What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.
https://www.allhiphop.com/ti

Want to get mad? Watch this video of Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright

LUClEN
LUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone elseMembers Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
I couldn't watch the whole thing. She's just too stupid.

Props to Dawkins for letting her speak uninterrupted though and not resorting to ad hominem. I would have had a tough time

«1

Comments

  • playmaker88
    playmaker88 Boy, I tell you that's vision Like Tony Romo when he hitting Witten Members Posts: 67,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Would help if you gave a synopsis on who the 🤬 these people are..

    Im only watching 2:32 seconds of this video
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Richard Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist. Top in his field.

    Wendy Wright according to wiki is:
    a former president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian political action group active in the United States.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    She's on her meekins 🤬 .
  • jono
    jono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I managed to make it 10 minutes and not even 10 straight minutes. After the 5 minute mark I needed a 30 second break.

    I couldn't take her circular reasoning anymore. The "There is no evidence"/"censorship of opposing ideas" rhetoric got old really fast.

    Dawkins has so much patience but in the face of so much ignorance He even seems ready to 🤬 . Not only is she ignorant but condescending as well.
  • G.Avant
    G.Avant The Ville where we chillMembers, Writer Posts: 4,360 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    Richard Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist. Top in his field.

    Wendy Wright according to wiki is:
    a former president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian political action group active in the United States.

    Richard Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene right?
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes he did. Richard Dawkins is considered that dude in the field
  • G.Avant
    G.Avant The Ville where we chillMembers, Writer Posts: 4,360 ✭✭✭✭✭
    🤬 is 🤬 . He doesn't even really need to present the evidence to support evolution, he would just need to pick apart her 🤬 reasoning and logic on the most basic level since it's obvious she's going to refuse whatever is presented anyway.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 On the shoulders of Giants and Elders in history UniverseMembers Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Watched it already and yes she is a 🤬 .
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Bronx, NY birthplace of hip-hopMembers Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nice video....I'm not atheist but I'll take an atheist over a religious wackjob anyday
  • bambu
    bambu *Earth & Water* Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He likes to pick on people who are less intelligent.......

    Perhaps he should pick debates with his contemporaries.....

    It will look a lot different.....

  • Will Munny
    Will Munny Eatin pussy and kickin ass Members Posts: 30,199 ✭✭✭✭✭
    got 23 seconds in and saw it was an hour long and bailed.
  • SneakDZA
    SneakDZA damn, am I a sinner? Members Posts: 11,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bambu wrote: »
    He likes to pick on people who are less intelligent.......

    Perhaps he should pick debates with his contemporaries.....

    It will look a lot different.....


    says he should pick debates with his contemporaries... proceeds to post a video of him at a debate with his "contemporaries"

    Also, he wasn't "picking on" this woman... once she and her group decided to actively challenge the teaching of an accepted scientific fact in science classes she threw her hat into the ring. Just because she isn't able to support her claims doesn't excuse her from the responsibility - in a case like this it's actually imperative that she and people like her be challenged.
  • bambu
    bambu *Earth & Water* Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    I couldn't watch the whole thing. She's just too stupid.

    Props to Dawkins for letting her speak uninterrupted though and not resorting to ad hominem. I would have had a tough time


    She ate his lunch.......

    med_fish_face_1.jpg
  • bambu
    bambu *Earth & Water* Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2013
    bambu wrote: »
    He likes to pick on people who are less intelligent.......

    Perhaps he should pick debates with his contemporaries.....

    It will look a lot different.....


    says he should pick debates with his contemporaries... proceeds to post a video of him at a debate with his "contemporaries"

    Also, he wasn't "picking on" this woman... once she and her group decided to actively challenge the teaching of an accepted scientific fact in science classes she threw her hat into the ring. Just because she isn't able to support her claims doesn't excuse her from the responsibility - in a case like this it's actually imperative that she and people like her be challenged.

    I see....

    I posted before I watched the vid.......

    She actually owned the dude.........

    Just like his fellow scientists did.......

    Maybe he should just stop.............
  • jono
    jono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think you understood what the guy in the video said. I'm sure he wouldn't be on that stage if he didn't believe in evolution. He was talking about things not being as simple as Dawkins asserts, of course he would have to produce the science before that assertion can hold any weight.

    He said that he challenge the concept of the "tree of life" and then says there might be a "bush of life" which is not wholly intelligent because a bush isn't much different from a tree. It's just smaller and typically has more branches. Both metaphors are the same because a bush has a single set of roots, just like a tree so I don't get where he was going with that.

    However, that exchange shows that the woman is a liar, science is progressed by people who challenge conventional thinking but they have to produce the science behind it, not just their hypothesis, nobody is actively holding down anyone. These people attempt to produce scientific challenges an their science doesn't hold up. Just like the guy who claims he disproved the Big Bang.

    And that woman is a 🤬 , she continually ignored the evidence, mainly because she just didn't want to believe it.
  • P-Dogg77
    P-Dogg77 Members Posts: 4,429 ✭✭✭
    The only thing that 🤬 me off was the length of the video dudebro
  • KingTut23
    KingTut23 Members Posts: 132 ✭✭✭
    lol right. 🤬 this 🤬
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The video is an hour but watch the first five minutes. You'll be mad.
  • bambu
    bambu *Earth & Water* Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    I don't think you understood what the guy in the video said. I'm sure he wouldn't be on that stage if he didn't believe in evolution. He was talking about things not being as simple as Dawkins asserts, of course he would have to produce the science before that assertion can hold any weight.

    He said that he challenge the concept of the "tree of life" and then says there might be a "bush of life" which is not wholly intelligent because a bush isn't much different from a tree. It's just smaller and typically has more branches. Both metaphors are the same because a bush has a single set of roots, just like a tree so I don't get where he was going with that.

    However, that exchange shows that the woman is a liar, science is progressed by people who challenge conventional thinking but they have to produce the science behind it, not just their hypothesis, nobody is actively holding down anyone. These people attempt to produce scientific challenges an their science doesn't hold up. Just like the guy who claims he disproved the Big Bang.

    And that woman is a 🤬 , she continually ignored the evidence, mainly because she just didn't want to believe it.

    What evidence?????

    Australopithecus & 🤬 habilus????

    The same classifications established 🤬 europous, 🤬 africanius, and 🤬 americanius.......

    However we disregard some classifications for others????

    Who sets the standards????

  • KingTut23
    KingTut23 Members Posts: 132 ✭✭✭
    woman looks like a zombie
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was done after the first minute and a half.

    The chick's first point was "If people believe they were created by a loving 🤬 then they are more likely to be loving themselves."

    Jesus said that only two rules matter "You should love 🤬 above all and love your neighbor as you love yourself." In other words, the preeminent figure in Christianity commands that we love each other yet Christians have been some of the most hateful and unloving people on the planet for centuries.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch A Tribe Called Fresh Philly, PA, by way of Ca$hville, TNMembers Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ugh. I'm a theist (a "Christian" to be exact), and it's so embarrassing to be "defended" by 🤬 theists. I didn't watch the video because I already knew what it would look like even before reading through this thread. But many relgious people don't know how to relate to atheists and science. They're too stupid and intimidated. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, but they damn sure aren't one in the same. And science does NOT disprove religion just as religion doesn't disprove science. The world/life is far too absurd to come to such a simple conclusion as that.

    Let me even this out a bit (no thread jack, just contributing to the thread topic):

  • Shuffington
    Shuffington Members Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He was like "come on 🤬 ... just go to the museum in Nairobi .. or read fuggin book... gotdayum"
  • lighthearted26
    lighthearted26 Members Posts: 1,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Ugh. I'm a theist (a "Christian" to be exact), and it's so embarrassing to be "defended" by 🤬 theists. I didn't watch the video because I already knew what it would look like even before reading through this thread. But many relgious people don't know how to relate to atheists and science. They're too stupid and intimidated. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, but they damn sure aren't one in the same. And science does NOT disprove religion just as religion doesn't disprove science. The world/life is far too absurd to come to such a simple conclusion as that.

    Let me even this out a bit (no thread jack, just contributing to the thread topic):

    That was interesting. Usually bill has religious guests on who can't pull together a decent argument.
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Bill was on some 🤬 when he claimed that religion was basically responsible for every bad thing that has happened. Religion has been used to justify a lot of 🤬 , but blaming it all on Religion is nonsense. For instance, Christianity was invoked to fuel the westward expansion of the U.S., but I doubt anybody is stupid enough to believe that the people in power wouldn't have done the exact same thing with or without religion as a tool.