Dawkins vs Wendy Wright

[Tacitursa]

Dawkins has more patience than me thats for sure

[Blau&Gruen]

This has already been up - old stuff that's not going to be better by repetition.

[Arch-hereticK]

Well that was hilarious, but we all know that crazies tend to be creationists, it's not exactly breaking news.

[Dr. Croccer]

This has been posted at least 3 times already.

[Tacitursa]

Well its entertaining its worth watching 3 times at least

[Gordon Freynman]

Typical conversation with a creationist on evolution.


Creationist: "THERES NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION."

Scientist: "Well actually there's quite a bit."

Creationist: "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!"

Scientist: "Okay, well looking at the DNA of various organisms you'll find..."

Creationist: "NOPE. THATS A LIE. THERES NO EVIDENCE."

Scientist: "Uuuuggggghhhhh"

Creationist: "I WIN LOL!"

[Lost Sultan]

Dr Croccer: Creepiest post of the year?

[TWoxy]

If you'll forgive the pun, Dawkins exhibits the patience of a saint here!

[Icewolf]

i couldnt believe his patience in this movie, i would have slapped her 5 minutes in... i somehow managed to watch the entire.. thing..

[Pious Agnost]

Must be hard having to deal with such people, all the time

[jankren]

So why did he stay for 60 minutes? For that fact alone I will have to question Dawkins' intelligence ,,,

[Dr. Croccer]

So why did he stay for 60 minutes? For that fact alone I will have to question Dawkins' intelligence ,,,

Indeed. I can't really see who's the bigger idiot here: the one who staunchly believes in nonsense, and the one who spends hours trying to convince aforementioned person to stop believing in it. Not to offend the good sir, but surely he sees the futility in this.

Without combative atheism you would just have a bunch of people without a religious belief without anything much to say, you wouldn't find any of their views in the media. So at least with Dawkins people have some idea that atheism exists it's not just something teenagers believe when they go through their rebelious phase and don't want to go to church on a Sunday.

I was under the impression that Atheists advocated their individual autonomy and free thought, not that they need some sort of prophet to rally around.

[Tankbuster]

Indeed. I can't really see who's the bigger idiot here: the one who staunchly believes in nonsense, and the one who spends hours trying to convince aforementioned person to stop believing in it. Not to offend the good sir, but surely he sees the futility in this.

As is mostly the case when you see intelligent people arguing with fundamentalists, whether online or in real life, there's usually not a single doubt in that person's mind that they are not going to convince a fundamentalist.

The point of debating them is to educate the people watching at the side-lines, or (in this case) to show the people who might be on the fence in the whole evolution-creationism debate just how deluded these individuals are.
Of course this woman and all the other creationists Dawkins goes out to interview are severely deluded and have brainwashed themselves beyond repair. But these people (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Wendy Wright) have more influence than we can imagine and they are a serious threat to education.
That's why they deserve to be interviewed: so that everyone (even the people on the fence) can say "Wow, the ideas these people promote are really intellectually shallow!".
That's the difference he's trying to make.

I hazard a guess that Dawkins doesn't go around debating creationists unless there are cameras around

[Tacitursa]

I hazard a guess that Dawkins doesn't go around debating creationists unless there are cameras around

Exactly . I think the best way to do things is just debate the religious and remain polite and gentle like dawkins and just let the religious people do all the damage to themselfs by talking complete utter nonsense. Let millions of people watch and CHING CHING progress

[Tankbuster]

Yeah.
With people like Wendy Wright, it's really just a matter of handing them enough rope to hang themselves.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I can't stand Richard Dawkins. He makes the matter completely, unnecessarily combative. He's an exceptionally unfortunate standard bearer for atheism, and will probably put his cause backwards. You want a atheist to look up to, go to John Humphrys. An atheist who manages to host a programme with BBC's Thought of the Day on it.

Video: The woman is either stupid or stunningly ignorant. But all creationists are. This is not a grand expose.

[Helm]

He only get the media attention he gets because he's combative, atheism is something easily ignored otherwise, it has no formal organisation afterall.

[The Dude]

Dawkins does make it look combatative, but only because it -should- be. As Helm said, atheism is too easily ignored otherwise.

And holy that woman freaks me out. I guess her definition of a loving, caring human being is speaking in a soft tone and never EVER blinking in order to engage in a merciless stare-down with whomever you're talking to.

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is negative attention.

[Helm]

Negative attention is better than no attention at all.