- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
| Reward Points: | 2467 |
Efficiency: ![]() | 95% |
| Arguments: | 2486 |
| Debates: | 26 |
He successfully gets Dawkin's to admit that he think their could be intelligent design
What he's actually done is asked Dawkins to suggest a way in which intelligent design could exist from a scientific perspective.
that he isn't absolutely sure God doesn't exist
How can he be absolutely sure that God doesn't exist, it is though, very unlikely.
nor can he put a figure on how sure he is
Because it's not quantifiable, theists always state that they are 100% sure, but you'd be foolish to believe that of all of them, but it is the nature of God bothering to be 100%, a scientist will not throw about such arbitrary figures.
Ben also makes the point that some people are happier believing in God, something tha Dawkin's tries to rebutt by rather pathetically saying he's recieved letters from people that aren't.
That's not an argument for God's existence, it is an argumentum ad populum. Dawkins merely points out that it is true on the other side as well.
Pretty successful arguments I'd say.
There is no arguments here.
Over-dubbing suggestion onto an interview that asked vague conceptual questions to a scientist is not making a point.
Stein is deliberately trying to set traps for Dawkins, as Dawkins goes onto explain what was clearly a fantastical idea, he is simply stating that if there is some form of design in genetics, it would be more plausible to suggest seeding than to invoke an almighty creator, not that he is willing to say that, that is the case, or that it is what he believes.
Stein then asks Dawkins if he believes in the Gods of non-Judeo-Christian origin. What exactly is he getting at here? He clearly has no idea who Dawkins is, let alone read the book as evidenced in the misquotation at the start and the question here discussed.
Furthermore, why would God send Dawkins multi-million dollar paychecks for writing books about how he doesn't exist, and then ask him why he didn't believe?
Dawkins looks perplexed throughout the video, and I can see why, he's being asked stupid questions by a moron that hasn't even researched his interviewee.
No, Jesus. I'm not. I just like to see some beefing. It makes the place more colourful.
|
||||||||||||||
|
About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate BlogTake a Tour Help/FAQ Newsletter Archive |
Sharing Tools
Invite Your FriendsBookmarklets Partner Buttons RSS & XML Feeds |
Reach Out
AdvertiseContact Us Report Abuse |
Basic Stuff
User AgreementPrivacy Policy Sitemap Creative Commons |