The Instigator
bublez07
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
leet4A1
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Richard Dawkins

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,540 times Debate No: 7937
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

bublez07

Con

Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.

Although the resolution title and my opponent's position are quite confusing, my opponent's first round makes clear what we will be debating. My opponent has asserted that Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist, and it is my task to show otherwise.

As there are no arguments to rebut, I will define a few terms and await my opponent's first argument.

Fundamentalism: "Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life." SOURCE: [1]

Religious Fundamentalist: "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation."
SOURCE: [1]

I await my opponent's arguments and hope this is an enlightening debate.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
bublez07

Con

I claim that Atheist Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.Now ,we all know about christian and islamic fundamentalists.We see the havoc which they continue to spread daily.But what about Atheism?It is my arguement that this too is a fundamentalist religion which meets all the required criteria,especially as preached by Mr.dawkins.Leave aside Darwinism.Let us for the sake of arguement accept that Darwins theory is irrefutable scientific fact(which is what i believe).what Dawkins claims is that Darwinism proves absolutely that god does not exist!WHAT?HOW?This is clearly a religious statement,in that it requires a leap of faith and is not backed by any proof WHATSOEVER.Another aspect of fundamentalim is a stubborn ignorance regarding other religions.Dawkins is incredibly dismissive of ALL religions except his own.When he argues,he assumes that all christians believe in a corporeal God sitting on a cloud somewhere.But that is another arguement."Fundamentalism refers to a belief in,and strict adherance to a set of basic principles".....Namely that 1:There absolutely is no God.2:Darwins theory is proof of this.3:Whoever does not accept this is stupid or mentally ill.4.You cannot be a TRUE DARWINIST if you believe in or are open to the possibility of an intelligence beyond the realm of our own subjective experience.SCIENCE IS THOU GOD,THOU SHALT HAVE NO GOD BUT SCIENCE.Richard Dawkins.True believer.
leet4A1

Pro

"I claim that Atheist Richard Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist.Now ,we all know about christian and islamic fundamentalists.We see the havoc which they continue to spread daily.But what about Atheism?It is my arguement that this too is a fundamentalist religion which meets all the required criteria,especially as preached by Mr.dawkins.Leave aside Darwinism.Let us for the sake of arguement accept that Darwins theory is irrefutable scientific fact(which is what i believe).what Dawkins claims is that Darwinism proves absolutely that god does not exist!WHAT?HOW?This is clearly a religious statement,in that it requires a leap of faith and is not backed by any proof WHATSOEVER.Another aspect of fundamentalim is a stubborn ignorance regarding other religions.Dawkins is incredibly dismissive of ALL religions except his own.When he argues,he assumes that all christians believe in a corporeal God sitting on a cloud somewhere.But that is another arguement."Fundamentalism refers to a belief in,and strict adherance to a set of basic principles".....Namely that 1:There absolutely is no God.2:Darwins theory is proof of this.3:Whoever does not accept this is stupid or mentally ill.4.You cannot be a TRUE DARWINIST if you believe in or are open to the possibility of an intelligence beyond the realm of our own subjective experience.SCIENCE IS THOU GOD,THOU SHALT HAVE NO GOD BUT SCIENCE.Richard Dawkins.True believer."

I will again define 'Religious Fundamentalist': "For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation."
SOURCE: [1]

This definition makes it quite clear that a religious fundamentalist:
a) believes in a god or gods
b) takes scripture regarding that god as that god's word

Your own post admits that Dawkins is an atheist, meaning he believes in no gods. Hence, he can't be a religious fundamentalist.

You can call Richard Dawkins ignorant, over-zealous, over-certain, delusional, or anything else you wish to throw at him. Frankly, I don't like the man myself. But if there is one thing he is not, it is a religious fundamentalist.
Debate Round No. 2
bublez07

Con

I have no wish to debate semantics.My point is that ,while he does not believe in a God,Dawkins certainly shares in common the arrogance,blind faith,religiosity and intillectual dishonesty of religious fundamentalists.I find it ironic that he has so much in common with those he despises.I suppose he could better be described as an Athiest Fundamentalist.I can debate the various points i have raised aswell as my own belief that Atheism is just as faith based and more insidious than any other belief system.Hence my use of the term "religious".I concede your point about fundamentalism defined as belief in a God.I should have made myself more clear in my opening arguement.I was just making a point and do not wish this debate to become about definitions.
leet4A1

Pro

I apologize to my opponent for not wanting to argue semantics in this debate, but I was left with no choice. You called him a religious fundamentalist, I defined religious fundamentalist, we now both agree that he is certainly not one. Please note, voters, that my opponent has conceded to Richard Dawkins not being a religious fundamentalist. Thus, I've fulfilled my burden and all votes should be to PRO.

I suggest that next time my opponent wishes to discredit a professional on a public forum, he do some research into the slanderous terms he's throwing around.
Debate Round No. 3
bublez07

Con

bublez07 forfeited this round.
leet4A1

Pro

Nothing to say really. My opponent forfeited because there is no argument to make. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
bublez07

Con

bublez07 forfeited this round.
leet4A1

Pro

My opponent presented an incorrect and slanderous argument and a couple of forfeits. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I give all points to Pro for so many reasons more than just the forfeits :)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I gave all points to PRO due to COn's forfeits.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Obvious winner was PRO due to forfeits.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Ha, oops, so I did....

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Lol, Hal, you left out your sourse [1] in round 2.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Lol, Hal, you left out your sourse [1] in round 2.
Posted by MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
Excuse me?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
bublez07leet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
bublez07leet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
bublez07leet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
bublez07leet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
bublez07leet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07