Richard Dawkins vs Wendy Wright

Dawkins should have brought one of these along..."denying evidence is not very loving Wendy".

Homo%20erectus.jpg
 
Last edited:
Theres one question Dawkins forgot to ask...whether she would believe in evolution IF she was given undeniable evidence.

Many Christians would not.

Just as many Atheists would not believe in God even if they were given undeniable evidence of God.

Psychology usually triumphs over all.
 
It's a shining example of what Dawkins says regarding creationist/evolutionist debates: creationists don't hope or expect to win or make sense. Their only purpose is to stand there and pretend like they have a legitimate argument, and thereby maintain the illusion that there are, indeed two legitimate positions.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see Wendy making her case that Evolution causes moral decay.

It's not the fault of Science that "religious policing" is so intrinsically boring, that the religious leaders become promiscuous and perverse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What frustrates you athiests, is that you cannot convincingly back up
your "tons of evidence" claims, because you don't have "tons of evidence".

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
What frustrates you athiests, is that you cannot convincingly back up
your "tons of evidence" claims, because you don't have "tons of evidence".

jan.
Click to expand...

It's about preponderance of evidence.

I'm an atheist. I believe in that which is proven with evidence. Show me evidence for there being a god, and I'll believe in it. As such evidence is non-existent, I can safely say that I don't believe in one.

~String
 
Carcano said:
Just as many Atheists would not believe in God even if they were given undeniable evidence of God.

Psychology usually triumphs over all.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Undeniable evidence for God is undeniable evidence.

Jan Ardena said:
What frustrates you athiests, is that you cannot convincingly back up
your "tons of evidence" claims, because you don't have "tons of evidence".

jan.
Click to expand...
It's the lack of evidence on your side that makes people atheists.

Dawkins himself is having a lil debate/interview with Wendy Wright of Concerned Women For America.
Click to expand...
What a ditz. Can't get too angry about this, she's just stupid and misled.
 
superstring01 said:
It's about preponderance of evidence.

I'm an atheist. I believe in that which is proven with evidence. Show me evidence for there being a god, and I'll believe in it. As such evidence is non-existent, I can safely say that I don't believe in one.

~String
Click to expand...

To be more specific you believe in that which is proven, with a specific type of evidence, incapable of providing evidence of God. It's almost as if you're hiding behind it.

"I can't see God so he doesn't exist" is a logical conclusion, but is lacks intelligence, and that lacking has to be compensated. So you become smart.

Dawkins always tried to play that smart card, in the video, but Wendy Wright saw through it. She used her intelligence to remain focused on the actual point.

From your statement I understand that you will never believe in God, because you don't want to.

jan.
 
From your statement I understand that you will never believe in God, because you don't want to.
Click to expand...

From your statement, I understand that you believe in God because you do want to.

Evidence is not proof. It is just evidence. However, there is no evidence for the existence of a diety.
 
Jan Ardena said:
To be more specific you believe in that which is proven, with a specific type of evidence, incapable of providing evidence of God. It's almost as if you're hiding behind it.

"I can't see God so he doesn't exist" is a logical conclusion, but is lacks intelligence, and that lacking has to be compensated. So you become smart.

Dawkins always tried to play that smart card, in the video, but Wendy Wright saw through it. She used her intelligence to remain focused on the actual point.

From your statement I understand that you will never believe in God, because you don't want to.

jan.
Click to expand...

You're just declaring your conclusions without backing any of it up. It's like saying "Capitalism is more efficient at producing wealth than communism."--and then not saying anything to back up your statement. That's not arguing. That's just saying what you believe. It's actually pretty similar to what you see Wendy doing here. "well, I believe..."

Well of course you believe! That's not the point. Explain why. That's the point.
 
Carcano said:
You think there is undeniable evidence for evolution dont cha?

And yet, loads of people dont believe it...for psychological reasons.
Click to expand...

It's a scientific fact. I agree lots of people disbelieve it for their own personal reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence. That's an astounding failure of our educational system.
 
spidergoat said:
It's a scientific fact. I agree lots of people disbelieve it for their own personal reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence. That's an astounding failure of our educational system.
Click to expand...
Psychology usually determines the findings of a person's philosophy.

For example, if you grow up hating your father you might ending up hating all authority as a kind of psychological misdirection. And so, you might adopt the philosophy of Anarchy as a result.

We have a Christian on this board who grew up hating most of his relatives, and has projected this hatred onto the whole world. So his religious stance favours the "I'm going to heaven...and 99.9999 of everybody else is going to burn!" emphasis.

Same is true with Atheists *some* of whom despise the thought of ethical accountability so intensely that they would deny God even if confronted with undenible evidence. They wish to remain unconditionaly FREE...and so it goes.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Dawkins always tried to play that smart card, in the video, but Wendy Wright saw through it. She used her intelligence to remain focused on the actual point.
Click to expand...
It was more like a game of dodge ball.

She asks for evidence...and Dawkins throws her a ball of evidence.

She dodges with a nervous giggle...and returns to..."But we believe in a loving God who...blah, blah, blah."

You can see how Dawkin's gentlemanly manner gets a little ruffled after this sequence goes on a permanent repeat cycle.
 
superstring01 said:
It's about preponderance of evidence.

I'm an atheist. I believe in that which is proven with evidence. Show me evidence for there being a god, and I'll believe in it. As such evidence is non-existent, I can safely say that I don't believe in one.

~String
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here.
 
Carcano said:
Same is true with Atheists *some* of whom despise the thought of ethical accountability so intensely that they would deny God even if confronted with undenible evidence. They wish to remain unconditionaly FREE...and so it goes.
Click to expand...

Don't know who you are talking about, it sounds made-up. Have they been confronted with such evidence? If not, how do you know what their motivations are? It's a typical Christian reaction to atheism that it's not rational, it's just a childish reaction to authority.
 
Jan Ardena said:
To be more specific you believe in that which is proven, with a specific type of evidence, incapable of providing evidence of God. It's almost as if you're hiding behind it.
Click to expand...

Mmmm. No. You just lied. Blatantly. How do you know what evidence I require.

Tell you what.

Show me what YOU think is reasonable evidence, and we can call that the starting point.

Jan Ardena said:
"I can't see God so he doesn't exist" is a logical conclusion, but is lacks intelligence, and that lacking has to be compensated. So you become smart.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight.

So, your logic is that I need to use "intelligence" to come to your life conclusions. So, which god, then? All of them? The god, Allah, who says that he's the only god? The god, Yhwh & his son Jeshuah, who says that the only way to the father is through the son? Which one. They can't all be right. Or, are we supposed to draw this to its logical conclusion: we're supposed to believe in your god.

Very intelligent.

Jan Ardena said:
From your statement I understand that you will never believe in God, because you don't want to.
Click to expand...

My family is Assembly of God. I was "born again" after I went through drug rehab. I sobbed during my baptism by immersion just 8 years ago. I went to a baptist school when I was a kid. I believed, seriously, in every bit of doctrine I was taught, even while destroying my body with drugs. Not too long ago (about three years, in fact) I was on the other side of this argument.

Charles Pellegrino opened my eyes. Thankfully, I'm saved from a life of spewing the type of bullshit you've been doing with aplomb in this very thread.

~String
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Have they been confronted with such evidence? If not, how do you know what their motivations are?
Click to expand...
You can tell by their atittudes towards many other things...including aspects of life other atheists may be perfectly comfortable with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top