Dawkins Demolished

[John Skelton]

Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil.

You happy with that, Mr GG? It would be OK if it came from Melanie Phillips?

[Maclintick]

I've just checked the House Rules and can't see anything about Godwin's Law. Just don't call each other Nazis, okay?Not sure what you mean by 'up to a point'. You've quoted my entire message (which was a response to RT's Msg #15): I said no more and no less. It wasn't me who used terms like 'surgical' and 'logical'. I merely said : "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."

I wanted to suggest in the message you quote which starts 'It's not that' that it wasn't 'arguing against the non-existence of God ', merely taking issue with some of the arguments which Dawkins adduces. If I remember, McGrath said that his 'pamphlet' would probably be read by believers (and a few agnostics) whereas Dawkins work would be read by atheists (and a few agnostics). We agnostics can only be accused of having minds that are too open! I would expect him to be a little less dogmatic when discussing theological matters.

Fair point FF, but I chose to quote from your message because soon afterwards the thread degenerated somewhat.
I wasn't intending to mis-attribute to you remarks made earlier by others, but to repudiate the notion that the McGraths have dealt some kind of killer-blow to RD with their obfuscatory tract.

We atheists can be open to argument as well, but I'm afraid I found very little of substance in "The Dawkins Delusion".
Incidentally, your observation that Dawkins is "himself too much of a fundamentalist to be a convincing advocate for his cause" made me smile. Would we all prefer a Dawkins who, in the manner of our current Primate of All England, couched his "nuanced" arguments in typically smooth modern Anglican equivocations ?

[teamsaint]

But it is trying to defend them isn't it !!!!
A bit like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" type of argument .........

Stalin didn't believe in god
Stalin was bad
therefore believing in god will make you good

or even

I bet Harold Shipman went to sunday school

No, it really isn't defending them. Its just pointing out that problems in part caused by belief systems, are unlikely to be cured by belief systems.(which i feel aetheism is, or is used as). The answers to Africa's problems surely lie in a massive realignment of economic power, not in trading the influence of one belief system for another.

[french frank]

Incidentally, your observation that Dawkins is "himself too much of a fundamentalist to be a convincing advocate for his cause" made me smile. Would we all prefer a Dawkins who, in the manner of our current Primate of All England, couched his "nuanced" arguments in typically smooth modern Anglican equivocations ?

I suppose I find anyone who is certain of their views (whatever their views are) slightly suspect! And my arguments don't even convince me. Not completely. There's always a little gap of doubt ... and through the gap can lie that infinite space large enough to contain all possibilities.

[MrGongGong]

Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil.

You happy with that, Mr GG? It would be OK if it came from Melanie Phillips?

Why ask me ?
and what a stupid question anyway
it reminds me of the whole "Billy Graham Logic"

either

Accept Jesus as your saviour and live a life of everlasting peace and contentment
or
Suffer eternal pain and torment in hell



Which , of course, are not the only two options !!!!

[Flosshilde]

Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil.

You happy with that, Mr GG? It would be OK if it came from Melanie Phillips?

John, I'm a bit puzzled by this post. Is the first line a quote from Mr GongGong? If not, what/who is it from, & why ask Mr GG specifically if he's happy with it?

I don't think anything that comes from Melanie Philips is OK - even if it reflected my views, her means of arriving at it would undoubtedly be suspect.

[vinteuil]

John, I'm a bit puzzled by this post. Is the first line a quote from Mr GongGong? If not, what/who is it from, & why ask Mr GG specifically if he's happy with it?

.

Flosshilde -

the quote is from Dawkins. It's the opening of the text linked inJohn's #88...

[Alison]

I rather enjoyed seeing Richard Dawkins taken down a peg or two.

After all he did initially pretend he knew the answer to Giles Fraser's question.

Are the likes of Mr GG really saying RD has a monopoly on watertight arguments ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Are the likes of Mr GG really saying RD has a monopoly on watertight arguments ?

Knowing MrGG as I assume I do, my guess is not. What evidence makes you suppose he is?

[John Skelton]

and what a stupid question anyway

I don't think it's a stupid question. And I haven't any idea what the rest of your reply is about .

Dawkins runs a campaign against Islam (and, indeed, supports an anti-Catholic rhetoric better known from sectarian discourse) and people who would react with hostility if it came from an obvious 'right-wing' source seem perfectly relaxed about it. As with Christopher Hitchens, who propagandised for war against an 'Islamic' 'threat' and who gets written about on his death by 'liberal' commentators as if it was all by the way.

It seems that it's OK to be Islamophobic if you do so in the name of Atheism, rather than 'Western values' or 'Christian values' or 'Europe' or the American way or whatever.

[Beef Oven]

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.

I saw him on this morning's 'The Big Questions' and he made himself look a bit of a pillock.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think it's a stupid question. And I haven't any idea what the rest of your reply is about .

Dawkins runs a campaign against Islam (and, indeed, supports an anti-Catholic rhetoric better known from sectarian discourse) and people who would react with hostility if it came from an obvious 'right-wing' source seem perfectly relaxed about it. As with Christopher Hitchens, who propagandised for war against an 'Islamic' 'threat' and who gets written about on his death by 'liberal' commentators as if it was all by the way.

It seems that it's OK to be Islamophobic if you do so in the name of Atheism, rather than 'Western values' or 'Christian values' or 'Europe' or the American way or whatever.

Can't quite see why one should exempt Islam from criticism from an atheist pov, and have that criticism confused with Islamophobia as presented by Ms Phillips & co.

[Alison]

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

No, it was Dawkins who started this line of superficial argument by saying, as far I understood,
that a certain percentage of Christians don't know the first book of the new Testament .... therefore
God doesn't exist.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, it was Dawkins who started this line of superficial argument by saying, as far I understood,
that a certain percentage of Christians don't know the first book of the new Testament .... therefore
God doesn't exist.

Dawkins asked whether those who could not name the first Book of the New Testament could categorise themselves as Christians - it's as straightforward as that.

[amateur51]

No, it was Dawkins who started this line of superficial argument by saying, as far I understood,
that a certain percentage of Christians don't know the first book of the new Testament .... therefore
God doesn't exist.

Department of Chinese Whispers - how may I help?