[جوري]

Haven't really had the time to read this, seems good..

http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2007/05/refuting-dawkins-part-1.html

just putting it out there for general knowledge' sake..

 

[barney]

Just finished Mc Graths book last month.The Dawkins Delusion. Its on my desk right now.
His arguments are basically
1) Dawkins is rude
2)Dawkins uses biology to explain everything, thats not a good way to do it.
3)Dawkins cherrypicks the nasty verses and ignores the odd nice verse you might find.
4)Dawkins hasnt explained a physics answer to pre-planktime

Thats basically it. Mc Grath at least dosnt embarrass himself by trying to prove god. He simply picks shallow and funny holes whilst scrabbeling to make an arguement. He takes Dawkins's points and basically says no, no he's wrong, look at all the good done in the world by theism.

I agree with him on one thing in the book. Point 2)
He has written a short yet long winded book of no depth , no substance or rationality. He could have summoned his points up in 3 lines, but i Imagine that that wouldnt have sold so well.

 

[جوري]

I don't know about all the additives and preservatives or who Grath even is
but can tell you this much, I have my masters in molcular biology amongst other science degrees , and Dawkin or others can't use 'Biology to explain the nonexistence of God' or his existence for that matter.. it will always be a default conclusion when the answer can't be reached by science!
science is science, philosophy is philosophy and beliefs are beliefs no matter who sports them!

all the best!

 

[barney]

I don't know about all the additives and preservatives or who Grath even is
but can tell you this much, I have my masters in molcular biology amongst other science degrees , and Dawkin or others can't use 'Biology to explain the nonexistence of God' or his existence for that matter.. it will always be a default conclusion when the answer can't be reached by science!
science is science, philosophy is philosophy and beliefs are beliefs no matter who sports them!

all the best!

Alister McGrath is the foremost and most successful anti-dawkins author. He wrote the dawkins delusion, a massive bestseller.
Thought your readers might like a reveiw of his work.

 

[جوري]

I should probably be ashamed to admit this (not really) though-- but
I haven't read Dawkins book to read his nemesis book..
I have seen some excerpts however from his book the ones that are concerned with science and found them surprisingly negligible for what he was trying to accomplish if this is the mode to his means he has failed to make a case with it!..

when speaking of belief, any belief ( a belief that the drug your manufacturing can save people from cancer) as an example, you'll have invested your entire being into it, and it will be a complexity of many things, that you'll go to extreme efforts to defend it. for it is after all the very marrow of ones being at that point.. one becomes emotive and less scientific.. that isn't to say that the drug can't save people from cancer, but if you understand the actual science of how all cancer works, you'll know that no treatment can be a one size fits all, and in the very end, people will still end up dead.
It is very crucial to understand limitations and be forth coming come what may.. to me honestly that is the actual meaning of a 'humanist'

Hence my peeve with Dawkin isn't so much that he is an atheist, or that he is proud of it or that he advertises it, or even that he vehemently and without logic attacks theists.. It is that he abuses his status as a scientist to push out his own personal agenda. It is an appeal to authority nothing more, and is met with ridicule to anyone who remotely challenges him, other scientists even (Dr. Mullan) for instance , rather stating the science very matter of fact and letting folks decide for themselves..
in the process in fact he becomes what he loathes most-- a religious zealot albeit it from the other end of the spectrum...

 

[barney]

Meh. Read the book, then critisise it. Till you have- you cant.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


I checked out mcgrath's book, its alright - he's got good manners too. He defends the concept of God by showing its not blind faith but on valid logical reasoning, but a hard line atheist wouldn't become totally convinced by his arguments (since that wasn't his intent anyway - his intent was to defend the belief in God), nor would a person like to read dawkins works because of his bad manners and harshness and lack of open mindedness (which surprisingly many of his followers [not all] imitate.)


One thing which i found quite interesting in the book was how governing by atheism has a great deal of evil effects (which he proved by explaining Russia as an example during its soviet rule - i.e. when they banned all religions, and how faith flourished after this suppression etc), something which many atheists are unaware of.


He made alot of good points, but it was mainly a book on the defensive - so i think he achieved what he targeted, alhamdulillah.



Oh, and like the blog suggests - the god delusion book was so not what i expected from someone whose supposedly got such a good reputation for atheism. And that's the first book i attempted to read of dawkins too. He's so ignorant of religions, and he argues without knowledge on something which he has no knowledge of.

i got curious why he was so hyped up - but dawkins was a great let down, and i have to say mcgrath has way more good manners.

 

[جوري]

sure I can it is easy... I know science.. there is no secret formula that he would know that the rest of the scientific community would have failed to account for...

ex: a gastric bypass will always be used to treat obesity by reducing the size of the stomach
whether you go about it with a Roux En Y, a gastric silastic ring, or a biliopancreatic diversion or whatever else might arise in the future.. the concept is always the same, even if the science around it evolves...

Do you understand? If you truly comprehend molecular biology, you can determine easily why Dawkin with all his conjectures in science can't make a case for God or a No God... it is Simply a waste of everyone's time and money to perpetuate his antics by purchasing his bible...

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Meh... the Quran and the lives of the Prophet Muhammad, Isa, Moses and the rest ( peace be upon all of them) are plenty evidence against Dawkins. :coolious:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's important to note that Dawkins and (I would hope) the majority of atheists do not disbelieve in god simply to be rude, or to attack theists.

We don't believe there is a god: because after having considered the evidence, that's the way things seem to us.

Simple as that.

Peace

 

[جوري]

But it isn't as simple as that when he attacks theists and pushes out his so-called 'humanist' agenda on buses, books , websites, etc..
At this stage, it is no longer a predilection after careful consideration.. It becomes an institution expressing strong beliefs and bordering upon intolerance, if not the exact things he is fighting against he becomes!

I know you don't agree, but atheism is a belief!.. a belief that there is no God..
Logic dictates and if I may use the most simple of examles to describe a most complex one:
if I wake up in the morning, find a couple of eggs (even with burnt edges and sunny side up, not quite to my liking) waiting for me on a plate, I'd automatically conclude that someone must have fried them and put them there, they didn't simply appear 'ex nihilo' from simple then complex molcules, that some how gathered on the frying pain, cracked themselves, added some salt and butter then assembled on my plate.. the logical thing for any thinking adult I believe would be that someone fried them and put them there.

Now I can ponder the meaning of those fried eggs, or I can just eat them, shrug my shoulders and go on with my day and in the terms of our good buddy D, 'there is no chef. so enjoy your eggs' give or take a couple of words. I can cook up a couple of scenarios of the chef at the end of the day, but there really would be no point to that, anymore than discussing very technical laws on Islamic jurisprudence with someone who doesn't believe in God all together...
the problem that remains at the end of the day, whether in real life, or for my quasi perfect meal would remain, how it happened and why?.. and so long as an atheist or a theist offers conjectures that neither conform with the principles or methods used in science can they both equally come down to a personal belief....


all the best..
btw thanks for the rep.. been meaning to give you one, but my repping power appears lifted at the time...

 

[Muezzin]

Greetings,

It's important to note that Dawkins and (I would hope) the majority of atheists do not disbelieve in god simply to be rude, or to attack theists.

We don't believe there is a god: because after having considered the evidence, that's the way things seem to us.

Simple as that.

Peace

Dawkins could've fooled me Seriously, when it comes to religion, the man only seems to know how to destroy belief and then replace it with... nothing. And not in the philosophical 'believe in whatever you want' way, but the 'um, I'm not too good at this positivity lark. Down with religion!'

But yeah, the majority of athiests (or people of any persuasion) are fine. The only place this even becomes an issue is in print or online. In real life, people (colleagues, friends, coworkers etc) tend to just get along and don't really talk about religion or lack thereof.

 

[barney]

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.

 

[SixTen]

Alistar McGraph is a funny character. I mean, he is supposed to be a devoted Christian, but if you see his debates, its as though he is on the fence - how he readily accepts flaws in religion ( why believe in flawed religion, as being from God?), he wasn't able to respond to some questions except by making a joke (when confronted with, discussion about hell), and basically, he seems to have a "modernised" christian belief, which I am sure, many christians would argue has missed out many fundamentals.

Richard Dawkins comment on the book was funny though, that is, Alistar is making money by riding on his back (lol).

As already mentioned, the way he attacked Dawkins was pretty much flawed - as have many critics stated. Dawkin tries to be a philosophist - but not a good one (he should stick to biology?) - I mean, the God delusion, is criticised ignoring theology - its just based on his own philosophy <-- think that would be a better critic personally.

 

[جوري]

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious. They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship, scripture symbology, gathering and observance, doctine and song, to make their religion with them as the deitey.

It is innate to want to worship and have religio type prescripts and structure.. thing about atheists is try as they may to stray from the curve, they are never more than one or two standard deviation ( it is the theme of our human condition).. in lieu of convention which they frown upon, they create their own incredibly imperfect flawed philosophy, actually very much in concert with my earlier statement being Atheism very much a belief system, and your buddy D, isn't only a victim of it but seems to be club president though he is seemingly unaware of it? (perhaps he enjoys playing dumb for reasons unknown?).. comparable to a diseased person in the hospital who thinks everyone else is diseased and contagious and wants exclusive rights and isolation, but fails to recognize that he too is a patient, and in all likely cases hazardous to someone else!

Atheists merely work by substitution-- They take what they deem above natural laws a few notches down to the lowest common denominator.. and the lowest common denominator so far has brought upon humanity its worst most disgraceful periods... I have no reason to suspect your buddy D is above it, for so long as it is human made, it is subject to human error!

 

[Muezzin]

The real flaw in this type of argument is that it uses science as its base and ignores theology in order to criticise theology.

Now wait just a dang minute. They're two completely different things.

Mc Grath brings up Russia and Hitler indeed. But Dawkins covered them too. Hitler and Stalin, (and Mao and Pot and Sung) all created new religions (National socialism, Juche etc)as the perfect control mechanisms from history are religious.

No, they're simply basic human control mechanisms. Religion didn't invent them, it just exhibits them.

They all borrowed the fundements of religion, deity worship,

Define 'deity worship' in the context of the above list of despots. Unless you'd include the (corrupted) concept of the ubermensch as a deity.

scripture symbology

One man's Commandment is another man's Constitution, or Magna Carta.

'That's against God's law!'

'That's against the law!'

People need constants and rules, whether they're divine or man-made.

gathering and observance

Like those team-building exercises they're so fond of in business? Or supporting a football team, watching their matches live with the rest of the fans? Humans are social animals. Gathering is natural.

doctine and song

As one entity you mean? Like, say, any national anthem you'd care to think of?

to make their religion with them as the deitey.

Hitler and Stalin claimed to be gods?

All this puts me in the mind of this essay I read which cast the modern sort of 'movie culture' as a quasi-religion, with 'scripture' (posters, scripts) and 'clergy' (directors, writers, producers) and 'icons' (actors, actresses) and rituals (cinema-going as Mass) and things. Very amusing and very fascinating. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But it isn't as simple as that when he attacks theists and pushes out his so-called 'humanist' agenda on buses, books , websites, etc..

Dawkins doesn't attack theists per se, he attacks theism. There's a big difference.

As I said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with all the advertising, but at the same time I do think it's good for people to know that there are a considerable number of atheists out there.

At this stage, it is no longer a predilection after careful consideration.. It becomes an institution expressing strong beliefs and bordering upon intolerance, if not the exact things he is fighting against he becomes!

But there are certain things we shouldn't tolerate. If evil is done in the name of religion, then we should speak out against it.

I know you don't agree, but atheism is a belief!.. a belief that there is no God..

That's completely correct.

Logic dictates and if I may use the most simple of examles to describe a most complex one:
if I wake up in the morning, find a couple of eggs (even with burnt edges and sunny side up, not quite to my liking) waiting for me on a plate, I'd automatically conclude that someone must have fried them and put them there, they didn't simply appear 'ex nihilo' from simple then complex molcules, that some how gathered on the frying pain, cracked themselves, added some salt and butter then assembled on my plate.. the logical thing for any thinking adult I believe would be that someone fried them and put them there.

Now I can ponder the meaning of those fried eggs, or I can just eat them, shrug my shoulders and go on with my day and in the terms of our good buddy D, 'there is no chef. so enjoy your eggs' give or take a couple of words. I can cook up a couple of scenarios of the chef at the end of the day, but there really would be no point to that, anymore than discussing very technical laws on Islamic jurisprudence with someone who doesn't believe in God all together...

You've given us another rendition of the argument from design, to which the obvious rejoinder is: "Who designed the designer?" I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that from anybody.

You're trying to argue with Dawkins without having read his book. Surely you can see the flaw in that approach?

the problem that remains at the end of the day, whether in real life, or for my quasi perfect meal would remain, how it happened and why?.. and so long as an atheist or a theist offers conjectures that neither conform with the principles or methods used in science can they both equally come down to a personal belief....

Correct. The answer to your question is "Nobody knows." Atheists do not claim to know the answer, and neither should anybody else.

all the best..
btw thanks for the rep.. been meaning to give you one, but my repping power appears lifted at the time...

All the best to you too.

Peace

 

[Trumble]

It is innate to want to worship and have religio type prescripts and structure..

Is it? I would have thought quite the contrary, both are conditioned responses, not unconditioned ones.

 

[جوري]

You'll have to forgive my brevity, any truly deep philosophical debate will have to be postponed on until the end of Oct. but for now, not to be rude, I'll reply

Greetings,


Dawkins doesn't attack theists per se, he attacks theism. There's a big difference.

a difference but a problem indeed, considering that 'theism' is put into practice and not left on paper, if he'd his way, all religion would be in the Smithsonian next to his sense of humor?

As I said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with all the advertising, but at the same time I do think it's good for people to know that there are a considerable number of atheists out there.

I am not comfortable with advertising either as the saying goes, if you are advertising you must be selling... be that as it may, atheists makeup 10% of the population, and I am not quite sure what their size denotes if any? do they want special privileges for being atheists?

But there are certain things we shouldn't tolerate. If evil is done in the name of religion, then we should speak out against it.

same indeed when evil is done in the name of atheism by atheists, yeah yeah, I know what you'll have to say but fact is evil was done by atheists, and the way I see it, at least religion has a moral conduct.. atheists are left to their own moral devices whatever they maybe... I assure you that is not to say I think atheists are immoral, given that I personally think that goodness is innate (divine) in origin, I can't take it away from a group, unless they desire to denounce it on their own!

That's completely correct.

:-\

You've given us another rendition of the argument from design, to which the obvious rejoinder is: "Who designed the designer?" I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that from anybody.

The whole universe is built around seven themes, argument from design is a very strong option because this is the situation we find ourselves in. You can't encompass some very basic concepts and abstracts very much relevant to our existence, yet wish to take this to that which is beyond comprehension? -- that is arrogance, and getting in way over ones head...Just because something isn't palpable to you does it mean it isn't there... all these phenomenon of our existence truly enumerable and utterly fascinating read (on Growth and form by D'arcy thompson) followed from a causation whether you are an atheist or a theist you must at least concede that fact!
I say MR. CzGibson, how about finding a cure for Fanconi-Bickel syndrome GSD type XI with some vectors so you can save two or three kids before probing the nature of the creator?

You're trying to argue with Dawkins without having read his book. Surely you can see the flaw in that approach?

I said I have read excerpts that weren't impressive followed by I have my B.S, M.S and doctorate in science, in other words nothing he can come up with beyond what I did read of his work, will be of shock to me save for his gross disuse of science to misguide people!

Correct. The answer to your question is "Nobody knows." Atheists do not claim to know the answer, and neither should anybody else.

Dawkin claims he has the answer and is advertising it to your already troubled youth!
I'll just leave it at that!

All the best to you too.

Peace

thank you

 

[barney]

Dawkins answering evrything with biology is as madcap as say answering evry post with a obscure medical term which has little to do with the subject. I could tab every post with a historical anecdote rather unrelated to the matter in hand.
Lets say, Dawkins reminds me in his trivialness very much with the Dingwea era of the Zulu, where Dingwea trivialised Shakas adoption of the Ikthwa as the new issue weapon to his great folly.
Now dosnt that sound rather adacemic and worthy of collective head nodding?

In short, stick to the topic already not vainly spamming non-attached knowlage.
Vanity is apparently a sin last time i checked.