Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can You Say “Ad Hominem,” “Politicization,” and “Wishful Speculation”? — Dawkins addresses American Atheists 09


I had meant to post this sooner, but had too much on my plate:

YouTube Source

Darn, was planning to watch this today, but it seems he's made it private. Gods iPod
Bill, you can add "Lying" + "Quote-mining" to the title as well. These two reports have the details: "The Truth delusion of Richard Dawkins", by Melanie Phillips. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3571996/the-truth-delusion-of-richard-dawkins.thtml#comments "Telling lies for Athiesm," Bill Muehlenberg. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/04/29/telling-lies-for-atheism/ Avonwatches
Well I made it through the whole thing. The first 15 minutes or so was sad. At one point Dawkins may have been an eloquent speaker. He must have to get where he is. He wasted a large percentage of his time with an awful straw man parody that was as poorly written as it was unfunny. The second part of "Quote Mining" missed the point. I listened to the segment he played from the debate with John Lennox. He actually did say that "... a reasonable case could be made..." for directed panspermia. He made it clear that he did not believer DP was TRUE, but John Lennox never contended that Dawkins believed it, only that he was on the way. Admitting that a cogent case could be made for DP is a step towards Deism. Funny, he clearly lost this part of the debate against an opponent who was not present. Not the stuff of genius. For the third part he pontificated about different variations of the anthropic principle. After considering each of the admitted difficulties of the atheistic position were raised, all problems were put to rest by the assertion from no evidence, that any complex system must evolve by gradual processes. He in no way justified this assertion, but simply stated it as some wise piece of wisdom that must be obviously true. There is a problem with someone who makes an assertion, does nothing to prove that assertion is true, and then uses that assertion to continually answer questions. In my opinion Dawkins will lose popularity because of this talk. He is looking tired, has no new ideas, and a lot of his argument simply comes down to his hatred of Jesus Christ. "The fool has said in His heart, there is no God." JDH
Little new other than developing the "quote-mining" thing. Clearly, a diversion since he only appeased his true believers (note the comments after his talk). His was a defensive presentation that hardly addressed his argument of "who created the creator," his only honest defense, a tired effort. If a premiss demands nothing as an origin how can anything other than nothing possibly be its outcome? When will atheists acknowledge that all existents do not require a cause; only those that begin to exist? There is a real ontological and epistemic failure here. One last note: His comments on Lennox and Stein were clearly not refutations of their arguments, only attacks on their alleged lack of integrity in the "quote-mining." Dr. Dawkins appears to be on the wane. toc
Avonwatchers #5: The answer is at the very end (yes I watched it all) - It is about the assent of man. He worships himself and desires others to join in. His answer to any contrary idea or "debate" as being either warranted or even intriguing is a simple - "NO"! (Unfortunately he and the questioners are right about some "christians". alan
Why should anybody give a rat's tail what Dawkins thinks about Bush or Blair or anything else political for that matter? He's entitled to his personal opinion on their leadership, of course, as anybody else is, but what the heck do his political opinions have to do with his position as holder of Oxford's Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science? He comes across looking and sounding like a used car salesman with a "really good deal", only he's tossed sawdust into the transmission and monkeyed with the odometer. DonaldM
I got to 6:09, which wasn't easy. Clive Hayden
Thanks for this Dr Dembski. It is interesting how RD feels he has to defend himself against his own words, even when they are clearly quoted in context by his opponents. Ben Stein and John Lennox have really touched a raw nerve. When Dr Dembski says ID can detect design by advanced aliens, he is said by RD to be ingenuous. When Dawkins does it, he later claims he was only playing with ideas, and that whatever concessions he grants will always later be trumped by the universal rule "simplicity must always precede complexity". When someone talks like RD, and his single standing argument is "Who designed the Designer?" then we are on the winning side without a doubt. It can not be assumed that ID will win, but when the greatest hero of the opposition talks like this, the critical mass is close at hand. Watch this entire video! idnet.com.au
No further than 1:32. HA! I am more intolerant than the rest of you :p Seriously, I cannot get the point of an 'athiest' club. This is nothing to do with debunking athiesm, etc, but just that athiesm is the belief in no god, nothing, etc. To me it seems that you 'believe' that, and that's it. There's nothing else entailed by believing it - since it doesn't exist. Why would you get together to celebrate the absence of something...? And I am actually asking now: are there any other groups (clubs, etc) dedicated to celebrating a non-existence? Avonwatches
Richard "Polemic" Dawkins, how amusingly disgusting, but I guess he does not know any better to make fun of himself. He has his belief too, you know. I gave up after 6:42. At least he has a tolerant crowd going that is even laughing at his jokes, good for him. Atheists and tolerance, pffffft. sxussd13
4:49 for me, Sorry I couldn't take it anymore. mad doc
Wow. These guys speak their own language. Quote of the day (42:50): "You cannot suddenly conjure up out of thin air highly complex intelligence." tragic mishap
(Impersonating an evolander): "Flying spaghetti monster, where did he get that shirt?" And now to something more substantial. This guy in making a name for himself is bound to tick off somebody who doesn't think that "turn the other cheek" applies when defending God. Ah, I just can't listen to the rest of it. Sorry. I made it 6:28. Enough. William Wallace

Leave a Reply