Refutation of Atheists - The (Richard) Dawkins Delusion

[Mutakhasis]

Levanay You are wondering that how hazrat yonas survived inside fish? because according to you scientifically it cant be proved.
now answer me.
Black magic has confirmed effects, but it cant be scientifically proved, is'nt?

Atheist don't have a solid foundation or principles to follow, their beliefs simply change as science expands. What they fail to do and haven't done, is to explain why.

[imb706]

Dawkins has miserably failed to give a proper reply to this article and other rebuttals by Hamza Tzortzis.

Has he ever responded? I mean, because the text is copypasta from other religious copypastas purporting to debunk Richard Dawkins. Who cares anyway? I don't even like Dawkins much.

Atheist don't have a solid foundation or principles to follow, their beliefs simply change as science expands. What they fail to do and haven't done, is to explain why.

What's that supposed to mean?

[inqilab]

Has he ever responded? I mean, because the text is copypasta from other religious copypastas purporting to debunk Richard Dawkins. Who cares anyway? I don't even like Dawkins much.

Hamza Tzortzis wrote it first. he could have used references. But there are none on his blog. So most likely others copied from him.

And why do you not like dawkins? he seems like a reptilian but decent one.

[inqilab]

i think it was ben stein "clear eyes" guy. Who did a documentary on intelligent designer. He met dawkins and asked him to put a number on his theory. meaning how factual is it. He said 99.9% but not 100%. So he himself is not fully convinced i guess.

[ozymandias]

Levanay You are wondering that how hazrat yonas survived inside fish? because according to you scientifically it cant be proved.
now answer me.
Black magic has confirmed effects, but it cant be scientifically proved, is'nt?

Um... since when? If 'black magic' can be measured, why has no one collected James Randi's $1 million prize?

[ozymandias]

Atheist don't have a solid foundation or principles to follow, their beliefs simply change as science expands. What they fail to do and haven't done, is to explain why.

And that is a bad thing?

Science changes and adapts to changing evidence. It admits when it is wrong, and is constantly striving for a better understanding of the world.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a collection of illiterate and semi-literate shepherds knew all there is to know about the world -- and it is the evidence that is wrong.

I know which camp *I* want to follow -- the ones that admit when they are wrong and are willing to try and correct the issue as quickly as possible -- as opposed to that which has been wrong for as long as it has been around.

[ozymandias]

i think it was ben stein "clear eyes" guy. Who did a documentary on intelligent designer. He met dawkins and asked him to put a number on his theory. meaning how factual is it. He said 99.9% but not 100%. So he himself is not fully convinced i guess.

And it all becomes clear. You simply do not understand logic, or the scientific method, and you assume your failure to understand is a flaw in science, and not yourself.

So, prove to me to 100% certainty that I do not have an invisible dragon with magical powers living in my garage. You can come close, and you can make it virtually certain.

Due to the nature of 'gods' you cannot *prove* they do not exist, for one thing, you can only prove them highly unlikely.

Second, there are non-supernatural theories that could be correct, that are not Dawkin's theory. A true scientist is never certain, they are just sure to a very high probability.

[imb706]

If it's some original writing, why does it bear the same title and much of the same text as other copypasta floating around the internet. (I found this exact article referenced at Richard Dawkins website, it seems they thought it was terribly pathetic: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/view...4476d&start=10) The book that the article is a cheap knock off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

[ozymandias]

It is terribly pathetic. I just skimmed over it (I tend to not read obvious copy/pastes) but I saw so many fallacies and logical inconsistencies that it was almost sad...

[inqilab]

I got it from his blog http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/20...o-richard.html

I just noticed he has the comments section open. So maybe you guys can show him the light and post on there.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias. you never posted your views a lot of people here want to know what you think of things.


we all learned a few new views in that thread you started that helped. We learned diff aspects but I d like to learn more.

I am a college student and my mind is open to new ideas.

It's finals week -- and it is also 'my major 9 month production system that I am implementing for work goes live in 3 days' week. I have made a few attempts to make a thread introducing myself, but did not like what I wrote yet..

Two things I try to do is respond to every post I can, and *never* reply directly to copy/paste posts. I'll try to reply to things as they come up -- but I won't give the effort to refute the original post directly. That just leads to people copy/pasting more stuff in defense of the original post, and ends up being a waste of time...