The Dawkins Delusion: A response to Richard Dawkins

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Norf,

No, he is not laying, Mr hamza,Your source, just happens to be wrong in believing that one could start believing in a God or Gods from the arguments he listed, which some of them unluckily Dawkins hollows them out of any rationality substance, specially,

"The argument from personal experience;" in the very book in question, namely, "The God delusion".

 

Next time , present as many articles as you wish , but atleast study the arguments ( hopefully read the book in question ) and wrap Norf's taste on it.

 

Gee that sounds like something Johnny has been asked to do on numerous other occasions. Is the shoe on the other foot now? I have basically done what you’ve been doing for years in post something that in my opinion stands up to the atheist argument. All you’ve done is reply with ‘he is wrong so there’. Apologies for kindling a brain cell or two

[Johnny B]

Norf,

I'm not sure if you got my point there so let me clarify.

There is no problem with presenting an article ( blogpost), essay, short-writing, etc etc , that convey one's stance, or one agrees with to a certain degree, but for that, one is equally expected to able to by own conviction further or push those arguments, and there is where i find your way of (exchanging)debating hicky.

 

1: You don't seem to be familiar with the arguments Mr Hamsa uses, because if you did, you'd ask yourself how can Hamsa use arguments Mr Dawkins cements under his feet, without raising them from the rabble.

 

2: You don't seem to have read the book in question , because if you did , you'd be ashamed of Hamsa brushing off the dazzled argument of personal experience ( and all those dubenked arguments)to counter Dawkins in what he calls a response.

 

Chalk n Cheese , saxib.

[N.O.R.F]

And you're not getting what I'm getting at

 

1: You don't seem to be familiar with the arguments Mr Hamsa uses, because if you did, you'd ask yourself how can Hamsa use arguments Mr Dawkins cements under his feet, without raising them from the rabble.

Again, this is another case of you saying something and believing it to be correct WITHOUT presenting any form of back-up. Simply repeating Dawkins has dealt with the issue doesn't mean he is right nor does it mean you're right. Get it? One needs a bit more than 'but he is wrong' to chew on.

 

2: You don't seem to have read the book in question , because if you did , you'd be ashamed of Hamsa brushing off the dazzled argument of personal experience ( and all those dubenked arguments)to counter Dawkins in what he calls a response.

You're correct in that I haven't read the book but why would I be ashamed as Hamza has quite clearly and eloquently countered the book's main spine? Are you saying Dawkins' main arguments are not those countered by Hamza? Are you saying the book is credible? Are you saying the book has no flaws? What are you saying? Oh, you're saying 'he is wrong'.

[Cara.]

You're correct in that I haven't read the book but why would I be ashamed as Hamza has quite clearly and eloquently countered the book's main spine? Are you saying Dawkins' main arguments are not those countered by Hamza? Are you saying the book is credible? Are you saying the book has no flaws? What are you saying? Oh, you're saying 'he is wrong'.

Norf,it doesn't matter if Johnny is saying the book is about elephants in pink tutus dancing "The Nutcracker". You haven't read it yourself, and yet you are able to determine that Hamza counters the book clearly and eloquently? Really? You don't see any flaw in that "logic and intellect"?

 

Well let's see. Johnny hasn't read Hamza's rebuttal. Johnny, this is what Hamza says: blargh buffle hurk beep. And my answer is "ha ha ha ha that's complete gobbledy-gook". There, you can rest assured I effectively countered all his arguments. Aren't you glad you didn't bother to read his crazy talk yourself?

[N.O.R.F]

But his counter is clear and eloquent .

 

Anyway, point taken. However, Hamza has obviously read the book and has written his rebuttal to what he believes are the book’s main arguments. If his rebuttal is perceived as weak by those who have read the book then is it too much for them to elaborate on such a perception? Or has this place been reduced to ‘oh, go and read the book before we have a discussion’ forum? Surely the one disagreeing is required to give reasons and not plain old ‘he is wrong’. I mean, anyone can do that. That could have been my reply to Johnny whenever he posted something with regard to Islam but I didn’t. I would try and explain to him why he was wrong along with any additional information. We are all on a level playing field are we not? Or am I missing something?

[guerilla]

Or am I missing something?

You're missing a lot. A whole lot. In fact you wont believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big the information you're missing actually is.

 

I find it disturbing that you and Ibtisam don't seem to register the fact that if you weren't born to Somali parent's but say to Randeep and Hetal down the road you would be singing the praises of Shiva, Brahma, Ganesha, Ram, Indra, Sita, Vishnu, Lakshmi and The Sacred Cow. I know most of these names because I've a co-worker who tells me with the utmost conviction that his religion is great, his God's are powerful and his muslim neighbours have got it stupendously wrong.

 

The overall argument Dawkins is making in the book is pretty well summed up in this quote,

 

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better that we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My God is a little God and I want him to stay that way.' ..."

From Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan (must read}.

 

Ibtisam, if you find Dawkins irrelevant because he concentrates on the Bible, you should look at Why I'm Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq.

[N.O.R.F]

^Most of what you said there is irrelevant. I would like you to expand on the following however:

 

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better that we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My God is a little God and I want him to stay that way.' ..."

From Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan (must read}.

Dawkins seems to arouse those who knew little about their religion in the first place with such statements. You seem to be prepared to take his word as gospel.

[Cara.]

OK Norf, we're getting somewhere.

 

Hamza has obviously read the book and has written his rebuttal to what

he

believes are the book’s main arguments.

How can you evaluate Hamza's rebuttal though? Are his beliefs valid?

 

1. Did he really read the book? Maybe Hamza also only read a review

 

2. Even if Hamza read the book, is he presenting Dawkins' arguments fairly? Is there something he overlooks that you would spot yourself? Can you critique the rebuttal at all? Are there any flaws in his reasoning, or something you disagree with? [hint: first clue that you are in over your head is if you can't think of ANYTHING to criticize about someone's position].

 

Or has this place been reduced to ‘oh, go and read the book before we have a discussion’ forum?

LOL. Actually it would be refreshing if this forum was "reduced" to that. Instead the recent debate on evolution was started by someone who does not know what a mutation is, and here you are, wanting to have a debate about a book without reading the book.

 

Honestly, I'm not too interested in "The God Delusion" itself or Hamza's rebuttal or whatever the next copy-paste project will turn out to be. I just want you to be a better thinker, I don't care if you then end up stronger in your faith. It's lazy thinking I can't countenance

[N.O.R.F]

^You just want me to repeat myself don’t you?

 

How can you evaluate Hamza's rebuttal though? Are his beliefs valid?

I’m not evaluating. I’m ONLY going off his rebuttal and I believe there are no flaws in it. If you believe his rebuttal has flaws (because you’ve read the book) it is EXPECTED of you to present your views with reasons. That is how debate/discussions USUALLY transpire. All parties don’t need to know all the issues for this to happen.

 

2. Even if Hamza read the book, is he presenting Dawkins' arguments fairly? Is there something he overlooks that you would spot yourself? Can you critique the rebuttal at all? Are there any flaws in his reasoning, or something you disagree with? [hint: first clue that you are in over your head is if you can't think of ANYTHING to criticize about someone's position].

I think you’ve now chosen to put the blinkers on.

 

1. He has presented his argument based on what he believes to be Dawkins’ main arguments (which he summarised). Whether or not he presented the arguments fairly is for you/Johhny/any other atheist (or anyone else for that matter) to state, supported by reasons. Remember, I haven’t evaluated it but I still think his rebuttal holds weight. Prove me wrong as it were. I.e this is a debate forum.

 

2. Maybe there is something he over looks which I might have spotted if I read the book. Then again, I haven’t read the book but there are people who think he has overlooked certain issues, I would expect them to highlight them (still waiting). I.e. this is a debate forum.

 

3. I can’t critique the rebuttal as I haven’t read the book. I was hoping anyone who opposed it would believe it was his/her obligation to do so. I.e this is a debate forum.

 

4. There are no flaws in his reasoning that I can see.

 

LOL. Actually it would be refreshing if this forum was "reduced" to that. Instead the recent debate on evolution was started by someone who does not know what a mutation is, and here you are, wanting to have a debate about a book without reading the book.

You see my last post there? The bit I quoted? It is quite obvious guerrilla believes in that quote. Do I try and state what I believe to be correct by using the resources available to me to counter what he believes or do I just sit back and tell him to go and learn the meaning of the Quran and Sunnah before I engage him? You see I believe in the former, you believe in the latter and you call me a lazy thinker? We’re playing by different rules I suppose.

 

Looks as though you’re all only prepared to extend yourselves when the wind is blowing in the right direction

[guerilla]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

^Most of what you said there is irrelevant. I would like you to expand on the following however:

 

quote:

---

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better that we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My God is a little God and I want him to stay that way.' ..."

From Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan (must read}.

Dawkins seems to arouse those who knew little about their religion in the first place with such statements. You seem to be prepared to take his word as

gospel

.

[guerilla]

I don't think that point is irrelevant, it's one point you should address. If you were born to white Catholics in Texas you would be extolling the praises of Jesus and not Allah, chew on that. (It's worth repeating you see). Unless of course you're stating that the All Knowing All Loving picked you personally because you're special...which will open up a whole 'nother can of worms. I can see it now, 'if that is the case then don't speak of your belief as a personal choice...' to which you respond, 'that too is irrelevant, Allah is great, momma said so, atheist are stoopid nya nya nya..'

 

Dawkins didn't make me an atheist, Muhammed and all the other cowboys before him (mythical or not) did...

[Naden]

3. I can’t critique the rebuttal as I haven’t read the book. I was hoping anyone who opposed it would believe it was his/her obligation to do so. I.e this is a debate forum.

Norfsky, you have a very strange way of debating and discussing issues! You don't actually want to discuss the issue yourself because you don't mostly read the source information. Instead, you present a piece from a writer whom you believe has a similar view that you hold and expect people on SOL to debate that person through the cut/paste job.

 

Then, you actually feel entitled to hearing cogent rebuttals from others that you couldn't refute/critique as you haven't read the original material. And you're always indignant that the person doesn't present their opposing views to the cut/paste material.

 

This is intensely fascinating.

[N.O.R.F]

^Naden, you're usually prepared to defend one who uses such a strange way of debating. What happened? Maybe I should change my nick Johnny

[Naden]

^ Norfsky, don't be defensive, walaal. People can shoot the shidh about general topics and exchange views and opinions without a problem. The issue is that you present others' opinions through specific articles/posts and then ask for rebuttals in a proxy debate. That is very strange. You are passionate about all sorts of things but generally resistant to reading some of the source/original material seminal to the discussion. That is even stranger.

[N.O.R.F]

^Naden, I'm not going to repeat myself. Lets just say I'm impressed with the coordinated response although coated with a few licks of hypocrisy.