Category Archives: Richard Dawkins

There's Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th

Posted on by
2

Richard Dawkins has refused to debate William Lane Craig during the Reasonable Faith tour. Up until now I had been labouring under the assumption that Dawkins was simply too pusillanimous to debate Craig since he knew he would be in for a good thumping delivered with nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

But now there is a new theory that is about to be plastered over Oxford buses: since he won’t be at the debate, we won’t see or hear him, therefore there is no evidence for his existence – by his own measure, Dawkins is as real as the flying spaghetti monster. At one time he did exist, of course: he existed on Youtube. But outside video-sharing mythology, I am not so sure. He may be living proof – well, non-living proof – that cogito ergo sum really works: he refused to debate Craig, demonstrating that he doesn’t think. He realised his mistake too late and, before he could even mutter “oh Darwin” –  poof! was gone.

From here:

A message with a familiar ring to it will be rolling out on the side of buses in Oxford from 10th of October. ‘There’s Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre’

The advertising campaign follows Richard Dawkins’ refusal to publicly debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when he visits the UK in October. He has an open invitation to debate Craig at Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre on 25th October.

The Oxford bus campaign echoes the 2009 London atheist bus advertisements: ‘There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life.’

Richard Dawkins: the Magic of Hypocrisy

Posted on by
5

Richard Dawkins has refused to debate William Lane Craig; his excuses have included a classic piece of projection: “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.”

Someone kindly emailed me this poster which, if you click on it, will reveal a high resolution version suitable for printing and attaching to the side of a bus.

Richard Dawkins promotes his new devotional

Posted on by
Reply

Further evidence that the atheism of Richard Dawkins is a religion: he wants his book to be read as a family devotional.

 

Amongst the condescending smarm, at around 1:42, Dawkins intones this:

Among the myths in several of the chapters, you’ll find the Judeo-Christian myth – not given any special privileged position, but just tucked in there somewhere……

What I want to know is, if some nincompoop invented Christianity, why didn’t he make it easier to be an adherent of it?

After all, the aim of contemporary new age religions is to make everyone just feel good, often with the assistance of the inhalation of illegal substances. Who in his right mind would invent a religion whose incentive to join was imminent death and torture?

 

Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig and self-promotion

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Dawkins has consistently refused to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. The most plausible explanation for Dawkins’ uncharacteristic reticence is that he is afraid he would lose; he is correct.

Among Dawkins’ excuses is this: “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.”

Dawkins is not known for being a man of self-effacing humility. In fact, he knows a great deal about a “relentless drive for self-promotion”: his website sells a bumper sticker with his name on it in large letters:

Dawkins’ tendency to indulge in emotion tirades against anyone with whom he disagrees – his “the Pope is a leering old villain in a frock” harangue, for example – stands in stark contrast to Craig’s relentless logic. Unable to defeat Craig on the ground on which he, himself, claims to stand – reason – Dawkins has resorted to his old standby: insults.

 

Richard Dawkins deserves a Darwin Award

Posted on by
2

There aren’t many men daft enough to publicly attack feminists, but Richard Dawkins has gone where male angels fear to tread and done just that.

I nominate Dawkins for a Darwin Award: his genes have just been deselected.

Read it all here, where you will find Dawkins described as the worst villain a person can be in class warfare – a “wealthy old heterosexual white man”.

What will Dawkins do to exonerate himself?: Have a gay fling? Take sensitivity awareness training for atheists? Give all his money to an atheist charity – even though there aren’t any? Have a sex change along with skin pigmentation enhancements?

One thing he won’t do is apologise, because being an atheist means you never have to say you’re sorry: after all, atheists rely on science so they are always right.

Richard Dawkins is troubled by the fine tuning of the universe

Posted on by
1

From here:

Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe.

“If they (constants in the universe) were set at a value that was just a tiny bit different, one part in a billion, the whole thing wouldn’t work anymore,” said Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, during the 31st Annual Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif.

These constants regarding the behavior of matter and energy – such as strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and the speed of light – have to be precisely right during the Big Bang for life as we know it to exist.

“To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability,” said the world renowned scientist.

“That forces a conclusion. If you are an atheist, either it is just a lucky break and the odds are so remote, or you have to go to this multiverse hypothesis, which says that there must be almost an infinite number of parallel universes that have different values of those constants,” explained Collins to Christian scholars of various disciplines in the audience. “And of course we are here and so we must have won the lottery, we must be in the one where everything worked.”

Ironically, employing the multiverse theory to explain the fine tuning of the universe requires more blind faith than belief in a Creator; yet it’s a faith that eminent scientists like Dawkins and Hawking are willing to embrace in their eagerness to avoid acknowledging that there really is a God.  The fact that the multiverse theory lacks empirical testability and is unfalsifiable, places it in the same category as  belief in fairies, a belief which Dawkins compares to religious faith and frequently enjoys deriding: such is the measure of his desperation to flee from God.

In other atheist news, Polly Toynbee will go where Dawkins fears to tread: into a debate with William Lane Craig. Toynbee doesn’t possess the intellectual equipment to avoid being trounced; it should be fun.

From here:

The President of the British Humanist Association (BHA), Polly Toynbee, is to debate the existence of God with eminent Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, when he visits the UK for a tour of speaking engagements in October.

Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A C Grayling have both declined the invitation to debate with Craig.

Richard Dawkins thinks religion is 'hijacking' the Bible

Posted on by
6

From here:

Religion should not be allowed to “hijack” the great cultural resource of the Bible, according to the atheist scientist Professor Richard Dawkins.

Asked by the Labour MP Frank Field, chairman of the King James Bible Trust, what the Bible meant to him, he said: “I think it is important to make the case that the Bible is part of our heritage and it doesn’t have to be tied to religion.

“It’s of historic interest, it’s of literary interest, and it’s important that religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource.

“You can’t appreciate English literature unless you know something about the Greek gods. You can’t appreciate Wagner unless you know something about the Norse gods. You can’t appreciate English literature unless you are to some extent at least steeped in the King James Bible.”

This is extraordinarily absurd, even for Richard Dawkins. Without Christianity, which he so despises, there would have been no Bible; without the Church, which he so loathes, the Bible would not have been preserved and without faithful Christians, who Dawkins keeps calling idiots, no-one would have bothered to read the Bible.

Dawkins wants Christendom without Christianity, Western civilisation without the bedrock on which it was founded and morality without God. Well, he can’t have them.

If anyone is trying to hijack the Bible, it is Dawkins and his coterie of cockamamie atheists.

Who’s a cowardy custard?

Posted on by
2

Richard Dawkins is because he won’t debate William Lane Craig.

From here:

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

[…..]

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Self-promotion is a completely alien concept to Dawkins, of course; that’s why his web site is not just a shrine to atheism but to the Great Man himself: richarddawkins.net, the “Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – a Clear Thinking Oasis”.

Not sufficiently clear thinking to take on William Lane Craig, though.