Critics of Richard Dawkins and 'The God Delusion'

[Arizona Atheist]

I've noticed many critics of Richard Dawkins and 'The God Delusion' often don't seem to grasp what Dawkins is arguing, and many nitpick the book to death, believing (somehow) that they've written a strong rebuttal to Dawkins when they haven't truly touched upon his main points.

One Christian apologist has written an essay called “The God Delusion: 160 Errors, Gross Exaggerations, and Highly Dubious Claims” which I've gone through and confirmed any genuine errors he did find. I've also pointed out the numerous errors the author himself made in his essay. Be warned...it's long. I should also note my occasional attitude towards the author due to the fact that we've crossed swords many times before and since the beginning he's been a real jerk to me and spread lies about me so I don't look too fondly upon him, so please forgive the occasional jab.

Moderated By: CP

Advertising can only be done in your signature, not in the body of a post. Thanks.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

• Edited by a Moderator •
Who do you think makes the better case? Me or him?

[apophenia]

I haven't yet read either Dawkins, you, or he, but your introductory remarks raise a question. You initially disparage him for not being
very bright, something of a bottom feeder, and that his efforts have not garnered the response he would have hoped. Given this, I have
to wonder as to the value of responding to such people. As Dawkins has noted, while there are costs associated with not responding to
some of these proponents, there are also negative consequences to responding. It lends legitimacy and attention to the persons
and subject, and it also takes time that both the reader and writer could be spending elsewhere, preferrably engaged with more
deserving and substantial subjects or arguments. Beyond that, it is a typical consequence of confirmation bias that proponents
of whatever side tend to read only sources sympathetic to their views, and quite unlikely to search out "critics of the critics", so the
odds of your effort being effective are unfortunately diminished. I appreciate your efforts -- and I have in the past; you are a
valuable voice for atheism. However, again, not having read the critique yet, I have to wonder if in this case it might not have been
more prudent to let Dawkins' work speak for itself.

[Arizona Atheist]

Hi apophenia, thanks for your response.

I understand where you're coming from and part of my reasons for refuting this apologist was mostly personal, due to the grudge I have against him. What can I say? For all the bile he has spewed at me over the years I take pleasure in pointing out how bad his arguments are and making him look foolish. There's the honest truth.

However, I also have more practical reasons for doing so. He makes use of several common misunderstandings and other apologetic arguments that are repeated by others, and are common among critics of Dawkins, so I figure kill two birds with one stone. Rebut some common objections to Dawkins and expose all of Marshall's arguments for the world to see.

Another reason I decided to do this is for the benefit of those like you who haven't read Dawkins' book and might be mislead by the common misunderstandings that are made about his work and his views.

And don't worry, I plan on setting my sights on more meaty targets in the near future. I've already addressed books by James S. Spiegel, Ray Comfort, David Aikman, Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, so Marshall isn't the only Christan apologist I've gone after.

Thanks!

[Arizona Atheist]

I figured I'd go ahead and announce the newest Christian book I set my sights on. I said I was going to go after bigger game and I have. I chose a book that very few have attempted to refute and as far as I know my review is the most complete of any that is currently available. It's on Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...efutation.html

I believe I gave Vox a run for his money but I haven't gotten much feedback yet so I'm not sure if I made any errors or not. I did my best to double check everything but a project of that size and because I was alone in writing and researching it there are bound to be small errors that I didn't catch.

[WaitingForGodot]

I honestly don't know how you could put up with Teddy long enough to write a review. That man is dangerously stupid.

[zorathruster]

Dawkins is disciplined. Much higher than most other humans. He is able to logically control his desires and feelings that are contrary to social pressure. Most humans don't have that ability. They want to "go along" to "get along". Lets all group together in a herd for protection. To bind the group, there needs to be a common belief. That might be anything from "Obama is a Trilateralist" to "God lives up in the clouds and changes traffic lights so I can get to work on time". These common bonding "ideas" keep the group in a constant march forward and prevent disbanding. It helps if you can include catastrophic natural or supernatural threats (hell for example) for those that aren't part of the group or disagree with the group.

Dawkins understands the natural desire for herd behaviors and is willing to form a break away group that has it's own set of precepts and penalties for those who think differently. Theists are discovering what it is like to be on the recieving end of condemnation by a broad segment of the population. They don't like it. They don't like that many are willing to risk the "hell" that holds them in the group. They don't like the rise of different groups with common methods of herd control, many using the same control mechanisms, like different religions. Hell only works when someone believes in it. Heaven only works as a motivator when someone believes in it. As 9-11, Jonestown, Mt Carmel, HeavensGate cult all prove, some believe beyond rational human boundaries. I believe Dawkins is most powerful confronting those major irrational activities more than minor irrational activities like thinking God cures your annual influenza.