He may have a refined English accent, but he should have said “there have been various attempts” not, “there has been various attempts”.
Dawkins’ grammar is on par with his philosophy.
And the Brights are still Dull.
He may have a refined English accent, but he should have said “there have been various attempts” not, “there has been various attempts”.
Dawkins’ grammar is on par with his philosophy.
And the Brights are still Dull.
There is a website called the Brights where atheists can gather and feel at home in the Koinonia of unbelief. According to the site:
- A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
- A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
- The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
Unfortunately, every encounter I’ve had with an atheist belies the rather arrogant epithet they have appropriated for themselves. Most atheists are more interested in the mindless, formulaic repetition of the creeds of contemporary atheism than in carefully scrutinising the consequences of their philosophical position: they really are not very bright.
This, in a way, is good news for Christians since it provides both the motive to explore the reasons why Christianity holds together as an explanation for the meaning of human life, and countless opportunities to give atheists a satisfying poke in the eye with the rationality of which they believe themselves to be the sole custodians.
Regrettably, the intellect of most atheists is insufficiently adroit to alert them to the fact that they have been thoroughly routed; this only lessens the euphoria very slightly.