Here is Dawky Dawkins making a fool of himself again but this time he gets himself demolished by Irish writer David Quinn:
Dawkins' silliest line is when he is asked where "free will" comes from.
He says...wait for it..."science is working on that".
Priceless!
No doubt he thinks scientists have a got a piece of free will and are putting it under a microscope, or in a cyclotron or a test tube?
He thinks that the metaphysical can be put under a microscope and measured showing his complete inability to understand what the very word metaphysical means i.e. not physical.
If ever there was a delusion, that is it.
Perhaps we should call it the "Dawkins Delusion"?
...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
_-002.jpg/220px-Circle_of_Anton_Raphael_Mengs,_Henry_Benedict_Maria_Clement_Stuart,_Cardinal_York_(ca_1750)_-002.jpg)
14 comments:
I think someone did actually put out a book with your suggested title, though I don't recall whom. _The Dawkins Delusion_ had previously occurred to me as an obvious name for a response to D.D.
Dawkins isn't a scientist. He's a washed-up media don. He used to be to biology what Tony Robinson is to archaeology, only in a slightly less entertaining way. Now that he's not even that any more, he's found that peddling bogus nonsense about religion is a much easier sell.
Demolition is about right!
Dawkins admits he doesn't know where matter comes from!
Neither does Quinn so it must be God then!
The same argument for free will. Without God there can't be any so as it's metaphysical how can you hope to understand it especially if you don't believe there is the need for a god of any description for it to exist.
No doubt the same argument for morality as well!
As the post states If ever there was a delusion, that is it.
Demolishes him? You don't have the ability to see past your logical fallacies. You don't understand the atheistic viewpoint at all.
I'm trying to understand what Quinn is all about here, but all I see is the same tired weak logic that goes nowhere.
Just because the universe comes from a big bang doesn't mean there was a loving or intelligent being behind it. That's utterly ridiculous. Quinn says him self he feels that is what is "probable". Ha! By your logic only! Zero evidence at all for that.
There's no talking to you people, you won't get anywhere in this century being so unwilling to think things through.
You're obsessed with free will because without it your theology is wrong. You probably think being gay has something to do with free will.
David Quinn is a fabulous speaker.
Thanks for this - good to see and hear.
Quinn speaks nothing but nonsense. It's woo-woo much like the arguments of Deepak Chopra: another charlatan who peddles mysteries as evidence for wildly speculative claims.
God is an "uncaused cause." How does Quinn know this? He has to prove it, not just say it.
I could easily say the Universe is an uncaused cause, too. The fact is, in quantum mechanics, you always get something from nothing. Just like the total energy in a flat universe -- which is the one in which we live -- is zero.
Thanks for the sensible comments, folks.
Shame about the less sensible ones. But there's always one, isn't there?
Mr Anonymouse is back and no more coherent than usual.
Spot the religious vilifier. He always ruins his own case by vilification and by hopelessly over-stating his case.
Note "You don't have the ability to see past your logical fallacies. You don't understand the atheistic viewpoint at all".
What he means, of course, is "this post doesn't get past logical fallacy or an ability to understand atheism".
But he can't stop there. He has to go on to ad hominem insults.
How can he possibly know what my knowledge and abilities are? He doesn't know me at all. He merely over-states his case absurdly and so demolishes his own argument before he even starts.
But that is a familiar style among atheists.
He then admits that it is actually himself who fails to understand when he admits "I'm trying to understand what Quinn is all about here".
So he therefore does the very thing he accuses others of doing.
He then goes on to say that it is "utterly ridiculous" to aver that "a loving or intelligent being" is behind the beginning of the Universe.
Why?
He doesn't say.
He just expects us to be convinced by his totally over-the-top superlatives and loud squawking.
And this is supposed to be scientific? And logical? Who's he kidding?
He then says - fatuously - there is "Zero evidence at all for that".
Well, by the same token, there is zero evidence that it is false.
So where does that leave us?
No further forward.
But he thinks it's the end of the argument. And sadly the poor fellow he thinks that is rational.
Of course when he says "no evidence" what he means is "no physical evidence" - which is simply self-contradictory.
How can one have physical evidence of the metaphysical? We are back to trying to put a piece of free will under the microscope. Or trying to see courage through a telescope. Or measuring a piece of affection with a ruler.
The metaphysical cannot be measured by physical means precisely because it is not physical.
But Mr illogical Anonymouse seems incapable of seeing this.
In his second post, Anonymouse is back to over-stating his case “Quinn speaks nothing but nonsense”.
Really?
Even when he says his name, for instance?
Ah, no, well Anonymouse didn’t mean that. As usual, we are expected simply to guess what he means. And this he calls “logic”. Who’s he kidding?
In fact, of course, the way that one understands the metaphysical is through logic - the very thing that Anonymouse claims to champion but actually himself fails to apply.
The argument for a Prime Mover is entirely logical. Every cause has a prior cause, except the first cause and this first cause or Prime Mover is what we call "God".
Dawkins says "but you've just defined it that way". Fine. Call it what you like, the logic still holds. Call it, in Dawkins silly phrase, "the flying spaghetti monster" if you must but that no more demolishes the logic of a Prime Mover than it does to call it "God".
What atheists cannot understand is that ridicule does not demolish logic. You may laugh at the logical as much as you like but it does not cease to be logical, thereby.
The famous "5 Ways" of Aquinas which prove the existence of God are entirely logical. There is no logical error or flaw in them.
Anonymouse may not like them or agree with them but that does not make them illogical. In fact, they are perfectly logical.
But the complete lack of logic in his arguments is demonstrated by fatuous statements like "you won't get anywhere in this century being so unwilling to think things through".
Why this century? Does logic only apply in this century? Will it cease to apply in the next century?
And to what extent can a person who fails to see the difference between measuring the physical and metaphysical even begin to talk about "thinking things through"?
He accuses others of being "obsessed" with free will which is about as logical as saying that anyone who discusses ANY subject is "obsessed".
If free will does not exist then we are none of us free to choose to do the right or the wrong thing.
In which case, there ought to be no courts of law since they consist in adjudicating whether someone did right or wrong and punishing the wrong-doer. How can you punish someone who has no free will to choose right from wrong?
Even Dawkins admits that free will exists. He just doesn't know where it comes from. He pretends that science is "working on it" and so we're back to putting free will under a microscope which is absurd.
And thus do atheists like Dawkins and Anonymouse demolish their own arguments.
I might add, if they were truly atheists, rather than God-haters, they would simply say "yes, I see the logic of belief in a Deity and accept your right to believe but I just can't believe it myself."
But they don't do that.
They have to go on to become militant God-haters and religious vilifiers, like Dawkins and others.
Which, of course, merely argues in favour of God since atheists would not feel the need to be so hostile to theists if atheists weren't so concerned that they have already lost the argument and so can only resort to insult, abuse and vilification.
So, thank you, Anonymouse for providing yet more proof for the existence of God.
Is it true that Dawkins wants to do a citizen's arrest of the pope when he visits your country? Is this actually possible?
Yes.
It's possible but he'll never get close enough.
The police will stop him and take him away to the funny farm.
It may be that someone will arrest Dawkins for incitement to religious hatred.
Now that would be fun.
Sure, Hannah but we need to know a bit more about you and your organisation. Thanks.
Post a Comment