another classic CT tactic - telling peole to "look it up for yourself".
No - I will not. If you claim something happened then YOU provide the evidence or at least links to what you consider evidence.
<Sigh.> My apologies to you and everyone else who is all aflutter about my not googling "debunking dawkins" for you. This wasn't about Dawkins and I was going to be saving him for later when I was actually discussing stuff, instead of discussing how fucking impossible it is to discuss stuff.
I didn't realize you weren't aware of what was common knowledge and once something of a trend back before the New Atheism thing crashed and burned. I know I shouldn't assume. My bad.
People wrote whole books debunking him. You guy's don't remember all that? Ah, well. Again, my bad. Well, here ya go, since you are all so salivating for it:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213
"When authors write books that criticize other books, they have usually already lost; the original book has set the agenda to which the critics respond, and the outcome is foretold. Not in this case. The McGraths expeditiously plow into the flank of Dawkins's fundamentalist atheism, made famous in
The God Delusion, and run him from the battlefield."
"With rigorous logic and exquisite fairness, the McGraths have exposed Dawkins's very superficial understanding of the history of religion and theology. Because he is so 'out of his depth' in these areas, . . ."
That's the credentials being called into question box. It's a gripe that's common as sand. His Leprachaunology comment is infamous. You sure you guys don't remember any of this?
His fellow travelers loved it, and it
is funny, but it was also a glaring example of why he's been trashed so thoroughly. Anybody you want to bust for not having the proper cred, all good. But not many folks are a famous for it as Dawk is.
the reason they are never questioned is that they give full and reasoned rational explanations and provide eth evidence for their claims - therefore there is no need to question them.
Ooh. This is gonna hurt, man.
He's kind of even more famous for his bad reason than he is for his being ignorant of the basics of the discussion.
Here's an Oxford University tutorial based on The God Delusion:
However, when his arguments are examined objectively, they prove to be riddled with fallacies. A fallacy is an argument which appears plausible on the surface, but which is found to rest upon false or invalid assumptions. As a single illness may involve many overlapping symptoms, the logical weaknesses in this book also involve many overlapping fallacies. Rather than prove his point Mr. Dawkins instead provides an excellent teaching tool to demonstrate logical fallacies.
http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins Debunked Summary.htm
Careful in there, if you are new to seeing the wood taken to poor Richard. It can be a rough go if you really thought he was some kind of exemplar for the reason. Fair warning.
the only thing uneven is the evidence provided by the 2 groups of people - one of them provides evidence and het evidence clearly supports their conclusions. the other either provides no evidence or provides evidence that is, at best, questionable, or, at worst deliberately falsified. It would be stupid to treat both sets of evidence the same.
You really need to stop this, Mike. It isn't making you look good. Ask Mick about it.
This is the last round of the "show me your evidence" shuffle.
Now you have your evidence. Now I want someone to step and explain why a guy with as poor a rep as Dawkins has for being busted doesn't get debunked here.
Well, never mind. Mick asked me to do it, so consider it done. Give him his Scarlet D, Mick.