Google+ Followers

Friday, 17 July 2009

Bill Muehlenberg Verses Richard Dawkins

Yes, that's right. Bill hates Dawkins with a passion and rants against him in many of his blogs. The trouble is, he's never actually read any of Dawkins's books, as his pathetic straw man rebuttals all too painfully show. If he has read any, he certainly hasn't understood them.

Here are some choice quotes from the mighty intellect of Muehlenberg when he's discussing Richard Dawkins (a world renowned intellectual).

Many years ago when I read the short volume by atheist Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, I thought: there is not much substance to this. Generalisations, straw men, red herrings and misrepresentations seemed to characterise the book. In many ways that is how I regard Dawkins’ book. It is longer, more sophisticated and more comprehensive, but it bears the same traits as found in Russell’s l927 tract.

Note he fails to give any examples. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm convinced.

Indeed, there are atheists and there are atheists. The garden-variety don’t like religion, don’t like God and don’t like people who do. Then there is the especially hard-core variety. These are atheists who are on a mission, an evangelistic crusade to save the world from religion. They hate religion and are convinced it must be eradicated at all costs. Such atheists have every bit as much zeal and fanaticism in their secular jihad as a religious person ever will. Richard Dawkins is a classic example of the atheist storm-trooper.

Yah, that's right. Richard Dawkins's days are very busy. He springs out of bed to throw acid in girls' faces who want to attend school, then he sets off explosions in hotels and on busy streets in the name of atheism. After lunch he arranges for his "followers" to fly planes into buildings. Once he's done that, he orders everyone who disagrees with him to be slaughtered. He claims he knows the only truth. Yah, Bill, that Dawkins is just as bad.

The Oxford biologist has been spewing forth anti-religious bigotry and animosity for some time now.

Change Oxford biologist to bearded American fuckwit and anti-religious to anti-gay and "PING!" as if by magic, you have conjured up Bill Muehlenberg. Poor you. Only this time the description fits.

The other is the overwhelming arrogance, pomposity and self-assuredness of the author. He can admit to no wrong, and will not allow any quarter from his enemies.

Where in the book do you find this, Bill? That's right, you don't. Have you seen the third edition of The Selfish Gene with 100 pages of footnotes citing new work by scientists and admitting mistakes in the original? No. You see, science and scientists can do that, and it makes them better and more respectable. Whereas religion claims it's never wrong. Doctrine of infallibility, anyone?

But leaving aside the sheer nastiness and arrogance of the author and his style

The sheer hypocricy of this made me laugh for about half an hour.

His superficial assault on the gospels are wrong on almost every count. He claims they were “written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul”. While the gospel of John was probably written sometime in the 90s, Mark could well have been written in the late 50s or early 60s. Matthew and Luke also were written sometime in the 60s. And the writings of Paul were most likely penned between the late 40s and the mid 60s.

Yah, so that makes it a superficial assault. What's half a century in an illiterate place with only word of mouth story telling, full of credulous goatherds. So the stories that are eventually written down by people who never even met Jesus or any of his apostles and weren't even born at the time are, what? Reliable?? Eye-witness accounts???

Who else do we know of living so long ago having such reliable testimony?

FFS. It's like talking to a child. Which explains why none of the 60-odd historians working at the time of Jesus mention him at all. Anything in Josephus? Tacitus (only very possible fleeting mention of a Jewish troublemaker)? Suetonius? Pliny the Younger? You guessed it - zip. As any historian will tell you. As for who else, try Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Julius Caesar: pretty much any historical figure from the ancient Graeco-Roman world, you fuckwit.

He also makes this bizarre claim: In both Testaments “‘Love thy neighbor’ didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only ‘Love another Jew’.” Of course everything about Jesus – both word and deed – argued just the opposite.

Again, ask any reliable historian. Yawn.

And one can ask where exactly this love and respect is supposed to come from in a dog-eat-dog Darwinist world. If species survival is the main point about life, how does such a concept as love fit in? Sure, Dawkins offers the usual Darwinian case for altruism, but one is left far from convinced.

Proves he's never read any Dawkins, nor understands the first thing about reciprocal altruism. Yep, unless we're told how to be good by a sky fairy, it'll be fucking in the streets all the way down. The bible's just so much more convincing. What a fucking retard.

But the facts of history are quite clear. Our atheistic regimes have been history’s greatest killing machines.And as I already wrote, atheists have been responsible for more killing in the world than any other group. Hitler and Stalin, for example, certainly did believe in what they were doing, and they certainly did believe they were right.

So he's not even bothered to read The God Delusion before attacking it in such an infantile and unconvincing way. There's a whole chapter on this in Dawkins's book, and in Hitchens's God is Not Great. Hitler was a Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church supported his appointment and encouraged the people to bring Mussolini into power. As for Stalin, there's no correlation between his atheism and the people he killed. You may as well say millions died because he had a moustache. The same mistake is made with Chairman Mao. Millions died because they starved because Mao was an idiot who got his policies wrong and nobody dared point this out to him. His atheism is irrelevant.

Try reading the book, Bill. You might actually learn something.

This is even more incredible, Bill's rebuttal to Dawkins's The Selfish Gene:

Presumably in such a world truth means very little as well. After all, if humans are nothing but a bunch of selfish genes, then why should truth matter at all? If life is simply a purposeless struggle for survival, then why would it show any interest in truth or falsehood?

Yah, he's read the title. Nice try, Bill. Read the book before sitting at the grown-up table. You have no argument.

No comments:

Post a Comment