Dawkins getting slaughtered

Dawkins getting slaughtered

thrown to the lions:

[ame="http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1378535008901640650&q=dawkins"]The God Delusion: The David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate - The Ryan Tubridy Sh[/ame]

Did you see that vid on live leak of the lion chomping on a bloke?

I seen this on youtube the other night. I bloek on what looks like a safari getting chomped by a pack of lions. It also shows you the las shot of the video camera he was holding just before he got attacked.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY8lpDCSIA"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

fucking hell, thats crazy

Re: Dawkins getting slaughtered

was he hell. he gave a measured response to your ranting irish hack who kept insisting that since science can't answer all questions then it can't answer any questions. He tried to suggest that since science can't answer the question of the origin of everything then it must have been god wot dun it, as if that was the only possible cause. idiot.
he was on better ground with the athiests like Stalin causing wars as much as religious people (like Olmert for instance.) but that was hardly lion material.
just cos you want it doesn't make it so.

that is so grim.

Re: Re: Dawkins getting slaughtered

come off it, this is exactly the reason why dawkin continuelly refuses to debate with religious scholars (he's fine ranting to university kids when he has full control of their mics or even shooting down agnostic bishops but he continuelly shys away from intellectual debate).

He can't even define the word fundamentalist... the "irish hack" didn't try to quantify G-d, he simply illustrated dawkins blind fanaticism.

I'd love to see Dawkins go head to head woth a worthy adversory... but he's too yellow to ever let that occur.

A bit more light hearted.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Q5o2_02rc"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

You cant beat a bit of John Burnell, no sympathy "maybe the old woman will think twice the next time she thinks about jay-walking"

a bit

It's the commentary and the music that does it for me hahaha

He's a legend!!!

Re: Re: Re: Dawkins getting slaughtered

his life cosists of intellectual debate what are you driveling about. You can't have a 'debate' with a religious scholar. you can only listen to them state and restate their groundless 'beliefs'.
And he did define fundamentalist, but the other guy didn't agree with his definition. doesn't make his definition wrong.
And if we are accusing people of blind fanaticism...... well you can't beat a religious fundamentalist on that one..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dawkins getting slaughtered

Find me one recorded debate including dawkins and a man of religious and scholarly credibility... You wont find one, everytime they approach him he retorts that he wont publicise their cause by humouring them....

He'll flirt with bishops that dont really follow their scripture, politicians that don't really believe in G-d, etc. Dawkins lectures at universities & publicises his books on national media outlets... but he certainly doesn't spend his life engaged in debates with his peers (although he mentions them frequently enough when he talks about religious scientists comparted brains )

he won't debate with people who are totally fixed in their belief. what would be the point?
It would be like debating judaism with you. Your belief is not amenable to debate it's pointless talking about it. it's a dialogue of the deaf.

Well I for one was delighted that the Irish creationist provided such strong evidence and compelling arguments for my firmly held faith that the universe was created by being released from the anus of a giant yellow lobster (called Steve).

After all, if the worlds best minds and laboratories can't yet answer this then I and every other creationist must be overqualified to pass judgment on it instead! Bravo!

Thanks for the link

hahaha if you're going to present yourself as an expert on the falsities of religion; surely you must be able to substantiate your argument against those you seek to defame.

It would be like me coming up with a new theory of gravity, but rather than presenting my fndings to the worlds leading scientists - I present it to teenagers and shy away from intellectual debate.

Dawkins has a weak argument, a bigotted mindset and a severe lack of chutzpah (or balls in English).

right..........

What the "Irish creationist" clearly stated was that Dawkins had no substantiable explanation of what brought matter into creation, nor did any of the worlds finest brain, so the laws of probability are completely redundant as the laws of nature hadn't even come into existence.

To say something is probable.... requires the laws of probability andy.... so for all your pretentious scoffing and really really really witty comments - you have as much a clue as the next guy.... So to dismiss a theory as wrong merely highlights your own ignorance.

Not at all, he seemed to be saying that to understand how the universe came into existence you need to step outside of the universe.

I'll demonstrate... If you were born inside a computer (lets say a dell PC) after years of exploration you'd fially figured out how it functions, right down to the transformers in the soundcard.... What you cannot do is explain how that computer came into existence.

For that you have to step outside of the computer, then you could find out how the computer was assembled, who dell are, what the materials were sourced from, how the components were powered, etc.

The Irish guy presented the very convincing argument that to understand the origins of the universe you need to step out of the universe... so to speculate on what brought it into existence is nothing more than speculation.

Be it religious or scientific.