Thoughts on The Dawkins and Wright Debate And Religion In General: This talk Evolution

Reads: 177  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Other  |  House: Booksie Classic
This is just a religious talk going off of the debate between Richard dawkins and Wendy Wright.

Submitted: October 24, 2015

A A A | A A A

Submitted: October 24, 2015

A A A

A A A


 

Isaiah Ellis

Thoughts on The Dawkins and Wright Debate And Religion In General: This talk

Evolution

A lot of what was said was concrete and not abstract like I expected the debate to be. I found it a type of physiological hostility attack towards Wright when Dawkins kept saying that he felt she had a hidden agenda hidden within the conversation. He was saying that she had a hidden agenda to be hostile towards him, but instead him acknowledging that instead makes him hostile towards her in a different sense. He was trying to make her confused and think about her own physiological needs, thus being able to push through the debate easier.

But instead, and I give debate points to Wright. She didn't even acknowledge what he said. Well she did, but not in the way Dawkins wanted her to do. She just explained to him that she didn't have a hidden agenda, even thought Dawkins kept repeating that towards her.

I also feel that Dawkins had to find something to repeat towards her because she kept repeatedly asking him to show her the evidence. It isn't like he could ask her the same question because she already stated that they do not have physical evidence that Dawkins had. He also couldn't state that he didn't have evidence because he had an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence, and that was the key flaw in her side of the debate.

I agree with Dawkins when he said to her that majority of the creationist and all the members of her group all thought the same and didn't learn for themselves. Throughout the debate I was trying to realize what the point of her side was. She kept asking her him to show macro-evolution between two completely different types of species. He responded with an obvious look in any textbook for a fifth grader and you can see the biology in two completely different species. It is true, indeed we have distinct genes and traits between us and an ape. We even have genes between us and a banana. Not saying that we came from a banana, it is just that there is macro-evolution between majority species that are completely different.

I also feel that I have to agree with Dawkins when he says that religion masks the facts. I will later talk about the creationist side of facts. It is true that we have overwhelming facts for many questions asked to evolutionist by creationist. Religion masks truth because if it were to allow majority of the followers of the many religions, they wouldn't follow the religion because they would know that it was false. Not saying that evolutionist have the facts to prove religion wrong. But that instead we have been set back in time because of religion. Without religion we would probably be 100,000 years in advanced. Maybe not 100,000 years in advance but many, many, many years in advanced. You can deny it all that you want but the reason that people thought that the earth was the revolve point was because of religion. The only reason we found out that the earth wasn't the revolve point, but instead the sun was because of someone who didn't want to deny the facts and didn't want to blindly follow religion.

On a different note, I do understand that children are for the most part forced to follow religion because of there parents. There are forced against there will to follow a religion of there parents choosing.

But back on the point, religion masks a lot of what we now know is truth. A big "point" that creationist are going to ask is that "without religion, we wouldn't have found America, and a lot of other amazing inventions and regions in the world." First off that is bull and you know it. As for Christopher Columbus, he would have gone and founded the Americas religion or not. If you actually took the time to do the research into what actually happened in his lifetime, pardon my anger. You would understand that it was for the money and for the fame. And it wasn't fully his fault, it was the system he was in as a whole. Most Europeans would do what he did because of the corrupt system that he was in. And if you are even going to bring up religion when it comes to Columbus, most of the religion was brought up when he went and murdered all of the Native Americans that were on the land. So bringing up religion would actually do you worse. Also saying that God gave him the motivation to persue going to America wouldn't do you any justice because the money and fame would have gave him the motivation the same.

Religion is just a way for people to hide behind things that they are afraid of, example as death. People hide behind death and they want to reunite with the ones they held so dearly and personally. Though some religious persons do have religion for complex situations like if there parents were brutally murdered. You cannot hide behind something, no matter the difficulties. To Kim Davis, just screw you bigot.

That is it for now, sorry if I cut it out at a bad time. Comment if you want more, and have a fine day and week/end.


© Copyright 2017 isaiahellis1234. All rights reserved.