Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Richard Dawkins As King Of The Shallow

with 6 comments

Time and time again we have commented on the lack of depth in the arguments of Richard Dawkins and it is high time he proved he could have substance.  We have seen Muslim apologetics do better homework than Dawkins.  For example , Ahmed Deedat, the father of Muslim verbal jihad, was a more formidable beast than all the four horsemen combined, with him you knew that he would be unpredicatable and come up with great arguments but that magic is not there with the New Atheists.  Have you seen the new Atheist debate Muslims? They will pull out a sword and chase you round the stage with a sword if you spoke out against the” exalted one”(Muhammed).  They have done before  in debate settings, they tried to cage Anis Shorrosh (christian speaker) and stab him when he was in South Africa but they injured the wrong man.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Written by dawkinswatch

March 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I believe that you just criticized atheists for…

    wait for it…

    Not resorting to violence.

    J. Frantz

    March 10, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  2. The guy in this video has nothing substantive to say. He even suggests that D’Souza is a convert; he’s not, he was raised Christian.

    J. Frantz

    March 10, 2008 at 10:26 pm

  3. So, the trend which indicates people tend to stay in the religious tradition of their birth/childhood doesn’t exist?

    The classic atheist response to the “What if you’re wrong?” question is something along the lines of “Yahweh/Allah/Jesus/Zeus/Odin etc etc etc (pick a god), you gave me a rational brain, and yet didn’t leave enough evidence to convince that brain”.

    In the video, I believe the questioner was attempting to invoke Pascal’s Wager, which is a pretty poor argument for belief.

    What if you’re wrong, and the muslims are right? You and Dawkins will be in the same boat in that case, thought the response above won’t be available to you. 🙂


    March 11, 2008 at 5:31 am

  4. .”


    March 11, 2008 at 7:08 am

  5. Also, Dawkins point is a very good one about provincialism. I happen to like how Carl Sagan expressed the ridiculousness of religious provincialism though, in Pale Blue Dot (pages 8):

    “Ann Druyan suggests and experiment: Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn’t strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?”

    But the guy in the YouTube clip is partly right – it’s not a deep-thinking answer. Shallow thinking *deserves* a simple response, and Dawkins gave it. The religious scholars he mentions are sophists, who rationalize the improbable as a career, and their mindless followers eat it up, without ever actually questioning the credibility of the religious claims.


    March 11, 2008 at 7:18 am

  6. havok muslims have never claimed to be right just read the koran and you will see what I mean.


    March 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: