CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
32
Dawkin is stupid Dawkin is clever
Debate Score:58
Arguments:34
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Dawkin is stupid (14)
 
 Dawkin is clever (20)

Debate Creator

shoutoutloud(4303) pic



Richard Dawkins is the stupidest atheist yet to exist

Dawkin has made statements such as:

''Life started out in the ocean as a copying machine, a molecule copying itself.''

  Flaws:

     - In order for a molecule to copy itself, the molecule must first have life. Therefore life couldn't begin with a copying machine.

     - The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean?

 

''Maybe aliens with high developed technology planted life on earth''

  Flaws:

     - That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another 
        alien? And who gave that alien life?

     - If these aliens planted life on earth, isn't it possible that they would be curious to find out how it turned out? If you plant a tree in your yard, aren't you curious to find out if it will grow? Why haven't we seen these aliens yet?

 

I find Dawkins theories stupid and flawed. I am not christian myself, but I support the idea that life was created by something. What that something was created of is interesting too. I believe life was created by something that is like a God, everlasting with no beginning or end.

Now I seem christian, don't I ?     I believe there might be a God, but I deny believing God's son came to this earth, died on the cross for our sins. This seems like a fairytale to me, I find the bible flawed and misleading.

Agnostics RULE ;)

Dawkin is stupid

Side Score: 26
VS.

Dawkin is clever

Side Score: 32
3 points

I think it is honestly a bit closed minded to completely, or almost completely reject the idea of a higher power.

Side: Dawkin is stupid

This is my view also. It is like he wants to find any theory besides God creating the universe.

Why not .. for a minute think of the idea of a God. Because it is not a stupid theory, it is in fact a very logical theory. It would explain so many things.

Side: Dawkin is stupid
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

He's someone that's always open to being proved wrong and he has considered the possibility of there being a God in great depth...

Side: Dawkin is clever
2 points

He's not the sharpest tool in the shed by any means; but I would think the "Stupidest atheist" award belongs to Sam Harris. Dawkins just likes to talk outside his field of expertise and mash up his epistemologies such that he can make some rather spectacular public blunders. But that both men should never be allowed near a Twitter account is obvious.

Side: Dawkin is stupid
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

He's no the sharpest tool in the shed by any means; but I would think the "Stupidest atheist" award belongs to Sam Harris. Dawkins just likes to talk outside his field of expertise and mash up his epistemologies such that he can make some rather spectacular public blunders. But that both men should never be allowed near a Twitter account is obvious.

said by bronze age myth follower

Side: Dawkin is clever
Taqwacore(668) Disputed
1 point

said by bronze age myth follower

Said by someone who obviously didn't know that the Levantian Bronze Age had already concluded by 1200 BC.

It's called H.I.S.T.O.R.Y

Supporting Evidence: Bronze Age in the Levant (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Dawkin is stupid
2 points

The thing with Dawkins is that as long as he sticks to his field (evolutionary biology), he's pure gold. I very much enjoy reading his books on the topic of evolution.

However, when it comes to reading his religion-bashing books, it's quite clear that he has an incredibly biased and simplistic view of religion, his approach to the more philosophical issues is sophmoric and superficial and it's obvious that he has an ideological axe to grind on the very topic of religion.

Side: Dawkin is stupid

- In order for a molecule to copy itself, the molecule must first have life. Therefore life couldn't begin with a copying machine.

False. A virus is a modern example of something that copies itself without being alive. Granted, it's on the border of life and non-life, but there were surely much simpler copying machines at some point.

The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean?

Because at the time life started, there weren't any organisms in the ocean.

That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another alien? And who gave that alien life?

This is true.

If these aliens planted life on earth, isn't it possible that they would be curious to find out how it turned out? If you plant a tree in your yard, aren't you curious to find out if it will grow? Why haven't we seen these aliens yet?

Maybe they accidentally dropped some life forms here without knowing it. Maybe they aren't curious because they've done this so many times before. Maybe they did observe us but left after some time. Maybe they're observing us from afar. Maybe they'll come back later.

Side: Dawkin is clever
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
1 point

Because at the time life started, there weren't any organisms in the ocean.

A sea without living organism isn't a sea.

Side: Dawkin is stupid
1 point

False. Matter of fact that doesn't even qualify it as a "sea". Here is the definition.

The expanse of salt water that covers most of the earth's surface and surrounds its landmasses.

Side: Dawkin is stupid
2 points

''Life started out in the ocean as a copying machine, a molecule copying itself.''

By this he means that the first type of life was this. He's not trying to answer the chicken or the egg thing.

''Maybe aliens with high developed technology planted life on earth''

Its difficult to know what he meant here without a context but I guess he's saying its just one of the many possibilities that is equally as likely as God creating us.

Side: Dawkin is clever

He is one of my biggest role models. His knowledge is quite amazing. I have a poster of him om the back of my door and he is talking about first "life" saying that it cannot just go poof. It happened by a slow process. The aliens thing as he said is possible and is intriguing. He was simply taking chip shots at the Christian faith 1 by 1.

Side: Dawkin is clever
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

His chips at the Christian faith to me are pretty weak, he should have not introduced the theory of alien life, that just supports intelligent design and shows us that we would have been the same as our proposed ancestors without constant intelligent intervention. The copy machine thing is also pretty weak because I know of no 'copy machine' that literally began copying itself. This copy machine which started off in the ocean (please explain to me on an unrelated side note why the ocean, couldn't it be something else) must have been willed to begin copying and then specializing by some external force. Unless you have an argument that you cant present as to otherwise this isn't so.

Side: Dawkin is stupid

I agree with you. I just like him and his scientific studies. The chip shots are weak.

Side: Dawkin is clever
1 point

That only exlpains life on EARTH, not life itself. In order for the alien to be plant life, it must be alive, so what gave the alien life? Another alien? And who gave that alien life?

The point he was trying to make when he said that life could have been seeded on earth by aliens is that ultimately you cannot explain away complexity by postulating more complexity. Even if life on earth was put here by aliens, you would have to explain the aliens themselves. The aliens would have had to have come about in one of two ways:

1. Been seeded by other aliens themselves. Then you would again need to explain how these new aliens came about. This regress cannot continue indefinitely since the universe is only about 14 billion years old, and that puts a limit on how far back this chain of aliens would go. Eventually you would have to explain the very first aliens using no. 2 below.

2. Evolved by natural selection (or an analogous process) somewhere else in the universe.

Side: Dawkin is clever

Well, I am agnostic leaning atheist, and Richard Dawkins is very clever, so I am going with the alien theory. Aliens planted the seeds for evolution.

Side: Dawkin is clever
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
1 point

But does this explain how life was created in any way?

For me, if this theory is true, then this explains how life on earth was created. Life as we know it had another beginning, since the aliens are alive, true?

Side: Dawkin is stupid
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

i fail to understand why you so adamantly believe in aliens which you have never seen or heard and you refuse to believe in God which you have never seen or heard. The irony, right?

Side: Dawkin is stupid
1 point

True, I never did seen or heard aliens, but there is more evidence of alien vistation than the existence of God. Aliens

Side: Dawkin is clever
1 point

Ok I stopped reading the moment I read the:

"The ocean itself contains millions of organisms. How can life start in an already living ocean?" Bit.

Perhaps sir did not consider the fact that life did not start only a few years ago? And that perhaps life started long, long before that, when the ocean had no life in it? Then conditions became just right and, so on and so forth. I mean honestly?!

Side: Dawkin is clever
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
1 point

What I meant is, that the ocean itself is made of living organisms.

I think I was wrong, Lizzie said that the ocean isn't made of living organisms.

So I might have misunderstood something :)

Side: Dawkin is stupid