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.
Regards,
Blake
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:28 PM
To: nelson.blake@gmail.com
Cc: igd.strachan@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu; pleuronaia@gmail.com; rich.blinne@gmail.com; drsyme@cablespeed.com
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
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 <nelson.blake@gmail.com>
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 thelist), so for different reasons, I suspect that for whatever reason you aresimply being tendentious. People who don't answer direct andstraight-forward questions are often tendentious and often have particularaxes to grind.Again, to make it simple, let's start with ONE question -- where do YOUthink Dawkins is wrong about Christianity or theism? Take your pick, butplease answer the question. (IMO, if you don't answer, there is clearly noreason anyone should try to dialogue with you.)Thanks,BlakeThe contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intendedonly for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed andmay contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exemptfrom disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are herebynotified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message,or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received thismessage in error, please notify the original sender immediately by returnE-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from yourcomputer. Thank you.-----Original Message-----From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] OnBehalf Of PvMSent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:18 PMTo: Iain StrachanCc: Jack; Rich Blinne; David Campbell; asa@calvin.eduSubject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and childrenThis is interesting, people doubt me being a Christian, consider me to'lovingly' quote from Dawkins and now have resorted to insisting that I mustbe 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 haveread Dawkins but then I wonder how the reach conclusions which do not seemto follow from Dawkins' arguments. I am not sure what this conclusion isthat you reached independently from Plantinga, but let me assure you thatPlantinga is arguing quite a strawman here.So far I am not impressed by plantinga's response which consists of some adhominem remarks, some fallacious claims, and a review of Dawkins' other bookrather than a review of the arguments made in TGD.On 5/7/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:>>> On 5/7/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 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 materialuniverse.>> 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 majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribeasa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
