Apparently during my next Bible and Western culture class we're going to have Richard Dawkins among other less famous guests to hold a conference. We will be invited to ask questions and be prepared. I've never really debated atheists before. So I'm turning to Sup Forums because a lot of debates occur here between believers and atheists of all kinds.
What are some questions Sup Forums would like to ask Dawkins?
Other urls found in this thread:
If human evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Dawkins will be so BTFO he will convert to Christianity on the spot.
That's kind of elementary and even myself can answer that. Just imagine that 2 groups of monkeys went different ways, one of them became humans and the other remained monkeys. Thanks though.
A
Please do I want to see you on one of those debating an atheist fail videos
If groups evolved largely independent of one another for tens of thousands of years, why didn't the advanced ones kill all the niggers?
I don't want to debate him just ask him a question. There's too many people for it to be a one on one debate.
>seen him as so out of the know and within his own intellectual bubble that he's not even relevant to discussion
>have no questions for him
Well give me a moment and I'll have something for him.
Dawkins has no counter to the fine-tuned universe argument.
Bananas are the answers
If I could ask Dawkins anything it would be why are most atheists so socialist/statist it's like they replace god with govt and act like it is really all that different.
are you retarded
No one does, God did it sint an answer.
Interesting, any concrete proof for that. I'm willing him to ask him that but I'd like to review some literature on the subject.
lolbertarian pls go
all you have to do is admit your mind is not your own and that you need outside guidance. Admit the bible is limited and you are limited. Admit that you lie to yourself every day. If you do this he may admit that the cross is part of the bigger picture.
I don't have much proof for it outside of anecdotal shit. But the Bernie crowd was very atheist if that means anything.
Ask if he agrees that Christianity provides a valuable bulwark against worse philosophies such as Islam or communism, whether or not its real.
>BE CANADIAN
>NEVER LISTENED TO J B PETERSON CLASSES
> CANT UNDERSTAND WHY ATHEISM IS BAD FOR A PERSON
We need to belive in heroes and produce magical narratives to help us live.
ask him about objectivity
youtube.com
Read/listen to some Peterson and Haidt and ask Dawkins why he thinks people can wholesale reject religion when it is so embedded in our culture and behavior.
Ask him why most atheists support the mass immigration of Muslims into western countries.
Tell him to debate Jordan Peterson.
so he literally pays the bills by going to conferences where he says that "god doesn't exist lmao" by asking questions only a pre teen would ask?
Or just image that monkeys aren't apes and humans are.
Ask him:
Do you really believe that most humans are capable of rational thinking to the degree of yourself, or might this be the biggest irrational belief you yourself hold? Could a dumbed down reasoning for being a good human be defended if they are bound to misunderstand anything more complex?
So do most Christians, jew god lovers that they are.
ask him why he never attacks jews.
if the layers in the earth equal millions of years each how are so many petrified trees standing vertically through the millions of years as the layers build? never got an answer for that.
but that's false. majority of christians voted for trump, while 80% of atheists voted clinton.
You're going to get crushed. Religious people are stupid queers.
The tree was upright when it was in the dirt....
Ask him if he's happy that Trump will make a wall to keep away those superstitious mexicans from poisoning Western secular values.
yes, this
so much this
Well I have something. I'll let you word it however you wish:
Dawkins, last I heard, was interested in the whole 'consciouness' debate so the topic of Eliminative Materialism and teleology would be very interesting. Here is some background:
>Teleology: The idea that objects in nature have purpose and the practice of understanding nature through examination of purposes.
>Purpose: The inherent understanding of "purpose" is that things have 'goals' in nature that they are naturally suited for innately. For example, the heart is "for" pumping blood. Having an innate goal is synonymous with having an innate purpose. The original term for purpose is also 'Final Cause'.
>Naturalism: Metaphysical Naturalism (also known as Naturalism) is a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Amongst other things it denies that things have innate purpose.
>Eliminative Materialism: A new position supported by Daniel Dennett, Paul Churchland, and others that holds that since there is no goal-directedness in nature and nothing exists but the physical world that things such as "desires" and various mental states are illusions brought upon by the movement of physical parts of the brain.
Ask if Dawkins knows of Eliminative Materialism to begin with. After, bring up how information itself that is used by the brain is teleological in essence (information entails inferring things, which is goal-directed) are we to say that things such as "beliefs" and "mental intent" don't actually exist or would this problem lead to support for goal-directedness existing in nature or some beyond the physical world (dualism).
Cheers.
Ask him how come there is so much ocean and where it come from
petrified trees standing upright through multiple rock layers. since the three would have decomposed if these layers were deposited over millions of years.
Ask him the question the froze Peterson and Harris.
first, I think you both can admit that science is the best description of how things ARE, but science says nothing about how things OUGHT to be. For example, if we see a drowning child in front of us we are tempted to save it much more than when we see posters of children dying from hunger in Yemen. That's a description. Yet, we can also agree that saving children in Yemen is good. So if you only accept science and scientific description as valid and correct, how does one jump from the way things are to the way things out to be, especially when any measurement of our moral system as it is now seems to indicate we make choices that a lot of human moralities find lacking.
Also, read the abolition of man by CS Lewis to see why all atheist based morality is bullshit
This god thing whoever he is, created everything and does not want to be found for some reason.
Do you seriously think you will find him by looking harder?
You will never be able to find god, never.
You don't get to know god exists, its trust based system much like marriage.
Defying such system is like having an "open relationship" it never ends well.
Ask him why atheists are always such insufferably arrogant cunts who are more dogmatic than almost any religion.
They are always so fucking high off the smell of their own farts and it's pathetic. It makes me want to convert to just about any religion every time I see one of them talk for more than 5 minutes.
He'll just say that there aren't nearly as many Jews as Christians and most of them tend to be non-religious so they aren't as big of a problem
this
cool drawing
such proof
much credibility
am sarcasm
What's the difference between God, if we envision it as an abstract concept of complete reason or truth itself, and science?
Why aren't they compatible?
I'm not saying it disproves everything about evolution. it's just that I think alot of these things scientists should reconsider that they might be possibly wrong, but they don't cause they don't get funding so they just keep it as fact even though the original studies are 100 years old.
Ask him what he thinks of Jordan B Peterson
Ask him where free will comes from.
If we really are just soulless meat machines are we not just slaves to our genes and environment?
Without the divine, how can anything exist but determinism?
"I don't know who that is. Next question."
old photo
not drawing
just skeptical
Dawkins doesnt even understand those terms Wolfy. He'll just give a half-assed remark on how "science will figure out how I'm right" and will waste OP's question.
OP, just ask him how can atheism be science-based when most of them reject the overwhelming evidence for racial IQ differences. Or just ask him something about race, literally. It will put him on the spot and will shun him by either his fellow atheists or his fellow leftists.
kek, didn't think of that
You believing in god proves we are slaves to our genes and environment : you can't go against the structures you built in your head, even if you feel like you are. Depending on your full personnality and your genes, you will or will never change your opinions about a possible god. But this is already decided.
Reminder that Richard Dawkins was the man who popularized the world "meme".
People who unironically don't "believe" in evolution are my fucking trigger.
Why you fucking cunt ? Are you too stupid to understand the influences that can go through people's lives ?
Evolution goes against religion, if you're religious either you make some mental gymnastics to say both evolution and god are true, either you have a mental breakdown and stop believing in god (which destroys you for weeks), either you dismiss it saying it's false knowledge made by anti-religious people or jews or whatever
It doesn't really matter if determinism is true or not. Even if everything was random it still wouldn't be free will, you still wouldn't have control over your actions.
See:
THIS
The racial evolution question is something he fucking denies religiously but has no way to back up at all.
if phenomena come from objects then how are there still objects??
This, and preface it with
>Mr. Dawkins, you've said that unfortunately not all brains are born equal -
Wut? You can be religious and.. oh wait, you're a christcuck. Kek, enjoy your kike on a stick.
Lul what the fuck are you even talking about read my post
interesting, yeah i might ask him that. Let me reformulate it this way.
Why has Christianity throughout your work and your talks always been the main target? Why didn't you target other religions such as Judaism or Islam? Why the obsession with Christianity is it because criticizing the two other abrahamic religion will cause too much backlash?
And for all the other posters, once the thread archives I'll save all the questions in a word document and consider them individually. I don't think I'll be able to ask him more than one question.
Okay here's an easier one that would be simpler for Dawkins for sake:
>Richard, despite all the talk of cosmological arguments for God that you and others have discussed it seems most of your discussion deals with a temporal causation. A "before the Big Bang". While this is applicable to a few of them, such as the Kalam, the vast majority of them deal with a constant sustaining causation. What is called 'Divine Conservation', as you probably know. This is the case for many cosmological arguments you spoke about in your books - such as Aquinas' First Way - and because of this you've gotten a lot of criticism from the philosophical community for misinterpreting them so drastically. Have you made any attempts at fixing this mistake?
This is also doable, easier, but likely much riskier:
>Mr. Dawkins, you've said that unfortunately not all brains are born equal. If this is the case, would you be in support of the view of possibly different mental dispositions between people of different skin colors? And if so, will this provide an answer or partial answer to the disparity in how these racial groups perform in various things?
He's a self-declared cultural Christian tho, he doesn't reject the cultural contributions of religion.
>Evolution goes against religion
user, don't be stupid.
Sure bro. Keep those mental gymnastics at ease.
Unless our moral agency was controlled by the metaphysical like in christian theology. That's the whole purpose of a soul existing.
Ah, you're a troll.
My mistake.
Explain how fossils don't go against religious texts in almost all religions.
Explain why religions say humans have been created from god's will, when we know we've slowly been evolved from apes.
Explain why we are able to find the bones of ape species that match the evolving way we've made in millions of years.
Record it and post it here.
I want to see you BTFO.
>Can you explain using logic, not rhetoric, why you feel the existence of God is ridiculous without using a strawman, appealing to ridicule, begging the question, posing a red herring, posing a non sequitur, appealing to what you think you need, or committing any logical fallacies?
or
>How is your position not merely an appeal to emotion, and could you give some examples using logic, not just rhetoric?
or
>How many times were you molested or abused before you decided to deflect your anger toward Christianity and God?
or
>Have you ever tried to grow a Nietzsche mustache?
and
>Do you plan on dying of syphilus?
>Can you explain using logic, not rhetoric, why you feel the existence of God is ridiculous without using a strawman, appealing to ridicule, begging the question, posing a red herring, posing a non sequitur, appealing to what you think you need or should be, or committing any logical fallacies?
He'll get into a lot of science on evolution and the big bang. Keep asking backwards questions if you can. Basically what caused the big bang? How did something come from nothing? These are impossible questions for him to answer. Then ask him if anyone has coded anything equally as powerful at evolving new life and sustaining it to continue evolving as far as biological, and physical in sustaining a reality that exists on its own without any outside influence, meaning if we all died it would continue on... does that not in itself suggest it is perfect, as the existence of reality can only be perfect, even things that may look like imperfections are the result of a system that perfectly carries on life, even if it's not permanently the most efficient. Keep asking why and how or what came before that created whatever he's talking about. Atheists are fairly regressive, but they can only go back so far.
>CIRCULAR LOGIC WILL SURELY STUMP RICHARD FUCKING DAWKINS, fucking kek.
He'd probably agree with that second greentext.
don't debate religion.
its waste of time. its pointless.
nothing will come out of it.
>american education
Don't bother with religion shit and press him to talk about how he can believe in subspecies in animals due to evolution but not subspecies in humans (IIRC he's one of those "all humans are literally the same" cucks, though I could be mistaking him for someone else).
Actually read and understand something you insult of reason
First, you're classifying "religions" to be a certain way and yet your criticisms are, at best, relevant only to Abrahamic religions.
Second, the Young Earth Creationism understanding of Creation is historically recent and has no relevant to Christianity outside of Evangelical Protestantism.
Third, the understanding of Genesis necessary to defend Young Earth Creationism is historically recent as well and extends from a falling out of Biblical scholarship in Evangelicals circles (due to Protestant revivals (called "Great Awakenings") where ignorant laypeople taught ignorant laypeople. This is also why the understanding of Christianity as a whole and its texts are so terribly shallow in Evangelical circles. They make a lot of assumptions but the biggest one is one of genre.
Fourth, God in early Christianity and into the modern day with the apostolic sects (Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental) understand God's act of creation to not be simply some major past event but a constant, sustaining causation. "Divine Conservation", it is called. Most cosmological arguments about about divine conservation, despite the mainstream focus on some past causation. Such a view of God's creative power is compatible with evolution being a cause as well, which is why those churches were accepting of evolution and preached its compatibility, if true, very early into the rise of popularity in evolution in schools.
I can speak to you more about it if you wish.
Ask him questions about how Christianity, or religion in general, relates to culture in his opinion, and doesn't a weakness in a pillar of society and culture open itself up to being subjugated to other tenants, such as Marxism or Islam, that are the antithesis of that culture? And finally, ask him to prove that without religion, how would we be better off objectively, as a whole. When he answers, hit on the fact that these things benefiting society are subjective (Muh fetus abortion, marriage, etc.) and there is a much evidence for this being a utopian reality as there is of God or gods.
If our current universe is the result of a singularity of all matter that exploded. How did the matter come into being in the first place? And what made it explode?
You're mistaken, I believe he debated th st on Twitter. Could have an edit though.
Ooh, ask him about the link between atheism and autism for laughs though, that'd be great.
Are some races and im not saying blacks or jews etc, are some races geneticly inferior to others? Thanks dr dawkings
>Richard Fucking Dawkins
You talk as if he has some modicum of stature above regular scientists.
Which would be a big deal.
Ask Dawkins...
"Why am I such a stupid christfag? Please shit on my face!"
Ask him to propose a scientific experiment which falsifies the hypothesis, "there is a God."
I love that structure
Are you descended from your cousins or are you related to them?
We are related to monkeys and other primates, because we are descended from a common amcestor.
That's just shit bait epistemology.
>Can you explain using logic, not rhetoric, why you feel the existence of God is ridiculous without using a strawman, appealing to ridicule, begging the question, posing a red herring, posing a non sequitur, appealing to what you think you need, appealing to what you think should be, or committing any logical fallacies?
Or simply ask:
>Off the top of your head, could you please provide a numbered logical argument, or any logical argument, as to why the concept and existence of God are ridiculous, without simply appealing to ridicule?
or
>Do you know what logic is and why don't you use it?
This.
Use it, OP.
So you're telling me religions are trying to adapt to science? But then, what proves that anything written on the books is true if they keep on changing their understanding of it ? If the seven first days are """wrong""", then what proves paradise is true ? And hell ? Just because we can't disprove it means it's true ? Until we disprove it ?
Also, why does there need to be a god ? Before the big bang, why does there need to be "nothing" and "a god" ? Why can't it only be "nothing" ?
Why are "nothing" and "a god" more relevant than "nothing" ?
Holy fuck
this guy knows his shit
(ಥ﹏ಥ)
>So you're telling me religions are trying to adapt to science?
No, I'm telling you that you, and the Evangelicals who try to peddle Young Earth Creationism, have a shit understanding of the texts that has no real scholarship or historical precedence behind it.
He doesn't have to proof that non-existence of a god.
Religious people have to prove the existence of their gods.
The burden of proof on those making a positive claim.
Ask him how magnets work
>Just because we can't disprove it means it's true ? Until we disprove it ?
This would be an appeal to ignorance.
>Why can't it only be "nothing" ?
Because nothing can't cause anything.
I haven't seen this meme in a long time, do it.
Correction*
Knows his shit
(ಥ﹏ಥ)