Article claims Dawkins defeated in debate?

[Brian37]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[Plu]

Is there a link to the actual debate?

EDIT: found the debate:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(1:36:00, long one)

[Plu]

Never mind. The whole article is a giant crock of shit.

Check the article:

The following video, Ben Stein vs Richard Dawkins - reveals that, in reality, Dawkins appears to be nothing more than a creationist, or intelligent-design proponent in denial.

When asked to explain the origin of life, Dawkins answers as follows:

"It could be that...uhhh....at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by, probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded perhaps onto this planet . Uhmm....that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it's possible you might find evidence for that if you look at the detail...the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Now check the question that Dawkins was actually answering:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design turns out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or darwinian evolution?

Start of answer, convieniently snipped

It could come about in the following way... enter above answer

This is dishonesty to a level of "fuck you and fuck your article, dishonest piece of shit".
Of course, likewise the actual interviewer, who also silently skips over the whole "this whole next bit is hypothetical, not something I actually believe, just a possible explanation" to equate Dawkins with a believer in intelligent design.

[Brian37]

Thats why I posted this, because the theist always knocks over the chess pieces upon checkmate and runs away claiming victory.

[FrankDK]

If it's the Examiner I'm familiar with, it's a publication of the Washington Times, and owned by the Moonies.

No surprise it's unrelated to reality.

Frank

[Nonsensei]

LOL @ the idea that Ben Stein could defeat Richard Dawkins in a debate about anything.

[Plu]

The debate was pretty interesting, but I must admit that Dawkins' arguments weren't the best. And the last speaker really voiced most of the concerns best. (And I agree that there is a place for religion in the 21st century, but it will be very different from the one they want to have.)

[Brian37]

If it's the Examiner I'm familiar with, it's a publication of the Washington Times, and owned by the Moonies.

No surprise it's unrelated to reality.

Frank

I wouldn't say all if it is bad, they do have atheist contributors as well.

[Brian37]

LOL @ the idea that Ben Stein could defeat Richard Dawkins in a debate about anything.

[ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ]

Well, if Ben was arguing how stupid his arguments are, he'd win.

[GurrenLagann]

I saw the name 'Ben Stein' and felt derped. Not that Dawkins can't be beaten, he very clearly can, but Stein? Isn't he the guy that did that idiotic "eXposed" movie about ID like a decade back?

[Plu]

Mind, the debate did not feature Ben Stein. That's just the dishonest piece of rubbish they call 'an article'.

The debate is between some people who at least have a basic idea of what they're talking about.

[Poison Tree]

It would actually be interesting to see an article about the debate where Dawkins' side of the argument was out voted--however, this was no such article. It doesn't even mention the debate after the first 4 paragraphs and 2 sentences. Oh, I guess there is one more sentence about it tacked on at the end. Instead we get the off topic usual crap and quote mining *sigh*.

I kind of like the debate style where a motion is put foreword, the two sides argue and then the audience votes (I especially find the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login interesting) but I suspect they do more to tell us the pre-held views of the crowd, not how well the debate went. It would be even more interesting if the audience voted before and after the debate so we could see the change--though I guess people could lie in the first vote in order to manufacture fake change so that one side appears to have won people over.

[Plu]

It would be even more interesting if the audience voted before and after the debate so we could see the change--though I guess people could lie in the first vote in order to manufacture fake change so that one side appears to have won people over.

I saw one of these with Dawkins and Hitchens, about the church being a force for good. They did a before and after. The church was demolished :)
It is very interesting to see.

[NitzWalsh]

You can lose a debate/vote/etc. and still be right.

[FrankDK]

> I wouldn't say all if it is bad, they do have atheist contributors as well.

It may be unrelated.  The Examiner I'm familiar with is a print version, distributed free at DC Metro stations.  I never read it exhaustively, but the headlines were always far right and unreal.

Frank