Marianito,It would help if you limited your posts to one stupidity at a time. It would take forever to tell you all that is wrong in this post.I think you want to feel victorious by exhaution.aDiablo,G.E.
Let us get started:Richard Dawkins, Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists.This is true.Richard Bube (Physicist, and former Chairman of the Department of Materials Science at Stanford), There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.Hum, curious, Maybe there are so many truck drivers that their atheist numbers might outnumber the atheists in science. I do not know. Yet, it is obvious that this "physicist" did not count. Just pulled the argument out of his ass.Also, not all highly intelligent people are scientists. There are highly intelligent people in other jobs too.G.E.
Number 2:Alvin Plantinga, The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad Absurdum: Now despite the fact that this book [The God Delusion] is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.So the most important part of Plantinga's arguments was his ad hominem attacks? Not that I am surprised by your choosing. Obviously Plantinga makes lots of comments about whether naturalism and evolution match together or not. All based on his misunderstanding of science, evolution in particular, and of naturalism itself. I would say that his understanding of science, evolution, and naturalism are comparable to those of kinder garden children, but I do not want to insult the children.G.E.
Hum, your next apologist is another one who rather insults than provide something of substance ...
Then ...H. Allen Orr (the Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester), most scientists do not accept Dawkins’s theory of memes.Nope, most scientists, unless working in the field, have not paid enough attention to even understand the memes stuff. Once they do understand they are happy to realize the power of this idea.G.E.
I jump Lewontin because I cannot read the article in its original. Only yours.So next is:Anthony O'Hear (agnostic and philosopher) referring to Richard Dawkins, this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our “selfish” genes.Dawkins did not say there was any obligation to act against our selfish genes. He described the hypothesis, and that is that. He also clarified that he was not advocating for selfishness. Yet, nothing about obligations.G.E.
get_education,I agree about the one stupidity at a time thing.Yet, I thought that compiling some of Dawkins' statements together would be fun.aDios,Mariano
I stop there.Marianito, I think you have no true arguments for God. Thus, you try and attack people to see if that works. It doesn't. Attacking prominent atheists does not make God true. All you get is my realization that ... well, as I said, there is no logical reason to believe in your invisible friend. So, all you are left with is these convoluted and lengthy ad hominem attacks.aDiablo,G.E.
A good collection. I have just come to realise the sheer quantity of this tripe I have read before.The blind faith of Dicky D's adherants stops becoming annoying and starts becoming truely funny after a while.
This site is the christian equivelent of the rational response squad
"Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."This is true.Evidence? Or did you, just like Dawkins, pull this out of your ass?
My ancestors escaped from an officially atheistic country where the goverment would certainly have killed them if the had remained.I am certain that atheists today would try to do the same if they had political power over me.Fortunately, athesits are "out in the open" and constantly telling other people who are not atheists how stupid those people are, how inferior they are, how pitiful they are.This insures that the atheists will not be elected to any significant political offices in enough numbers to affect me.Now, if an atheist tries to be reasonable, I simply insult him a little and he goes back into attack mode, which is what we want to keep it in.So, atheists...KMAEmanuel Goldstein, at your service!
"Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists.This is true"Agreed pulled out of his deluded arse a complete fallacy. Unless hes just trying to bait people up for kicks
No not pulled anywhere there are numerous studies that sgow this to be true. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread485763/pg1http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f
Interesting quotes. I think Dawkins wants to provoke more than anything else. Making people mad makes him famous. But I think he also believes every word of it. I'd hate to see his face on judgment day. He has a big surprise coming.
Wendell....No not pulled anywhere there are numerous studies that sgow this to be trueIt's a pity those intelligent atheists choose not to post comments on this blog.
get_education,I forgot to mention this:Plantinga did not commit the ad hominem. You may want to read up on logical fallacies a bit. The ad hominem is, for example, if I say, “Dawkins said thus and such but Dawkins is an activist atheist and is no particularly bright. But it is not an ad hominem if I say, “Dawkins said thus and such, Dawkins is an activist atheist and is no particularly bright, and he is wrong in claiming thus and such because of…” See the difference? In the first instance it was an ad hominem because my response was ad hominem/to the man while disregarding Dawkins’ argument.In the second case it was not an ad hominem/to the man since, while reference was made to the man, the man’s argument was dealt with. Plantinga made reference to the man and his lack of particular skills yet, he also went on to deal with the man’s arguments. A skeptic would have checked the citation, looked it up, read it and determined that this is the case.aDios,Mariano
In reference to the studies which show most intelligent people are atheist:-I would like to know, no I'll hazard a guess, were these studies carried out by highly intelligent atheists?-How would one go about measuring intelligence?-Intelligence is not in any way indicative of knowledge or understanding in any case. You may be incredibly intelligent but not very well versed in a particular subject, such as say theology or philosophy. This could be for various reasons, a lack of interest in something you deem nullified by science (the most common ignorance amongst mainstream atheists). Or a bias born of the zealous faith you have in atheism as your philosophy.
Science explains how.If you want the why you have to turn to theology and philosophy.When looked at in this light, the contradictions cease to exist.Science can then help us understand the world around us, whilst philosophy and theology helps us understand us, and our place respectively.
Anywhere on the internet that Atheist Grand Ayatollah Dickie Dawkins is mentioned, you seem to get fanatical members of his fan club such as get_education throwing insults around.Physicist Richard Bube said PROPORTIONATELY as many atheistic truck drivers. That means in percentage terms, not just greater numbers. But of course you're the genius and we're the stupid ones. Yeah right...Maybe you should do like your user name and learn some math.
Science can then help us understand the world around us, whilst [good] philosophy and [good]theology helps us understand us, and our place respectively. Or, better still the Spirit of God. Shalom. K.
OMG. People believe this crap? Atheism is enlightenment!