The New Atheist
Jan.13, 2010 in
Home Video Marketing
My Review of the new Atheist books.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
- Related posts on Atheist
- atheist pet care rapture | Pet Fleas Blog
- Related posts on New Books
- Life-long educator Fellers retires this week « Mid Plains …
- Words, words, words! « Wally's Blog
January 15th, 2010 at 2:30 am
oh my apologies as well, the thing told me you were talking to me so thats what I thought.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:17 am
My apologies, AbdieAiram, I adressed Human strategy.
You said that to Spinoza the universe is god, and you’re correct.But, Humanstrategy Complained that you were wrong and you hadn’t read Spinoza.
what I was pointing out was that HumanStrategy was the one who hadn’t read Spinoza (It woulnd’t surprise me he was projecting his ignorance onto you) or understood him properly.
Sorry for the confusion, I am still figuring how to post texts in youtube.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:00 am
No you see that wasn’t what I was trying to say. You’ll also notice that I said Kant too, even though he was clearly a theist as well. What I was talking about is their critiques of Orthodox theism and natural theology, which both of them made.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:04 am
Spinoza thought god had an infinite amount of attributes, including physical extension.
God + infinite physical extension= God is the universeHow does this mischaracterizes Spinozas position?
Have you even read his work? well, AbdielAbiram defined god as immaterial and simple, and you thought he was referring to Spinozas god.
So I got a better question, have *you* read his work?
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 am
I know, I didn’t mean to say that. I meant to say his rebuttal’s to theistic arguments.
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Kant wasn’t an atheist.
January 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Okay. Lol. I had no idea what anti-ealism was. Lol
January 24th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
yes I did, I’m lazy with proof reading.
January 30th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Lmao. His central argument was a non-sequitur, please don’t tell me you are trying to defend a non-sequitur. Of all the people you could be trying to defend, you choose Dawkins? No one, I repeat no one takes him seriously. Why do you think Dawkins has never debated a Christian intellectual?
February 1st, 2010 at 7:36 am
It’s not a “book about philosophy”
God is a philosophical topic, always had been. Dawkins wrote a book about a philosophical topic and made a fool out of himself.
My version of the Boeing 747 was not a straw man, that is his argument put into a syllogism. Second, every real Christian is talking about a transcendental God, an immaterial being cannot be complex because he has no parts. I said all this in my video.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Do you mean, anti-realism?
February 5th, 2010 at 9:06 am
I would like to see Dawkins deal with anti-ealism and non causal forms of theistic arguments. I don’t think I’m on a high plane of thinking, in fact I’m quite inadequate in certain areas of philosophy (especially philosophy of quantum physics). I just think that Dawkins is being rather irrational and many times childish since he is more concerned with his axe to grind against religion than his intellectual integrity.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
He seems to think that logic just exists and no one needs to explain it since we already use it. To try and condense my point, Dawkins seems to not be dealing with the entire agnostic point of view except possibly on the level of a “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument.
The epistemology of Cornelius Van Til states that Christian theism provides the presuppositions of knowledge hence making the non-existence of God hold the burden of proof.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:42 am
There’s really no way I can prove to you over the internet that I’ve read those authors. I could post quotes and explanations but you could just say that I googled all the stuff. Accusing me of such things is a waste of time and ultimately a fallacious way of going about an argument anyway.
Dawkins does not adequately account for why he thinks truth is self-evident hence his empiricism. What is his response to infinite regression reasoning?
February 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“I refuted his . . .central argument”
His central argument is that belief in a god or gods is most probably delusional.
That fact that you spent most of your time talking about an “immaterial” being which you couldn’t know anything about, really just bolsters his argument that belief in a god can only be delusional.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
It’s not a “book about philosophy”.
You’re version of the ultimate Boeing 747 is a breatakingly horrible strawman.
Furthermore theists do not necessarily “propose” an “immaterial” God. Dawlins makes it clear that the God he is talking about is a personal God who interacts with the material universe. That’s the concept he’s talking about.
Dawkins argues – X is improbable.
You respond – X isn’t improbable because X is Y.
And you pull Y straight out of your ass
Read the wiki article.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Why then is a biologist writing a book about philosophy then?
Second, watch the video. I refuted his Boeing argument and his central argument.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The comment about reading the great philosphers wass a reponse to Flubly.
Dawkins isn’t a philosopher per se so is not really part of the “philosopical community”.
He is however a biological scientist. Your assertion that he is an “embarrassment” to said community is a blatent falsehood.
Anyway the question I asked you was “Name me one thing you refuted?”
February 14th, 2010 at 4:17 am
I have read Hume, Schopenhauer and especially Nietzsche. Everybody who studies natural theology has. Dawkins is an embarrassment to the philosophical and scientific community, defending his idiocy is comparable to defending the stupidity of Young earth creationism.
Also, my channel is dedicated to proving the existence of God. WATCH ANY OF MY OTHER VIDEOS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!
February 14th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Name me one thing you refuted.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:08 am
Yes I know you are on a superior philosphical and intellectual plane but any time you really want to destroy Dawkins, Hitchens, etc all you have to do is present real evidence that a God exists.
I wonder whether you’ve really read the great philosphers you mention. If you had I don’t think you’d be making such asinine comparisons.
Actually have you even read Dawkins?
Give me some examples of these positive axioms that he doesn’t account for.
February 16th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
That’s the reason I didn’t take this video too seriously, there’s not enough substance to refute.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:34 am
That’s the problem with Dawkins. He lives off rhetorical analogies without accounting for his positivist axioms. He and Hitchens are no where near the level of Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Russel…the list goes on. These atheists had their holes too but at least they had academic decency and took their work seriously. Dawkins thinks he’s a genius when his books are childsplay philosophy. It’s like reading teen devotionals for atheists.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’d like to know how. I mean I understand that about 60% of Americans can’t tell you how many days are in a year, so I guess I kind of can understand how text book examples of logical fallacies can get passed off as “relevant arguments”. But that doesn’t do anything to show that you should then use these arguments knowing that they are fallacious.