Richard Dawkins

My new article points out that Massimo Pigliucci noted a tendency towards what he terms:

...some atheists suffer from hero worship and a selective dearth of critical thinking…

Here is the link to my article:
Three way atheistfracas: Massimo Pigliucci, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins

Here is a video on atheism and science in general:

Here is a little video of Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, et al., claiming that were are apes…and should be proud of it to boot!

This glorified animal approach is part of atheism’s consoling delusions: the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy and the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability.

Just posted the sort of story that I wish I never had to post.

Rejoicing in terrorism: Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik

In short, Anders Breivik is precisely as much a Christian as is Richard Dawkins and Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic.

Here is Anders Behring Breivik in Free Mason regalia:

In my essay Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins? I pondered whether William Lane Craig would debate Richard Dawkins—or rather, the other way around.
For his part, Richard Dawkins had stated the following, “I’ve never heard of William Craig…A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!” (how does he know, if he has never hear of him???)

The talent, erudition and style of G. K. Chesterton is such that to name him in the same sentence as Richard Dawkins does violence to his memory.

Yet, he so rightly elucidated the position of, the fallacious folly of, personages such as Richard Dawkins that it seemed worthwhile to point out the following. Richard Dawkins is most certainly not the only one to whom the following applies but he is rather exemplary.

In his book Heretics G. K. Chesterton writes—in addition to noting that “Atheism itself is too theological”—the following:

Being a well-within-the-box-atheist-group-thinker Richard Dawkins cannot expand his mind outwards to that which a finite universe implies.

He continues to looking for God in all the wrong places (and in all the wrong ways).

As long as his adherents make excuses for him I do not suspect that Richard Dawkins will run out of reasons—excuses rather—for refusing to debate certain undesirable personages.

Richard Dawkins has, yet again, broken one of his very own new ten commandments (of which there are fifteen) as number eight states, “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent.”

You simply must appreciate the lucidity with which Richard Dawkins expresses his ignorance:

[FYI: this post was just moved over from its previous cyber home]

This may be occasion for presenting Richard Dawkins with the Can Dish it Out But Cannot Take it award.
Except that Phillip Pullman has already deserved it as shown here.

Indeed, following on Phillip Pullman’s steps, Richard Dawkins suddenly turned into the prim and proper English gentleman and reacts towards disparaging remarks made towards him with a Oh, my! attitude.

Interesting question, as Richard Dawkins has stated, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Yet, he has stated the following of David Berlinski:

…at least when it is convenient that is, until they are challenged at which time they switch to the weak, almost certain, 99% sure, etc. sect/denomination of atheism:

Richard Dawkins, “God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”

PZ Myers, “gods don't exist.”

William Provine, “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind.”

Michael Shermer, “there is no God, intelligent designer, or anything resembling the divinity.”

Let us fact the fact that The God Delusion is a great book.

It is a great book if you want to witness the utter bankruptcy of atheist apologetics.

It is great for a window into how very, very popular one can get even whilst basing arguments on poor history, poor logic, poor science and poor biblical hermeneutics.

Great for seeing how a scientist can actually appeal to “luck” in order to explain life and the universe itself.

Indeed, these are the go to guys if you want to learn how to manipulate your audience’s emotions by misusing, misinterpreting, misapplying, mishandling and misunderstanding the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts and thereby take texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.

Ivy League institutes of higher learning were established by Christians with theological foundations: Yale, Harvard, Brown, Cornell, et al. Later on liberals and atheists of all sorts, not being able or willing, to establish anything original, latched onto them in leech like manner and turned them into universities to diversities: that is, from institutions of higher learning which sought to bring together all disciplines into a coherent worldview into institutions that replaces wisdom with chaotically scattered information.

In this clip James White references natural theology/general revelation within the context of distinguishing between God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc.—which I wrote about here—and emphasizes that what drives the popularity of the New Atheists is their audience’s ignorance and un-skeptical acceptance of presuppositions.

I think that Richard Dawkins could make a bundle by publishing his grocery shopping list. He, and likewise atheists, should thank God every day for without besmirching Him by their spoken and published word they would have to get real jobs.

Here is a, very short, list of books responding to atheism in general, the new atheism more specifically and especially to Richard Dawkins:

See the Books section for more titles on various subjects.

As is the case with much New Atheist literature; well-within-the-box-atheist-groupthink-talking-points are passed off as silver bullets, loaded to finally destroy theistic arguments.
Yet, just as often the silver bullets are smoke and mirrors and snake oil—the exciting but fallacious stuff of fiction.

If given the slightest opportunity he most certainly will yet…opportunity is being withheld via Richard Dawkins’ self-serving selection of refusing to debate certain personages.

As for William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins has stated, “I've never heard of William Craig” and that he will not debate this stranger as “A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!” He has further “elucidated”