clear the backlog. I’ll start.

Atheists differ from the Spanish Inquisition in the following ways:

1. We don’t conduct our inquiries on the basis of a fairy tale.
2. We don’t forcibly kidnap, restrain, torture or kill those we ask questions of.
3. Answering our questions “incorrectly†is not a death sentence; virtually all our questions have no “correct†answer to begin with.
4. Participation is purely voluntary; no one is compelled to participate in the slightest way.
5. We don't insist everyone believe our way on pain of death.
6. We don’t dress the way they did.

As to the absurd demand to prove to Chuck’s satisfaction there is no god, well, it isn’t even a question. But see PriQ’s excellent post #75 if some sort of response to it makes you happy.

 

Because somebody expects Atheists?

 

So your point is that atheist are innocent of all these crimes?

APK he's answered dozens and dozens of questions in a calm non-confrontation manner, but hate has shut your mind and nothing anyone says will satisfy you. In fact you don't want answers you seem to only want to spew your hate everywhere and that goes for others here also.

You're using facts and evidence centuries to thousands of years old to paint all Christians with the same brush of hate. Yet you atheist have killed as many if not more people in MODERN times than all religions have throughout history.

Your sick with hate, now I understand how the mobs did what they did during the atheistic French Revolution.

p.s. APK you atheist run from, duck or ignore hard questions all the time especially the most vocal of you. Atheist here have repeatedly laid out the claim that the most anger and hateful mocking rhetoric comes from those that believe, I've challenged them all to a side by side comparison, not one has the courage of character to do so.

 

You received several honest, accurate answers, and not just from APK.

 

​

 

Actually its not faith that god doesn't exist, its knowledge god doesn't exist. I know god doesn't exist, so I don't need faith that he doesn't, whereas religious people have faith that he exists, with no proof, and no knowledge that he does.

An atheist can point to a whole number of things to prove god doesn't exist, including the fact that he has never presented him or her, or its alien self, a religious person simply says they believe and then points to a book written by people as their proof.

 

This nutter is never going to stop, definitely a good reason to put this topic in a closed forum and let the car forum raise from the ashes.

 

Care to share this knowledge or is it secret, for atheist eyes only?

Just think how popular you'll be! They'll print your name with big letters!

HidyHo

The Man Who Proved
God Doesn't Exist!
*With Secret Atheist Knowledge.
:fear:​

Oh my!

 

Yep, because all that has, will be, or are in the process of being known.

 

Ursle, welcome to Fred's House of Pancakes. In Fred's you are free to post . . .

Anything unrelated to the Prius. Come chat. First Amendment is your friend in here.​

regardless if you're a 'nutter' or to simple to understand the descriptions posted under the title of each forum to notify the poster of the type of subject being discussed/allowed in that forum. :loco:

 

First amendment or not, one should try not to insult the adversary. Saying religious people believe in mythical fairytale cratures is insulting, while comparing a god to a mythical creature is much less so. There is a fine line. When crossed, the debate tends to develop in a less constructive manner. I am, however, pleasantly surprised at the civility, given how tough a time the parties are giving each other

 

I don't think these debates exist to to change peoples' minds.

 

I thought their purpose was to entertain the rest of us. It works for me, at least.

Tom

 

Exactly.

 

I'm trying to understand, you all are saying that you're entertained by vitriolic personal attacks on people because they hold a different point of view you don't agree with? Is that what your saying?

 

I think Richard Dawkins does rather well considering he's in that wheelchair and talks like a robot. A fantastic scientist despite the debilitating condition he suffers. An inspiration to us all