Dawkins Demolished

[Guest]

Not really demolished. But clearly outmatched.

Most people who have studied the subject in any depth know that there have been far more worthwhile atheists to read than Dawkins. Some of his arguments are easily defeated. I've said myself several times on here that he is in my view little more than a self-publicist - but a very good one, to give him his due.

So it was interesting to hear him in such a state!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/richard-dawkins-giles-fraser-radio4-athiesm_n_1275468.html?ref=uk

Hoist by his own petard, indeed.

[Flosshilde]

I listened to 'Today' this morning & thought he made his points clearly and successfully - I rather think that it was his 'oponent' who was demolished. Perhaps Simon should listen to the whole discussion & not rely on the snippet in Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington's blog.

[Bryn]

I listened to 'Today' this morning & thought he made his points clearly and successfully - I rather think that it was his 'oponent'[sic] who was demolished.

I also listened this morning, and had a good laugh at the way the egregious Dawkins laid the trap them walked straight into it. He is indeed something of an embarrassment to fellow atheists, in my view. There again, way back when he came up with that expression of anthropomorphism at the level of the molecule "the selfish gene", I had my doubts about him as a proselyte for evolutionary genetics.

[amateur51]

Interesting that Simon doesn't seem to have listened to the broadcast, so here it is ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm

I thought that Justin Webb did a very good job as moderator.

Giles Fraser, who got rather embarassingly over-excited agreed that he & Dawkins were probably pretty close on the issue of the disestablishment of the Church of England

What is interesting that one of the atheists who is sticking it to Dawkins on the Huffington is Mark Wallace, campaign director for The Tax Payers' Alliance from 2007 to 2010

But Simon's title of this thread is a complete exaggeration and rather dishonest and sensational. No change there then

[Serial_Apologist]

The fact that Giles Fraser was making an equivalence of Dawkins's inability to recall the subtitle of The Origin of Species and that of children to name the first Book of the New Testament is as surely a testament of some Christians' resort to smear tactics in their war against secularism as Simon well knows.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

all seems a bit ad hominem innit

[Simon]

The fact that Giles Fraser was making an equivalence of Dawkins's inability to recall the subtitle of The Origin of Species and that of children to name the first Book of the New Testament is as surely a testament of some Christians' resort to smear tactics in their war against secularism as Simon well knows.

Oh dear. But then again, I suppose I wouldn't expect you to have understood the point. S-A. Read Bryn's post above, and then you might understand why so many, including atheists, are having a little chuckle.

[french frank]

I bought a book called The Dawkins Delusion last week. Very slim. By a scientist theologian. It seemed to make sense to me but when I mentioned it to a Dawkins supporter a couple of days ago he couldn't stop laughing. Not sure where I stand now. Don't like Dawkins though. Because.

[Serial_Apologist]

all seems a bit ad hominem innit

Secularism's fine as long as applied in Islamic countries, innit

[amateur51]

I bought a book called The Dawkins Delusion last week. Very slim. By a scientist theologian. It seemed to make sense to me but when I mentioned it to a Dawkins supporter a couple of days ago he couldn't stop laughing. Not sure where I stand now. Don't like Dawkins though. Because.

Because is a fair enough reason!

[Serial_Apologist]

I suppose I wouldn't expect you to have understood the point. S-A.

The point.............. which point?

[Simon]

I bought a book called The Dawkins Delusion last week. ... It seemed to make sense to me but when I mentioned it to a Dawkins supporter a couple of days ago he couldn't stop laughing.

That's not surprising. It's a supremely logical book and completely takes many of RD's arguments apart, beautifully and surgically.

I suppose that laughing is the only thing anybody still, er, challenged enough to support Dawkins can do, when confronted with a work like that. Either laugh, or cry!

[MrGongGong]

I'm really puzzled to understand Simons objections to Dawkins
Ok , he is very dogmatic
but it's not that Simon's views are an expression of Christianity in any way at all ?
almost everything he has pontificated about is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ so what on earth is the problem ????

I've just listened to this and
it comes across to me as Giles Fraser was really grasping at tiny straws

Richard Dawkins gets the title of a book wrong , therefore god exists

[Richard Tarleton]

I liked this response on the Huffington Post:

Richard Dawkins couldn't name the full title of The Origin of Species, therefore God exists

I missed the item on Today - can someone give me a day and approx. time for iPlayer?

I haven't read The Dawkins Delusion, but if as I imagine it's arguing against the non-existence of God I'd politely suggest that it's impossible for such a work to be "surgical" or "logical". Belief systems are just that.

[MrGongGong]

Here (its in am's post above)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm