Mar
13.
I spotted Richard Dawkins’ DVD for sale at richarddawkins.net yesterday. I can’t believe they let such a whopping typo make it all the way through the production process.
I fixed it.
Similar Posts:
- The other Dawkins Delusion
- Dawkins cuts McGrath, includes Haggard
- Hitchens vs McGrath. Ok, so I'm a little late.
- Are Christians Nearly Atheists?
- When will Dawkins go after the left?
Tags: Dawkins
Kapow.
That’s more like it.
The DVD is also available free to watch: http://vodpod.com/watch/198334-richard-dawkins-enemies-of-reason
I’m sure that everyone who’s beliefs are criticised in this series would feel that Dawkins was being unreasonable.
Well it’s always possible that when it comes to religion, Dawkins isn’t reasonable.
That’s not quite the same as being an enemy of reason, but it’s still possible.
Just because Professor Dawkins applies ‘his blow torch’ to your chosen god Yahweh you all get your kickers in a knot and suggest he is unreasonable.
In-fact he happens to share the same lack of belief you happen to when it comes to the numerous ancient/current gods available for anyone to worship (send self addressed envelop and enclose money).
So in your books which god(s) exactly are off limits to Dawkins and immune to his critical gaze? Zeus? Thor?
Please draw me up a list of real gods and imaginary ones!
See ya.
Paul.
No, actually, Glenn is suggesting Dawkins is unreasonable because Dawkins eschews rational arguments against Christianity in favor of red herrings, strawmen, and ad hominems, and because Dawkins’ arguments are generally regarded among philosophers as unsound.
But, of course, to know that you’d actually have to do some research. Dawkins didn’t, why should you?
Paul, why are you talking about things being “off limits” to Dawkins?
Did someone say they should be?
Dr. Peoples,
You said it right, Dawkins is an enemy of reason. Ad homs and strawmen do not a reasonable man make!
Phil
What you guys are saying is Dawkins arguments are unsound and somehow unreasonable.
Yet the belief in an invisible god called Yahweh who magically made planet earth in six days (with one day-off for good behavior) is somehow the mantra of the sound and reasonable?
You have also avoided answering which are these gods that are off-limit to scrutiny?
Allah? (after-all his devotees bite)
Yahweh? (less aggressive followers, but can bite when cornered)
Just the less-popular and unfashionable gods like Mithras or Dagon (which The Bible says is real)?
Who is being the reasoned one in all of this?
Dawkins or you lot?
Have a great day.
Paul.
No G(g)od’s are offlimit to scrutiny, but since we DO follow YHWH and not Allah, we dont have to defend him, if thats what you are suggesting.
“Yet the belief in an invisible god called Yahweh who magically made planet earth in six days (with one day-off for good behavior) is somehow the mantra of the sound and reasonable?”
This is an unreasonable and quite false representation of what, who, and why most of us believe what we do. At least, for me anyway.
Dawkins is useless, just face the facts. Goodness knows we’d relish a decent argument, but we are not getting one from him.
Also, you seem to assume that we’ve all just been “christians since birth” or something. Most of us have come from your side of the fence, and have argued with the same arguments as Dawkins against Christians ourselves… I know I did.
Your posts seem to be as full of false assumptions and strawmen as Dawkins arguments are. Try something new and different and give us all a thrill.
Kudos for figuring out that, yes, we think Dawkins is unreasonable. But where you get the idea that everyone here believes about God what you think we believe, is beyond me. And certainly, nobody here has even suggested that any god should be scrutiny-free; in fact, one might say one of the purposes of this blog is to scrutinize Christianity in a rational way. Guy has a philosophy degree, you know.
As for your last question, I’d think the answer would be obvious. Dawkins is not being rational. The one who bothers to actually read Christian philosophical works and do simple research? Much more so.
Paul, if you think Dawkins is reasonable and theism of every type is unreasonable, then OK you’ve said so. If you want to explain why others should share this view, then go ahead. Of course, you don’t have to.
Gotta run
Ha. I must admit, while I’m an atheist, this made me smile
mainly because of the look on professor Dawkins’ face.
“I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”
Love it! A LOL moment…