# Richard Dawkins/The God Delusion



## Blue Tick (Jan 21, 2007)

Man, Dawkins sure is militant! Watch [video=youtube;ussdzdnj_dE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussdzdnj_dE&mode=related&search=[/video] It's a little long but watch how Dawkins becomes so angry about God.

However, why doesn't Dawkins pick on someone who will be more of a match! He's speaking with Ted Hagggard. 

Has anyone refuted Dawkins? I feel sorry for the guy, he's such a pride ball.


----------



## Richard King (Jan 21, 2007)

This guy is all the rage at the University's. Even out here in the Texas panhandle. 
A while back my son who goes to Texas Tech came home and asked me for some counter arguments and ammo to help correct his buddies who are swooning over this guy. 
These aren't dumb kids they are honor students and engineers that he hangs with.
I didn't even really know who Dawkins was. Like someone else said...I thought he was the guy from Family Feud and Hogan's Heroes (oops thats RICHARD Dawkins). My son showed me some of his stuff and a YOUtube or two. Then I walked in Barnes and Noble a couple of days ago and they had practically built a shrine to him and his book in their front window.
I wonder where the big names (the religious marketers and TV evangelicals) are on this guy. The silence is deafening.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jan 21, 2007)

James White has a copy of the book, I'm not sure whether he's reading it right now or not. He said he'd definitely have something to say about it in a while or something.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2007)

CRT posted this link on Ref21blog. (post: "Tel-Boy vs. Dawkins")

I agree, it is a great retort. From the London Review of Books

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html


----------



## Ruben100 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.start.urclearning.org/

Dawkins is discussed here by 3 URC ministers


----------



## Machaira (Jan 21, 2007)

Listen to a panel of United Reformed pastors critique Dawkins at the following url:

http://www.start.urclearning.org/category/sinners-and-saints/


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 21, 2007)

Machaira said:


> Listen to a panel of United Reformed pastors critique Dawkins at the following url:
> 
> http://www.start.urclearning.org/category/sinners-and-saints/



Perfecto! Thanks alot for the link.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2007)

From what I heard one of his criticisms of "God" is linked with the catastrophes in the created order. But when he makes that criticism, he is actually attacking a form of pantheism. Identifying God with or within the created order is an easy way to take out goodness of God type arguments (nature being red in tooth and claw). Of course, that's not the Christian view of God so his argument runs out of gas right there.


----------



## schaflera (Jan 22, 2007)

*Our Hero*

‘The Man’ brushes his hand down the front of his Kiton suit then gives his tie a final tug as he steps cocksure onto the stage ... 

Please welcome Dr. Clinton Richard Dawkins.

He walks to behind a large and elaborately furnished teakwood desk then slowly takes a seat in a high-back camel-skin leather chair. 
Seated before him in a large auditorium are hundred of thousands of people from all over the world stretching into the horizon as far as eye can see. 
From under the desk he pulls out a wooden box lavished with gold trim and sets it down atop a velvet cloth. 
The words “whatever could be inside?” materialize over the audience’s collective head. He smirks as he shifts his fingers to open the lid. 
The universe skips a beat as he reveals a spherical, multicolored gimcrack made of various plastic Lego pieces and Elmer’s glue. He rises suddenly and boldly and with unwavering certainty declares, "There is *NO* God." And the audience bursts with uncontrollable applause.

The curtain closes. Fade out.

…whatever. Boo!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 22, 2007)

*Does He not See?*

Hay:

I did not read that book, but I did read The Blind Watchmaker. There is always a flaw in the atheist argument. The more intelligent of them, like Dawkins, are able to cover them up.

Well, in the Blind Watchmaker Dawkins relates how he was able to write a computer program called "Evolution" and how this program was able to create complex patterns from simple lines. He then went on to explain how complexity can be arrived at through an unintelligent computer program.

The flaw in his reasoning is that it took an intelligent designer not only to write the program, but to build the computer. Consequently, the Watchmaker is not blind.

You can find more info here: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/index_apol.html

Hope it helps,

-CH


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 22, 2007)

Try:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 23, 2007)

David Silversides' Review


----------



## caddy (Jan 26, 2007)

How can electrical impulses and chemicals “through a bag of meat and bones” 2 have any rights? Joseph Sobran writes: 
I used to believe in evolution myself, but I took no joy in it. Who could? If atheism is true, then nothing really matters— not even atheism. Even
as a kid I could see that. In my atheistic days I thought nothing was quite as silly as the militant atheist. . . . I regretted
losing my faith, and I couldn’t understand people who could be enthusiastic about living in a cold, godless universe. I tried
to make art—especially Shakespeare and Beethoven—my consolation prizes for the religion I’d lost. At least they made
me feel as if I had a soul, even if the cheerless dogma of Darwin said otherwise*

*. Joseph Sobran, “Is Darwin Holy?” (December
29, 2005): www.sobran.com/columns/
2005/051229.shtml


Taken from this American Vision Article: 

http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/11-06%20Sheilaism.pdf

Sobran is a very interesting and gifted writer....


----------



## D. Paul (Jan 30, 2007)

[/QUOTE]Has anyone refuted Dawkins? I feel sorry for the guy, he's such a pride ball.[/QUOTE]

John Robbins has demonstrated this position as self-refuting and contends people like this _ought_ to be ridiculed into silence by Biblical truth.

Dawkins sets up a caricature of Christianity via Haggard.


----------



## D. Paul (Jan 30, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> David Silversides' Review



Silversides is GREAT


----------



## Mathetes (Jan 31, 2007)

Some atheists I've interacted with are embarassed by Dawkins. They more or less view him as the Fred Phelps of atheism.

And my understanding is that Will Dembski has challenged Dawkins to a debate, but was declined.


----------



## BJClark (Jan 31, 2007)

CalvinandHodges;





> Well, in the Blind Watchmaker Dawkins relates how he was able to write a computer program called "Evolution" and how this program was able to create complex patterns from simple lines. He then went on to explain how complexity can be arrived at through an unintelligent computer program.
> 
> The flaw in his reasoning is that it took an intelligent designer not only to write the program, but to build the computer. Consequently, the Watchmaker is not blind.



Isn't this really how most people view God?

The creation made the god, and not as God who made the creation?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 2, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> The Existence of Richard Dawkins
> 
> "William Dembski
> Dr. Terry Tommyrot questions the existence of Richard Dawkins in this brilliant spoof — whoever did Dawkins has him down. Here’s the audio as a wma file: The Dawkins Delusion. "


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 4, 2007)

*Hay*



> Isn't this really how most people view God?
> 
> The creation made the god, and not as God who made the creation?



Yes, I believe it is, good point, and that Dawkins is simply relating the Natural Man's concept of things.

-CH


----------



## caddy (Feb 4, 2007)

*The Brights*

I love this article from AV.

http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/10-06 The Brights.pdf

especially this part:
 
Atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, and my new email buddy Peter can’t account for nonmaterial entities like honesty, honor, and respect given the basic assumptions of their materialistic, random, and accidental worldview. These atheists want the fruit of Christianity, but they reject the root. They talk about love, fair play, not wanting to hurt other living things, but​​these “things” don’t exist in a matteronly cosmos.10​
10. “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, ​_Cosmos_​_
_[New York: Random House, 1980], 4). “When Sagan excludes even the
possibility that a spiritual dimension has any place in his cosmos—not even
at the unknown, mysterious moment when life began—he makes accidental
evolution the explanation for everything. Presented in this way, evolution
does indeed look like an inverted religion, a conceptual golden calf, which
manages to reek of sterile atheism. It is little wonder that many parents
find their deeper emotions stirred if they discover this to be the import of
Johnny’s education.”(William R. Fix, ​_The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution_​_
_[New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984], xxiv).
11. Richard Dawkins, ​_The Selfish Gene_, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University

and this:​Evolutionists have repeatedly beat the rhetorical drum that Intelligent Design is not science, but now we learn that “nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong.” Who is this “nature” person? Replace
“nature” with “God,” and you get the idea that evolution is just another religion, and not a very defensible one at that. Now we get to ask, If this nature god exists, then prove it. Where is it? Why doesn’t it show itself? Bring it out so we can ask why there are earthquakes, famines, death,
and destruction. Does Hauser’s nature god have the ability to think? For all their rhetoric, atheists can’t live in an impersonal universe. They have to believe that there is something beyond the material, anything but the God of the Bible who holds us morally accountable.​​


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 4, 2007)

I am glad that Ted Haggard put him to his place in this video. BOOYAH.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 10, 2007)

More thoughts on Dawkins...by Doug Wilson



http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3668


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 10, 2007)

Funny you should bring this up. The podcast called sinners and saints actually went through an 8 show series on his book. 

Here's the link:

http://www.start.urclearning.org/category/sinners-and-saints/


----------



## Richard King (Mar 10, 2007)

And this is interesting if for no other reason but to learn the word...jejune

http://gomarus.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/plantinga-slams-dawkins-and-his-book/


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2007)

Alister McGrath is debating Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion' March 23, 2007


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 23, 2007)

caddy said:


> How can electrical impulses and chemicals “through a bag of meat and bones” 2 have any rights? Joseph Sobran writes:
> I used to believe in evolution myself, but I took no joy in it. Who could? If atheism is true, then nothing really matters— not even atheism.



Absolutely correct. It's why I don't bother much with atheists and their philosophy. Dawkins doesn't get even a mild rise out of me because his whole argument is so self-defeating from the get-go. 

In the final analysis: atheism = cessation of all qualifications. 

That's the end of atheism.


----------

