God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
A senile old man, and one professor isn't exactly convincing evidence that atheists think Dawkins is full of it.Even atheists consider Dawkins' book to be full of it (read that whole thing; it's awesome). I'm sure the members of this board are familiar with Antony Flew. . . .he doesn't like Dawkins very much, either. Of course, Dawkins simply accuses Flew of senility and continues with his pompous hot-air-blowing.
When somebody writes a book refuting him, Hitchens, Harris or Dennet, Dawkins merely labels them as "fleas" and pushes their works aside, not giving them any credit and encouraging his cult following to do the same (this is inhibiting free thought, Dicky).
Dawkins isn't worth the time or money spent on him. His colleagues, Hitchens and Harris, are even worse.
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]A senile old man, and one professor isn't exactly convincing evidence that atheists think Dawkins is full of it.Even atheists consider Dawkins' book to be full of it (read that whole thing; it's awesome). I'm sure the members of this board are familiar with Antony Flew. . . .he doesn't like Dawkins very much, either. Of course, Dawkins simply accuses Flew of senility and continues with his pompous hot-air-blowing.
When somebody writes a book refuting him, Hitchens, Harris or Dennet, Dawkins merely labels them as "fleas" and pushes their works aside, not giving them any credit and encouraging his cult following to do the same (this is inhibiting free thought, Dicky).
Dawkins isn't worth the time or money spent on him. His colleagues, Hitchens and Harris, are even worse.
MetalGear_Ninty
Flew is not senile; he himself has denied such petty attacks, most of which came from Dawkins himself (we've been through this).
Regarding the accusation that he's too crazy to write his books: "I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because Im 84 and that was Roy Vargheses role. The idea that someone manipulated me because Im old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."
I find it funny that nobody uttered the word "Senile" while he was an atheist. . . then he became a deist and oh, he must be nuts.
It's true that one professor isn't a representative; however, he does reflect the intellectual position that Dawkins is, to put it short, full of it.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]A senile old man, and one professor isn't exactly convincing evidence that atheists think Dawkins is full of it.Even atheists consider Dawkins' book to be full of it (read that whole thing; it's awesome). I'm sure the members of this board are familiar with Antony Flew. . . .he doesn't like Dawkins very much, either. Of course, Dawkins simply accuses Flew of senility and continues with his pompous hot-air-blowing.
When somebody writes a book refuting him, Hitchens, Harris or Dennet, Dawkins merely labels them as "fleas" and pushes their works aside, not giving them any credit and encouraging his cult following to do the same (this is inhibiting free thought, Dicky).
Dawkins isn't worth the time or money spent on him. His colleagues, Hitchens and Harris, are even worse.
Theokhoth
Flew is not senile; he himself has denied such petty attacks, most of which came from Dawkins himself (we've been through this).
Regarding the accusation that he's too crazy to write his books: "I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because Im 84 and that was Roy Vargheses role. The idea that someone manipulated me because Im old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking."
I find it funny that nobody uttered the word "Senile" while he was an atheist. . . then he became a deist and oh, he must be nuts.
It's true that one professor isn't a representative; however, he does reflect the intellectual position that Dawkins is, to put it short, full of it.
We can't prove it either way. I just find it funny that a man who was around arguments for the existence of God his whole life, chooses his latter years to convert from atheism.I disagree with you, Dawkins is respected intellectually not only as an evolutionary biologist, most of the time, he raises sound points.
We can't prove it either way. I just find it funny that a man who was around arguments for the existence of God his whole life, chooses his latter years to convert from atheism.
I disagree with you, Dawkins is respected intellectually not only as an evolutionary biologist, most of the time, he raises sound points.
MetalGear_Ninty
I can prove it: Flew has not been determined by any professional to be senile, he shows little or no signs of senility, and he flat-out denies senility. He is not senile. Old age =/= senility, plain and simple.
Dawkins is not respected in any theological sense; he is an amateur who thinks himself to be a genius. The only ones who respect him in that aspect are those who are at his level.
His points raised are not raised by him; there is not a single argument in any of his books that either hasn't been debated for thousands of years or flat-out debunked centuries ago.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]We can't prove it either way. I just find it funny that a man who was around arguments for the existence of God his whole life, chooses his latter years to convert from atheism.
I disagree with you, Dawkins is respected intellectually not only as an evolutionary biologist, most of the time, he raises sound points.
Theokhoth
I can prove it: Flew has not been determined by any professional to be senile, he shows little or no signs of senility, and he flat-out denies senility. He is not senile. Old age =/= senility, plain and simple.
Dawkins is not respected in any theological sense; he is an amateur who thinks himself to be a genius. The only ones who respect him in that aspect are those who are at his level.
His points raised are not raised by him; there is not a single argument in any of his books that either hasn't been debated for thousands of years or flat-out debunked centuries ago.
There is no smoke without fire, the fact is a lot of people have came out claiming that Flew is senile and that he is being manipulated.Of course Dawkins is not going to be respected by theologians because most of theology is based on the assumption of the existence of God, therefore it wouldn't make sense for theologians such as yourself to respect Dawkins. Hell hes trying to nullify just about everything you believe in.
Dawkins raises plenty of his own ideas, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit being one of them.
There is no smoke without fire, the fact is a lot of people have came out claiming that Flew is senile and that he is being manipulated.
:| A lot of people claim God exists; are their claims justified, in your opinion? Flew HIMSELF has stated, explicitly, "No, I am not being manipulated."
Of course Dawkins is not going to be respected by theologians because most of theology is based on the assumption of the existence of God, therefore it wouldn't make sense for theologians such as yourself to respect Dawkins.
Theologian =/= theist.
Hell hes trying to nullify just about everything you believe in.
He's doing a piss-poor job of it.
Dawkins raises plenty of his own ideas, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit being one of them.
Ultimate Boeing 747 is merely an analogy of the "Who created God?" argument.
MetalGear_Ninty
There is no smoke without fire, the fact is a lot of people have came out claiming that Flew is senile and that he is being manipulated.
:| A lot of people claim God exists; are their claims justified, in your opinion? Flew HIMSELF has stated, explicitly, "No, I am not being manipulated."Like I said, we can't prove it anyway, the fact that Flew himself orhis puppet said he isn't senile proves absolutely nothing.
Of course Dawkins is not going to be respected by theologians because most of theology is based on the assumption of the existence of God, therefore it wouldn't make sense for theologians such as yourself to respect Dawkins.
Theologian =/= theist.Most theologians are theists, a large majority in fact. You can't honestly expect mutual agreement from theologians about their appreciation of Dawkins.
Hell hes trying to nullify just about everything you believe in.
He's doing a piss-poor job of it.Why so defensive?
Dawkins raises plenty of his own ideas, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit being one of them.
Ultimate Boeing 747 is merely an analogy of the "Who created God?" argument.No, but Dawkins has the science to back a true alternative to the teleological argument. That is his USP so to speak, amongst other criticisms he has thought up himself.
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]There is no smoke without fire, the fact is a lot of people have came out claiming that Flew is senile and that he is being manipulated.
:| A lot of people claim God exists; are their claims justified, in your opinion? Flew HIMSELF has stated, explicitly, "No, I am not being manipulated."Like I said, we can't prove it anyway, the fact that Flew himself orhis puppet said he isn't senile proves absolutely nothing.
Fact: Flew denies senility.
Fact: Flew's family denies Flew's senility.
Fact: No doctor or professional has come out stating that Flew is senile.
Fact: the rumor of Flew's senility originated with Dawkins and his cohorts accusing him of going senile.
Fact: these rumors did not begin until he converted to deism.
It doesn't prove he's not senile, but it does give good reason to believe he isn't.
Of course Dawkins is not going to be respected by theologians because most of theology is based on the assumption of the existence of God, therefore it wouldn't make sense for theologians such as yourself to respect Dawkins.
Theologian =/= theist.Most theologians are theists, a large majority in fact.
Stats?
You can't honestly expect mutual agreement from theologians about their appreciation of Dawkins.
Of course not, just like I can't expect mutual agreement from evolutionists on Dawkins' meme theory, but I can expect most to disagree with him because his claims are eithe rnot supported or simply laughable.
Hell hes trying to nullify just about everything you believe in.
He's doing a piss-poor job of it.Why so defensive?
Why not? It's like you said: He's trying to dismantle my entire belief system.
Dawkins raises plenty of his own ideas, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit being one of them.
Ultimate Boeing 747 is merely an analogy of the "Who created God?" argument.No, but Dawkins has the science to back a true alternative to the teleological argument.
Oxymoron. A teleological argument is a metaphysical one; science doesn't touch metaphysics.
That is his USP so to speak, amongst other criticisms he has thought up himself.
Name one of his criticisms that is original to him.
MetalGear_Ninty
Yeah, like a doctor would broadcast his patients condition to the whole world, that's if he has even seen a doctor for his mental health. The truth is, is that it is very conspicuous that 'Flew' is saying all of these things only while he is in his decrepit state. Even if he has genuinely converted to deism, why would he sign a petition for intelligent design to be taught in schools?
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/08/former-famous-atheist-antony-flew-asked.html
You'd think there are much, much stronger argument for God than the design argument. Asking for intelligent design to be taught in school is evidence to suggest that a man as intelligent as Flew isn't put his own words on the paper
Of course theology was built around theism, of course THEists are more likely to be THEOlogians then deists or atheists. Theism is rampant alway through the history of theology. Sorry but I can't find the international database for statistics about theologians.
Theologians are obviously biased on the subject. In the book, Dawkins pretty much says theology is useless in his opinion apart from arguments about the existence of God.
"Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: whatever is most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called "false." - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist
Not necessarily, the appearance of design can be a scientific issue also. Afterall, Paley in natural theology incorporated Newton's ideas about physics in his teleological argument.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment