Andrew Brown reaches a new low in his opinion piece in today’s Guardian. I really am getting awfully tired of the falsehoods that he and people like him (Theo Hobson springs to mind) trot out whenever they mention the name of Richard Dawkins.
Strawman Alert
Categories:
8 responses to “Strawman Alert”
-
Yes. Agree. I have, however, seen some more rational pull downs of Dawkins, who does indeed have flaws in both his reasoning and understanding of what it is to believe. I don’t have that much time for the man, not because he opposes belief, which is his natural right, but because of faulty logic and connections, and because he descends into polemic. People with an agenda so often do.
-
And his agenda is?
-
Gelert, please give references for these pull-downs. I’ve not seen anything so far that I find convincing. And I like polemic, I think it has value.
-
It’s not ‘pull downs’ – that would be to fall into the same trap, but I have seen some good responses to what he says, which addresses the errors he makes, I will track em down if I can.
I don’t argue with his view – its how he expresses it, and the fact that he makes errors in what he states. I feel he is not interested in discussing so much as spouting. He is a ‘fundamental atheist’ as much as any fundamental believer, and seems more interested in hammering his own opinion than actually engaging in debate. I’ve heard atheists on the topic many times, but doing it with interest, debate, respect and a willingness to be corrected, learn, or even be wrong. I don’t any of that in him, that’s all.
He debates it like someone whose personal issues are in the way of the subject matter, and he offers statements as ‘definites’ that I, as a believer know are simply not. I have a lot of time for his other work, I just don’t respect his style of discussion on this topic, too much agenda behind it. -
Is there a prob. with the link to that ‘value’ marker? It won’t let me access it.
-
Gelert, sorry, yes – a malformed link. Here’s the proper one.
-
Gelert, clearly, we have different opinions on Dawkins. I prefer his straightforward manner, but I can understand that it can make some folks very uncomfortable. I saw that in action at the Beyond Belief Conference in 2006. But, I don’t see that as being "more interested in hammering his own opinion than actually engaging in debate". And, please give me examples of "offering statements as ‘definites’ that I, as a believer know are simply not".
-
I’ll come back to you on this one – I’m looking out that reposte I mentioned.
Geoff Coupe's Blog 
Leave a reply to Gelert Cancel reply