Responding to Dawkins

[Isambard]

No kidding.
The first and most gaping flaw in atheists’ arguments tends to be the foregone conclusion/circular reasoning.

This should be interesting.

The foregone conclusion with which they operate is that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

Swing and a miss. The conclusion is that there is no objective evidence.

They prefer to believe that millions of people in hundreds of countries for millennia have worked without pay, died brutal deaths, and somehow sneaked out of prisons and dungeons to perpetrate magic tricks that depend on supplies they could not have had access to, all to fool the rest of us with no possible motive except perhaps attention, which can be had much more easily and safely.

A strange arguement to make given that you believe only one religion to be true out of the thousands throughout history. That aside, do you believe in dragons, fairies, talking animal spirits, or reverants? People believed in these as well over the millennia.
Ad populum fallacies are fun

Yet people do things only with means, motive and opportunity.

I see you’ve never a met crazy person. Or do you believe Muhammed was a legitamite prophet of Allah because his early years as a prophet were mostly a negative experience? How about Socrates? Was he really talking to a divine daimos from which he got all his wisdom cause he eventually died for his beliefs?

When these are not in place, the odds that a person would perform a trick dwindle away.

Not at all. Check out poor countires with eccentric revolutionaries turned dictators to see how easily ignorant people can be misled, and how common it really is.

Yet the new atheists become irate when anyone suggests that they reexamine their foregone conclusion. But they will never admit that they are the ones arguing from emotion.

I disagree with them personally, but I too tend to avoid arguements from people who enjoy employing fallacy-fiestas

 

[GonQPat]

I sent two e-mails to Richard Dawkins, from whom I am not really expecting any replies. The e-mails have been posted on my web-site as the pages entitled ‘Richard Dawkins’ and ‘The God Hypothesis.’ But, my replies might just tickle your funny-bone!

 

[reggieM]

God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins by Thomas Crean, O.P. (Ignatius Press, 2007) bringyou.to/apologetics/GodIsNoDelusion.jpg

I have read this and it’s excellent. Fr. Crean is a Dominican priest, trained in Thomistic philosophy and he dismantles every one of Dawkins’ arguments with ease.

I am also reading The Godless Delusion by Patrick Madrid and Ken Hensely. That is pretty good, although more generalized and not as sharp as Fr. Crean’s book.

Reason to Believe by Richard Purtill is an excellent book in New Atheism (actually the same old atheism) from a Catholic philosopher also.

Dinesh D’Souza does a superb job with his book, What’s So Great About Christianity which was written in reponse to the New Atheists. He’s one of the best writers I’ve found yet on this controversy. His *Life After Death *is a companion book, also superb with both the science and philsophy.

 

[BlueShadow123]

He is a teapot atheist.

check this out:

youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

I understand what richard dawkins means on god being a delusion, and I agree to a point on some of what he says, but even then, there are things that have happened that science is unable to explain. Things that science could never explain.

 

[reggieM]

I first discovered Dinesh D’Souza by accident when I saw a video of his debate with Richard Dawkins. So I bought his book What’s So Great About Christianity?

He tackles a wide variety of subjects, but does it in a completely understandable way. His book has turned me on to Catholic Apologetics (he defends The Church’s actions in the Crusades as well as the Inquisition) and I recommend it for any average Christian looking for ways to answer common atheist viewpoints.

Best wishes!
Krista

Yes, I didn’t see your comment previously. He is superb. He tackles all the difficult arguments and deals with them clearly and brilliantly, all with a clear and interesting writing style.

 

[tonyrey]

The foregone conclusion with which they operate is that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

**All **evidence is subjective!

A strange argument to make given that you believe only one religion to be true out of the thousands throughout history.

**All **religions are based on fundamental truths.

I see you’ve never a met crazy person. Or do you believe Muhammed was a legitamite prophet of Allah because his early years as a prophet were mostly a negative experience? How about Socrates? Was he really talking to a divine daimos from which he got all his wisdom cause he eventually died for his beliefs?

Do you dismiss Jesus as a crazy person? If so explain why.

Check out poor countires with eccentric revolutionaries turned dictators to see how easily ignorant people can be misled, and how common it really is.

You need to explain how Christianity is based on ignorance and superstition…

 

[Anselm33]

Hello all,

I would like to know if any of you have a good resource to recommend for debating people who use Richard Dawkin’s philosophies to try to make discussing God irrelevant, i.e. the flying sphagetti monster.

I have some ideas but I admit I am no philosopher. I would really like some hardcore arguments, mostly diffusing dawkins logic without having to prove my own belief.

Thanks for your replies

Keith Ward is my favorite apologist. He writes clearly, but his logic and arguments can not be beat. Here’s one that he wrote specifically refuting Dawkins: Why there is almost certainly a God; doubting Dawkins You can read about it on Amazon.com:
amazon.com/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-ebook/dp/B002W5UPJM/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
anselm

 

[Pieman333272]

Keith Ward is my favorite apologist. He writes clearly, but his logic and arguments can not be beat. Here’s one that he wrote specifically refuting Dawkins: Why there is almost certainly a God; doubting Dawkins You can read about it on Amazon.com:
amazon.com/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-ebook/dp/B002W5UPJM/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
anselm

I’m a fan of Ward’s work too, his philosophy against Dawkins is great. When I first read the book in '09 I really hoped he’d follow-up with a debate against Dawkins, but sadly Dawkins didn’t appreciate my idea. The only criticism of his work I have is his views of the resurrection, but you can read all his proofs for God without having to disagree with him there.

 

[abucs]

Ask them to defend their idea of a flying spaghetti monster.

If they want to use it, allow them to.

A flying spaghetti monster and an intelligence outside of time and space that created and underpins the material world are two very different concepts. Ask them to defend their concept.

If they don’t take their concept seriously, why should you?

 

[GonQPat]

Phil P

PhilVaz has already suggested the link that I had in mind, which is his web-page at 'http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/AtheismDawkinsDelusion.htm.’

Nevertheless, a disturbing thought that I had in mind was that a heresy is, firstly, based on passages quoted from the Scriptures, and secondly, convincingly plausible, but still an untruth. So my question was, “How does one distinguish between what is a plausible untruth and the Truth?”

It slowly dawned on me that Catolicism is a revealed religion, so the final court of appeal of a debate is a revelation (and not a plausible and convincing argument). With that, I found that the revelations that visionaries had received were consistent with the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Examples of such visionaries are Vassula Ryden and Saint Faustina of the Divine Mercy Devotion.

In a sense, with that, I have side-stepped the debate, and have discovered the Truth.

 

[tonyrey]

I understand what richard dawkins means on god being a delusion, and I agree to a point on some of what he says, but even then, there are things that have happened that science is unable to explain. Things that science could never explain.

For a start science cannot explain itself! Nor can it explain truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or purpose. It does not even recognise the existence of persons. No wonder Dawkins thinks God is a delusion! In his scheme of things there is only a body called Richard Dawkins…

 

[Rocinante]

For a start science cannot explain itself! Nor can it explain truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love or purpose. It does not even recognise the existence of persons. No wonder Dawkins thinks God is a delusion! In his scheme of things there is only a body called Richard Dawkins…

whether or not science can explain itself depends on how narrowly you define science and what you are willing to count as an explanation.

what would count as an explanation for truth, or justice, or freedom, or green, or foxes, or binge drinking among today’s college students?

 

[tonyrey]

whether or not science can explain itself depends on how narrowly you define science and what you are willing to count as an explanation.

what would count as an explanation for truth, or justice, or freedom, or green, or foxes, or binge drinking among today’s college students?

Truth, justice and freedom have philosophical explanations.

On another thread I have recently pointed out that in our secular society many people live in a spiritual desert because they believe science is the only form of knowledge. They are unaware of the laws of personal development…

 

[_Locke]

Truth, justice and freedom have philosophical explanations.

On another thread I have recently pointed out that in our secular society many people live in a spiritual desert because they believe science is the only form of knowledge. They are unaware of the laws of personal development…

Could you link me to that thread? I have a hard time believing that many people believe science is the only form of knowledge. Without some sort of substance to back up the claim I’d almost say it’s opinion!