Dawkins is being interviewed with Brandon Flowers, a MORmON pop music flash in the pan, when Dawkins describes Joseph's Myth as a charlatan, MORmON jumps to his defense and lies through his teeth, by claiming the BoM has been analyzed by scholars and found to be authentic, Dawkins calls b.s. and says that Joseph's Myth was a convicted con man. MORmON denies this (2nd lie) says Dawkins needs to do his research. Dawkins says, well I think I have. MORmON insists Dawkins is wrong, again lying, before moderator calls off the debate, since MORmON was getting destroyed.
People need to learn to think b4 speaking to Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/W-pr2PL-e9Y

He does not suffer fools well, that's for sure.

I still love the Killer's music though!

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He does not suffer fools well, that's for sure.
>
> I still love the Killer's music though!

You will rarely see Dawkins debating theologians or religious intellectuals because he knows it is easier to deal with the uneducated. Brandon Flowers is probably a bit above his usual toothless targets.

And if things don't go his way, well, he has been caught editing interviews to remove his opponents stronger points.

His programs are the high brow equivalent of Jerry Springer.

The man is scum and a pedophilia and rape apologist too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/

Some of Dawkins' pedophilia apologetics... The man was assaulted as a child and it has clearly twisted his attitude towards life.

He is so twisted he will even apologize for pedophilia if it wins points over religion like here -

'There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was 7 years old, she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.

'“At the same time, a friend of hers, also 7, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant, she had gone to hell and will be roasting in hell forever.

'“She told me, of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky, but she got over it. But the mental abuse of being told about hell, she took years to get over. " '

I quite enjoyed watching that again. It’s a short clip which still remains interesting to me for a number of reasons.
I really like the Killers music, and heard Brandon Flowers was mormon. I also am a huge fan of Dawkins. Listening to him speak has been so refreshing especially when compared to listening to mormons speak. And here we have the contrast presented in all its glory.
Dawkins will often have to say quite a lot more to counteract religious claims. But with mormonism he almost just laughs at it for being so ridiculous. That’s quite validating, coming from an educated nevermo atheist.
I don’t think Flowers has done his research. He’s just been told those things and believes them at face value the same way all mormons do. His reaction reminds me of how they all respond with non-thinking. He also reminds me of ‘my’ missionary who seemed to have all the answers but really was just brainwashed and who hadn’t done his research. Amazing how I see that now because he was someone I revered for years. But mormonism makes people dishonest; my missionary asked me to explain (over email) why I decided to leave because “it would add to his understanding”; this was an emotionally manipulative lie - he just wanted to get me to tell him and when he couldn’t refute what I’d said he sidestepped the whole thing and clearly wasn’t interested in understanding me at all. Mormonism makes good people do bad things.
Dawkins can sometimes come across as quite condescending which might be off putting for those new to him. I’m sure his personality has been criticised which I can understand...However, at the end of this clip he sincerely apologises for not knowing Flowers would be leaving (to go and sing). It makes me think he genuinely is coming from a good place and he is merely just speaking his mind, and I find such honesty so refreshing (again, especially compared to mormons). It reminds me of a long interview he submitted to with a christian creationist. He was very patient towards this guy who was not the brightest person but who was still obviously quite sweet; I would not have kept my cool the way he did.
Thanks for the clip!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2019 03:42AM by LJ12.

This reminds me of the story of David and Goliath, where hypothetically it appears that Goliath won. Had that been the Biblical outcome, however, no one would have praised Goliath as a brilliant fighter!

But this particular exchange is much more interesting because if the "debate" was about religious faith, and not about Mormonism, Dawkins clearly lost, even though one could hardly call Flowers the victor. It would be like Goliath dying after stumbling on his own shoelace and knocking his head against a rock. Rather fortunate for David, but hardly a victory.

Here is how Dawkins lost this exchange:

Early on, he is asked about his atheism, and he makes the following three statements as his foundational explanation for his rejection of religion:

A. "Well, I think the world is explained fully by science, or will be explained fully by science."

B. "There is no evidence for any supernatural being of any kind."

C. "So, it goes against the spirit of science to put your trust in the supernatural when the natural explanation is there."

These are standard Dawkins talking points, and the basis for his entire position, including as stated in his book, The God Delusion. What I will now show--no, demonstrate--by clear logic, is that Dawkins' view amounts to scientism; i.e. the view of science itself as akin to religious faith, the very thing Dawkins is arguing against! Okay, here we go:

A. "Well, I think the world is explained fully by science, or will be explained fully by science."

COMMENT: First, nobody in the mainstream scientific community would claim that "the world is explained fully by science." So, that part of the statement is just empirically false, and obviously so. The origin of life, the origin of the universe, and origin of scientific laws, are just a few of the myriad of facts and questions that are not explained by science.

The second part of the statement is nothing more than metaphysical speculation, and completely unsupportable by any evidence. First, it assumes that human beings know everything about the universe that needs to be explained, and second it assumes that humans with their scientific tools, present or future, will necessarily reveal all such truths--"fully." This is an absurd assumption, and no more valid than a religious claim that someday science will reveal God. It is entirely vacuous.

So, with A above, Dawkins is already way over his head.
_____________________________________________

B. "There is no evidence for any supernatural being of any kind."

COMMENT: Here, one must first identify what is intended by "supernatural being" and what is intended by "evidence." Let's assume that "supernatural being" means a supreme intelligence that is somehow responsible for creating the universe, and is interested and involved in human affairs; a reasonably standard definition for God.

Now, what does Dawkins mean by "evidence." If he means scientific evidence, then he is question-begging, because by his own statements "science" has been made the issue. Religion is not based upon "scientific evidence." Moreover, if scientific evidence is the standard, what is the basis for the preoccupation and "faith" of scientists in "theories of everything," like String Theory. Even more important what is the scientific evidence for Dawkins's own statement that science will some day fully explain everything. News flash, there is no such evidence!

So, if you want to evaluate religion on terms of evidence, you have to admit empirical evidence that falls short of scientific verification. (Science itself admits such evidence all the time, e.g. through mathematical modeling that cannot be verified by experiment.) This includes subjective experiences, and a host of interpretations, that may point--for some people--toward a God. Moreover, the well established fact that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life and intelligence, such that even for Dawkins it "appears" to suggest design, *is* on its face evidence for just that--design! It does not mean that the universe *was* designed, or that there is no evidence suggesting a natural explanation, but the evidence "on its face" favors design. Again, this is uncontroversial. Such an assumption is defeated only by imposing restrictions on what kind of explanation is allowable, which, again, begs the theistic question.

_______________________________________________

C. "So, it goes against the spirit of science to put your trust in the supernatural when the natural explanation is there."

COMMENT: "Spirit of Science"? Is that like the "Spirit of God"? This statement is so obviously question-begging and blatant scientism that one hardly needs to comment. It basically says, that if you want answers to the deep metaphysical questions of life, "Don't put your faith in God, put your faith in science." This is a "normative" "ought" statement, that has no scientific validity. Even if one notes all of the great achievements in science; and how reliable it has been in discovering facts about the world, there is no legitimate metaphysical presumption or inference, that God does not exist, or that knowledge cannot be obtained by non-scientific means.

In short, Dawkins's atheistic argument, position, or whatever you want to call it, falls flat--by his own statements and logic alone! If this was a debate, Goliath loses by default to the inept David. His arguments against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are of a different kind, because they address historical and literary facts. So, we can give him a few points there, but Mormonism is easy to refute, as we all know.

Henry, Dawkins fricking only means the scientific method.

I see you are desperately searching through his every word for a gap you can criticize to allow supernatural explanations. When you have actual evidence, instead of philosopher-style speculation, let us know.

I'm not saying there are not supernatural things that may be discovered (let's not parse all the ways you will allow others to use that word).

I have never seen someone use so many words to manipulate and distort science like you do. Science is concise. I'm pretty sure Dawkins encounters all the pseudo anti science dog whistles like you included in your "arguments" on a regular basis.

Present evidence instead of nitpicking what he means by it. We will test the evidence and see where it leads.

I try really hard to have common ground with you about what is speculation and what is a true gap, but your acrobatic semantics truly is exhausting. I await your 1,000 word COMMENT as the last word.

Henry, Dawkins fricking only means the scientific method.

COMMENT: The quotes of Dawkins were direct, and are similar to what he has said in several other contexts that I am aware of. I take him for his own words. If you want to save him by putting words in his mouth, go right ahead; make his argument for him. But don't blame me for challenging him on the logic of his position, which I have heard from his own mouth and writings many times. He is NOT talking about the scientific method here; he is talking about science per se. I think he knows the difference.
____________________________________

I see you are desperately searching through his every word for a gap you can criticize to allow supernatural explanations. When you have actual evidence, instead of philosopher-style speculation, let us know.

COMMENT: I am not desperate at all. I am simply stating what Dawkins said, and pointing out the logical implications and fallacies of such statements. And this is the kind of thing he says all the time. That is not my fault.

This is NOT "philosopher-style" speculation, and if you knew anything about logic or philosophy you would know that. Whether "supernatural explanations" are "allowable" or not, depends upon what the speculation is, and what argument is being made for or against it. In this case, Dawkins' arguments were fallacious, as I very clearly pointed out--however painful that might be to his disciples.

___________________________________________

I'm not saying there are not supernatural things that may be discovered (let's not parse all the ways you will allow others to use that word).

COMMENT: Why don't you stop whining and fix Dawkins' argument for him, if you can, so that my clear and valid criticisms are avoided or refuted. He needs your help. Go for it. Or at least point out where my argument logically fails, instead of attacking me for making the argument.
___________________________________________

I have never seen someone use so many words to manipulate and distort science like you do. Science is concise. I'm pretty sure Dawkins encounters all the pseudo anti science dog whistles like you included in your "arguments" on a regular basis.

COMMENT: How have I "manipulated" or "distorted" science? I have not even criticized science. You just don't get it. This is NOT a criticism of science, it is a criticism of Dawkins' misplaced worship of science, which is fallacious, as I have clearly explained.

Stop attacking the messenger--attack the argument; with the same logic I used. And, why don't you find an example of how Dawkins would or could respond to this argument; especially since you claim he does so on a regular basis. Also, tell me why he did not address this very standard and obvious argument in his book?
___________________________________________

Present evidence instead of nitpicking what he means by it. We will test the evidence and see where it leads.

COMMENT: It was Dawkins that was making the claims, not me. I made no substantive claims about anything. As such, I have not burden to produce any evidence. Here we have Dawkins making sweeping metaphysical claims about science without producing supporting evidence. For example, where is his evidence that science will one day explain everything?
___________________________________________

I try really hard to have common ground with you about what is speculation and what is a true gap, but your acrobatic semantics truly is exhausting. I await your 1,000 word COMMENT as the last word.

COMMENT: Sorry for evoking all of this cognitive dissonance. But having common ground with me is one thing, and effectively responding to my argument when there is no common ground is another. Simply attacking me with rhetorical ad hominin nonsense is not impressive. Again, if my argument was bad, point out how and why. Otherwise, your response is nothing but an emotional outburst that is no different from a Mormon stubbornly refusing to consider and rationally address the arguments against Mormonism. NO DIFFERENT!

Rather revealing non-verbals commencing at 3+30.
Knows he was owned.

I watched this yesterday when shrodingerscat posted it, and took a day to think about it before responding in this thread, so what I have to say is well thought out. My conclusion is that Mr. Dawkins presented a rather silly argument to this young man, trying to disprove a book written in 1830-- Georgian times. He says it's ridiculous that a work would contain old English when folks didn't speak that way in those days. All I can say is that Dawkins hasn't read any English literature. Take for instance the translation of the Arabian Nights by Sir Richard Burton a similar work to the BOM. The work was done in 1840 and is written so badly in archaic English that it's very difficult to understand it. Then there is Dickens which is almost as hard to digest.

If he really wanted to stump the young man he should have asked him why the BOM contains King James translation errors in it's pages...

Dawkins’ fundamental argument is that religion and science are incompatible. Now there are Christians who take various different stances on this, granted. Dawkins’ position is that science has proven that evolution is real, and he doesn’t believe ancient religious texts can fit in with this and still be true.
As for his comments re the BoM and JS...well, he’s right. The BoM IS so obviously a fake, and JS WAS a known charlatan and conman. Didn’t think I’d see anyone disagreeing with/criticising that on this forum.

The criticism of Dawkins for criticising JS using old English, seems like splitting hairs just in an attempt to discredit Dawkins. I mean, it’s a good point surely? I really don’t think people spoke like that in the 19th century. He also probably hasn’t studied mormonism thoroughly, because he thinks it’s too preposterous to bother. I would agree. It’s not like he was preparing for a debate; this was an interview. The only reason why we bother criticising it is because we were in it and that’s different.
He cares about science. IMO science explains more than religion does, in fact religion contradicts science and even if it didn't, it is (especially by comparison) contradictory and confusing. Obviously those of faith will disagree and I understand. The reason he believes that one day science will explain everything is because that is the way it has been going for a long time. We now know so much more than we used to. Will religion do the same thing? It doesn’t and won’t; the more that time passes, the more it clashes with the scientific and sociological progress that we make as a species.