Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: PvM <>
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 23:27:39 EDT

Why should I address where Dawkins is mistaken? That's not my discussion. I
have however outlined where I believe Dawkins is wrong.

Wow, now I am not only brainwashed but tendentious and having an axe to
grind. This group surely has an interesting viewpoint on what motivates

I see no reason why anyone should dialogue with me who insists that I answer
irrelevant questions. I believe that I have raised some relevant issues and
if the list prefers to ignore them, I will not resort to ad hominems, or
doubt their motives or any of the other behaviors I have witnessed in
response to my questions.

On 5/7/07, Blake J. Nelson <> wrote:
> Pim,
> Why don't you simply explain where you think Dawkins is mistaken?
> That seems to be all anyone is questioning.
> You did not answer any of my direct questions (which I am not sure made
> the
> list), so for different reasons, I suspect that for whatever reason you
> are
> simply being tendentious. People who don't answer direct and
> straight-forward questions are often tendentious and often have particular
> axes to grind.
> Again, to make it simple, let's start with ONE question -- where do YOU
> think Dawkins is wrong about Christianity or theism? Take your pick, but
> please answer the question. (IMO, if you don't answer, there is clearly no
> reason anyone should try to dialogue with you.)
> Thanks,
> Blake
> The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended
> only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed
> and
> may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and
> exempt
> from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message,
> or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by return
> E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your
> computer. Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:18 PM
> To: Iain Strachan
> Cc: Jack; Rich Blinne; David Campbell;
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
> This is interesting, people doubt me being a Christian, consider me to
> 'lovingly' quote from Dawkins and now have resorted to insisting that I
> must
> be brainwashed?
> And for what reason do I deserve this interesting treatment?
> I am glad to hear that there are indeed some on this list who seem to have
> read Dawkins but then I wonder how the reach conclusions which do not seem
> to follow from Dawkins' arguments. I am not sure what this conclusion is
> that you reached independently from Plantinga, but let me assure you that
> Plantinga is arguing quite a strawman here.
> So far I am not impressed by plantinga's response which consists of some
> ad
> hominem remarks, some fallacious claims, and a review of Dawkins' other
> book
> rather than a review of the arguments made in TGD.
> On 5/7/07, Iain Strachan <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/7/07, PvM <> wrote:
> > > As I have shown however, Dawkins argument is not presuming that
> > > materialism is true, on the contrary. Plantinga is arguing a clever
> > > strawman of his own creation here. Having read Dawkins, I do have to
> > > admit that I may have some advantage here.
> >
> >
> > Have you any idea how arrogant and presumptuous that sounds? You
> > can't claim to have an advantage over me because I also have read
> > Dawkins (and plenty of other people on the list have read him as well
> > - how can you presume that you're the only one who's read him
> > properly??). I've read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, River
> > out of Eden, and, as of today around 180 pages of The God Delusion,
> > including the central chapter on "Why God almost certainly does not
> > exist". I arrived at precisely the same conclusion as Plantinga
> > independently - that the probability argument only works if you treat
> > God as part of the material universe. Dawkins wants to show that God
> > can only have arisen via an evolutionary process - a completely
> > ludicrous idea unless you insist that God is only a part of the material
> universe.
> >
> > You can't claim superiority because you've read Dawkins and I haven't.
> > I've read it with just as much care as you have, and I've come to a
> > different conclusion to you - that his argument is a load of baloney.
> >
> > Others have pointed out your apparent brainwashing. I agree with them.
> >
> > Iain
> >
> >
> >
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> [image: 0]

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 7 23:27:52 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 07 2007 - 23:27:52 EDT