RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: Blake J. Nelson <>
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 23:41:31 EDT
Sorry that should have been indignance, not ordinance.  That's illustrative of the dangers of spell-checkers automatically changing words at the inadvertent click of a button.

You are tendentious, and I apologize for not seeing where you have outlined where Dawkins is wrong.  I certainly don't see it in this post.  Please enlighten the listserv.
Dawkins is certainly tendentious for reasons I have outlined before. 
What's your response to the Dawkins arguments you copy and paste?

I would really like to know.  And you can save ordinance for later, please enlighten us.
BTW, I did not call you brainwashed, so that assertion is tendentious as well.
Since you raise Dawkins' arguments as very, very important and misunderstood, it seems your rebuttal to them or at least the reason why they don't cause you to abandon your Christianity and join Dawkins forthwith are very, very relevant?

Rather than being indignant, if you disagree with any of the above, please explain why rather than resorting to vacuous claims of simply being dismayed or accused of something which I have not accused you of.  Or, since you seem so keen on it, why don't you advance the ball and explain why YOU think Dawkins wrong.

From: PvM []
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

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 people.

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:
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.)
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-----
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
> 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.



NrzǧuƠz&j:+vqow{.n+-zƬܨ~^,Received on Mon May 7 23:42:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 07 2007 - 23:42:26 EDT