Do you know that one of the leading lights of UD, Michael Behe, had his son recently deconvert to atheism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Jesus. I heard he's really bitter about it.
From the article:
"Just how strong are Richard Dawkins’ arguments? Does he present anything new? "
Uh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand.
Do you know that one of the leading lights of anti-theism, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, had her son convert to Christian theism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Anti-theism. I heard she was really bitter about it, until she disappeared under suspicious circumstances and her anti-theistic buddies moved in and took over her stuff, without bothering to report her missing btw.
Uh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand.
"Do you know that one of the leading lights of UD, Michael Behe, had his son recently deconvert to atheism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Jesus. I heard he's really bitter about it."
1. So how does someone leaving Christianity invalidate the points made in the book review? Feel free to continue using your amazing secular liberal logic to respond.
2. The fact that you think it's "a great retribution" actually tells people more about you than Behe.
"Uh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand."
1. If it's true Dawkins wrote a popular book which can be understood by the general populace, then there's no need to look at the technical literature. That's not what Dawkins expects.
2. What's wrong with "a book popularizing existing ideas"? Isn't a book popularizing science in part what Oxford University expected when they appointed Dawkins as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (although he's since retired)?
3. What specific "technical literature" do you have in mind?
4. People like Steve Hays and the others who post on Triablogue have looked at a fair bit of the "technical literature." Just search the archives. Or if you're too lazy, let me Google that for you.
Do you know that one of the leading lights of UD, Michael Behe, had his son recently deconvert to atheism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Jesus. I heard he's really bitter about it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
"Just how strong are Richard Dawkins’ arguments? Does he present anything new? "
Uh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand.
Do you know that one of the leading lights of anti-theism, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, had her son convert to Christian theism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Anti-theism. I heard she was really bitter about it, until she disappeared under suspicious circumstances and her anti-theistic buddies moved in and took over her stuff, without bothering to report her missing btw.
ReplyDeleteUh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand.
LOL!
In Christ,
CD
Secular Liberal said:
ReplyDelete"Do you know that one of the leading lights of UD, Michael Behe, had his son recently deconvert to atheism? Seems to me to be a great retribution for a Liar for Jesus. I heard he's really bitter about it."
1. So how does someone leaving Christianity invalidate the points made in the book review? Feel free to continue using your amazing secular liberal logic to respond.
2. The fact that you think it's "a great retribution" actually tells people more about you than Behe.
"Uh, dude, Richard Dawkins wrote a book popularizing existing ideas. If you want to look at something new, go read some technical literature. Unfortunately, the scope of the arguments contained there is probably too complex for UD's dull readership to understand."
1. If it's true Dawkins wrote a popular book which can be understood by the general populace, then there's no need to look at the technical literature. That's not what Dawkins expects.
2. What's wrong with "a book popularizing existing ideas"? Isn't a book popularizing science in part what Oxford University expected when they appointed Dawkins as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (although he's since retired)?
3. What specific "technical literature" do you have in mind?
4. People like Steve Hays and the others who post on Triablogue have looked at a fair bit of the "technical literature." Just search the archives. Or if you're too lazy, let me Google that for you.