1. Comment #21941 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:40 am

I'm tired of Alister mgrath. He's a hack.

Other Comments by Conrad

2. Comment #21952 by ross on February 12, 2007 at 1:23 am

Mr. McGrath's tactics are subversive. A shameful example of twisting another's words to achieve one's own ends. So much for not bearing false witness.
Especially the suggestion that Mr. Dawkins is disdainful of an entire people and not just their belief system.

Other Comments by ross

3. Comment #21975 by Henri Bergson on February 12, 2007 at 2:46 am

McGrath states, "No-one has ever seen a virus of the mind." Well, firstly virus is used here metaphorically (no-one has seen the 'virus' of terrorism); secondly , one can see the manifestations of this metaphorical virus as one can see the manifestation of a biological virus (looking ill): the church.

Furthermore, McGrath's overlong, proud refutation of Dawkins' minor point that belief in Santa is analogous to belief in God – that we do not begin believing in Santa as adults, misses the point. The point being that there is as much proof for Santa as there is for God – believing in the latter at an older age simply betrays a psychological or intellectual flaw. People with neither, have done with both Santa and God at an early stage.

McGrath is a theologian, not a philosopher.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

4. Comment #21980 by 601 on February 12, 2007 at 3:05 am

Although tedious to listen to the whole thing, I was quite pleased. McGrath seems to be on the run, and the audience was not that supportive. A theologian enthusiastic to debate the existance of god is a clear defeat. Of course the cynic in me suspects he wants to debate Dawkins to promote his new book.

Other Comments by 601

5. Comment #21981 by Kristian Z on February 12, 2007 at 3:25 am

His refutation of the Santa analogy seems rather void. No one is claiming that analogy is the same as identity. Of course there will be differences. He points out one difference (people do not become Santa-believers in adulthood), and he could have pointed out countless other differences. What he fails to do, is to address the point of the analogy, namely the similarity between Santa-faith and God-faith, or for that matter, faith in the FSM, Scientology's Xenu alien, Superman or celestial teapots.

Also, he claims that Dawkins's inclusion on the "top intellectuals list" was featured prominently in his book. Is it even mentioned at all? I can't remember reading it, and I can't find it when looking for it now. In any case, it cannot be very prominently featured.

Other Comments by Kristian Z

6. Comment #21986 by Jiten on February 12, 2007 at 4:25 am

I couldn't listen to the whole of this drivel.Same old tired rubbish.Wouldn't he be embarassed saying this in front of Dennett,Harris and Dawkins if they were in the audience?

Perhaps he SHOULD dedicate himself to writing detective novels from now on.

Other Comments by Jiten

7. Comment #21987 by Rakel on February 12, 2007 at 5:03 am

He obviously hasn't read his bible. He invites people to mention him single point in gospel where Christianity comes up as violent. How about Jesus using a whip in temple? There were people he didn't like (moneylenders/exchangers and whatnot) and he drove them out. With a whip. With is own divine hands :P

Other Comments by Rakel

8. Comment #21999 by Lionel A on February 12, 2007 at 8:21 am

McGrath delivers in a slow, almost pulpital metre, a strange diatribe here, one which intentionally misleads the rather compliant audience. Indeed I began to wonder if 'The God Delusion' that McGrath claims to have read was the same as the one I have recently read. I have to work from memory here as my copy has moved on to my son.

Who are these, 'so many scientists [in Oxford] who are Christians...'?

Predictably he brings in Stephen Jay Gould but ignores the fact that Dawkins and Gould had exchanged correspondence and so Richard was fairly certain of Gould's position for example when he wrote 'A Devil's Chaplain'.

Predictably McGrath bangs on about Stalin's purges and opines that when the people refused to give up on their religion then the firing squads were sent in. What McGrath clearly has not grasped is that this was not a move in the name of atheism but a pogrom based upon dogmatic ideology and the need to reinforce control for Stalin. His accusation that those, he ensures that Dawkins is aimed at here, who claim that violence is not carried out in the name of atheism are living in Lala-land (was that a parrot I heard cawing in the background) is a rather pointed, and low jibe, one totally devoid of any validity.

McGrath makes many specious claims, including that Dawkins is particularly abusive of Judaism and that TGD does not differentiate between eradicating religious belief and eradicating religious people. Here one hears the weasel words 'arguably' and 'could', in association with 'lead to the stigmatisation of religious groups…'. I would ask, does not religion do that all on its own?


McGrath; 'Dawkin's makes statements with great rhetorical confidence… but very often the rhetorical confidence masks poor arguments and sometimes, frankly, abuse of evidence …', McGrath this is absurd, physician heal thyself.

To use an archaic expression once common in Georgian England, this sermon from McGrath is 'all stuff', stuff full of cheap, laughter raising shots which he knew were going to work given the nature of the venue and the audience. A more dishonest counter to the message in TGD is difficult to imagine.

I also had great trouble in persevering to the end of this tiresome piece, a piece which lacks the very fairness and objectivity that he castigates Dawkins for wanting.

McGrath please understand that violence is never carried out in the name of atheism and atheism is based upon the antithesis of dogmatism.

Why is it that interviewers of the Scott Sherman type use up so much time and employ so many words to establish such a simple thing as that Richard Dawkins is not the Stephen Hawking who is wheel chair bound?

I would like to see McGrath in debate with Dennett, Harris and Dawkins, and with an unbiased presenter, the poverty of his arguments would then be exposed for he dare not use his deception tactics there.

The Prospect magazine article alluded to early on, and previously cited here on 21st October 2006, is at:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

Other Comments by Lionel A

9. Comment #22000 by Richard Dawkins on February 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

Comment by Kristian Z
'Also, he claims that Dawkins's inclusion on the "top intellectuals list" was featured prominently in his book. Is it even mentioned at all? I can't remember reading it, and I can't find it when looking for it now. In any case, it cannot be very prominently featured.'

No it is most certainly NOT mentioned anywhere in the book. It is mentioned by the publisher, but that is nothing to do with the author, as McGrath himself obviously knows. Yet his clear intention in mentioning it must have been to imply that I had written it in the book itself. And the fact that the audience laughed indicated that they took exactly that implication. This is typical of McGrath's deceitful smear tactics.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

10. Comment #22007 by PrimeNumbers on February 12, 2007 at 9:14 am

"No-one has ever seen a virus of the mind." - but I say "No-one has ever seen a god". End of argument McGrath. At least we can all observe the effects of the mind virus.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

11. Comment #22033 by Linda on February 12, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Someone on the audio said that he couldn't find McGrath on youtube. Here at last 4 months after McGrath's anti-Dawkins dog and pony show someone has noticed:

February 02, 2007 - book review of 'The Twighlight of Atheism'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUQj99-PagY

Other Comments by Linda

12. Comment #22050 by StephenH on February 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm

At one point in the interview McGrath was asked a question, where the only sensible response was to give his own thoughts, he started his reply with "Well Richard Dawkins says this...."

Seems as if the man is on a personal crusade

Chosing to title one of his books 'The Dawkins Delusion' - seems like a child-like playground response. You can tell, 'The God Delusion' offended him, so he's sticking out his tongue and going "nah nah na na nah"

I wouldn't debate him, i'd tell him to grow up

Other Comments by StephenH

13. Comment #22081 by Sancus on February 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Dawkins' labeling of religion as "infantile" and "childish" is not only invalid, it's also inconsistent with the aim of protecting children from indoctrination. It is to say that it is somehow appropriate for children to be religious.

My goodness, Richard. If you are perplexed over why your conciousness-raising has not succeeded up to now, there's your answer.

Other Comments by Sancus

14. Comment #22146 by john_eg on February 13, 2007 at 3:50 am

"McGrath makes many specious claims, including that Dawkins is particularly abusive of Judaism and that TGD does not differentiate between eradicating religious belief and eradicating religious people."

Personally I do find expressions like "faith-head" slightly abrasive. But the idea that he wants to eradicate religious people rather than just belief is unfounded.

Never mind that though, Is there anything at all to suggest he particularly dislikes judaism? If that is the case (is it? if anyone can find a specific quote supporting this please post it) it isn't good.

Or perhaps this isn't the case and McGrath rather is using the spectre of The Holocaust to suggest a future vision of death camp guards with The God Delusion in their back pocket. If so that is despicable.

Other Comments by john_eg

15. Comment #22150 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 4:17 am

When it comes to anti-Jewish rhetoric, you only have to look at the founding father of the Reformation , Martin Luther for some real cracking stuff:

(This comes from Wikipedia:

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a treatise written in January 1543 by Martin Luther, the German theologian, in which he advocated harsh persecution of the Jewish people, including that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. Luther argued that Jews should be shown no mercy or kindness, should have no legal protection, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. It is widely regarded by scholars as a significant work in the development of modern anti-Semitism. Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from this pamphlet, which was cited by the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer during the Nuremberg trials, to justify the Final Solution.

Luther of course is revered as one of the founders of the Reformation, the great Protestant, looked up to by todays "evangelicals" (AKA blind, bigoted faith heads)

Wonder what Prof McGrath makes of his statements, or , are they like the vile incidents that litter the Old Testament, just conveniently ignored, never preached upon, and if ever mentioned "oh you are just taking them out of context"

(Its a bit like the story of Calvin and the burning of Servetus - evangies squirm and twist and try to wriggle their way sematically round this hideous episode as well - after all, Calvin is their hero...)

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

16. Comment #22156 by Lionel A on February 13, 2007 at 4:51 am

Comment #22150 by scottishgeologist

'Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from this pamphlet, which was cited by the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer during the Nuremberg trials, to justify the Final Solution.'

Aye! And it was not by chance that the music of Richard Wagner was adopted with such zeal by that regime for Wagner is known to have extreme anti-Semitic views. There is no shortage of material on the web which covers this.

Other Comments by Lionel A

17. Comment #22158 by Lionel A on February 13, 2007 at 4:59 am

Comment #22146 by john_eg

'Or perhaps this isn't the case and McGrath rather is using the spectre of The Holocaust to suggest a future vision of death camp guards with The God Delusion in their back pocket.'

That is how I read McGrath's remarks.

'If so that is despicable.'

I agree. And I think that it is a hallmark of McGrath's tactics. He must have been really stung by TGD and his infantile response to name his book 'The Dawkin's Delusion' deserves all the derision it receives.

Other Comments by Lionel A

18. Comment #22180 by lpetrich on February 13, 2007 at 6:46 am

As to violence not being carried out in the name of atheism, I think that that's a weak claim, since atheism is often associated with being anti-religion, and there's been plenty of that sort of violence, notably Communist suppression and persecution of religion.

However, atheism is not necessarily an anti-religion position. One can believe in some atheist or more-or-less-atheist religion like philosophical Buddhism or Taoism. And one can believe that the religion business is desirable in a Plato-royal-lie or opium-for-the-people way.

Other Comments by lpetrich

19. Comment #22186 by lpetrich on February 13, 2007 at 7:00 am

Alister McGrath has claimed that nobody has ever seen a meme / mind virus. That is because a meme is an abstract idea, not a physical object.

And applying AMG's argument to abstract ideas in general would indicate that they do not exist, because they are not physical objects either.

Meaning that AMG is guilty of something that Richard Dawkins has sometimes been accused of: lack of philosophical sophistication.

Other Comments by lpetrich

20. Comment #22188 by epeeist on February 13, 2007 at 7:18 am

Comment #22150 by scottishgeologist

When it comes to anti-Jewish rhetoric, you only have to look at the founding father of the Reformation , Martin Luther for some real cracking stuff

And you don't have to look very much further to see what the Christians do to their own. I shall be walking in the Langue D'Oc this summer. I will try and visit Beziers, where the Abbot of Citeaux uttered the words "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet" (Kill them all; God will know his own) when asked what to do with the inhabitants of the town after it had been captured. All its inhabitants were killed.

Other Comments by epeeist

21. Comment #22194 by Linda on February 13, 2007 at 7:59 am

The Langue d'Oc is on my to-do list too! If only photography and TV was invented way back then and Roman Catholic hegemony exposed for perpetrating possibly the first European holocaust among the litany of other criminal acts. That provoked me to think about some of Leonardo's paintings and the symbolism used to outsmart his murderous Dominican employers. Leonardo seems to have put Cathar and tarot imagery in the Last Supper. I love how he used a bust of Plato as a model for the figure on the extreme right of the painting.

Why is Dominic de Guzman a celebrated Roman Catholic saint when it seems he perpetrated worse crimes against humanity than Mr. H. or even Saddam? De Guzman would be locked up in the Hague today hopefully.

As for Christian professing McGrath – has anyone pinned him down and asked with an open mike to his mouth if he believes that a virgin gave birth to Jesus and that after death he resurrected and his mom floated off to join him? Is that a scientific fact? Who does McGrath think invented all and sundry gods and religions if not human males? Are we a product of some clever techie playing and inventing Second Life realities?

http://secondlife.com/

If life on this planet is the direct result of a superbeing then why doesn't he/she ever speak up and what's up with so many feeling afraid of it?

Most of the well-educated people I know who still participate in superstition have some unresolved emotional issues around sexuality and possibly incest. Marshall McLuhan never recanted Roman Catholicism and that is a puzzle to me too.

Other Comments by Linda

22. Comment #22195 by BaronOchs on February 13, 2007 at 8:20 am

"Aye! And it was not by chance that the music of Richard Wagner was adopted with such zeal by that regime for Wagner is known to have extreme anti-Semitic views. There is no shortage of material on the web which covers this."

Wagner was an unpleasant man and every inch a protonazi. But that doesn't make any difference to his music which is totally excellent. Among his most prominent champions today is the jewish Daniel Barenboim. There was huge controversy when he attempted to perform Wagner in Israel, something he decided to do after hearing Ride of the Valkyries on a mobile ringtone. He had to compromise in the end but he shouldn't have had to, the fact an awful man can write great music is a cause for optimism rather than anything else.

Thanks scottishgeologist for the bit about Martin Luther. Worth remembering when you come across rubbish like this:

http://www.darwintohitler.com/

Blaming Darwin for Hitler is about as absurd as blaming Jesus. If any historical factor can be singled out for blame it is the centuries of christian anti-semitism which the book no doubt ignores completely.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

23. Comment #22199 by john_eg on February 13, 2007 at 9:49 am

McGrath objects that Dawkins' style is too agressive and one-sided. That wasn't something that worried generations of christians from St Jerome to Cardinal Newman (who McGrath uses as support in Dawkins' God) as McGrath knows. They thought they had the truth and weren't afraid of being viciously (more so that RD!) polemical in its defence. In our times the cry of "play nice" is telling.

Other Comments by john_eg

24. Comment #22213 by Lionel A on February 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Interesting thoughts on 'The Dawkins Delusion' at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Delusion-Alister-McGrath/dp/0281059276

note the quoted words of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Other Comments by Lionel A

25. Comment #22250 by Caesar Best on February 13, 2007 at 5:21 pm

That guy is a total cunt! He keeps dancing around the issues like a bitch and takes stuff out of context all the time. Is he really such a tard or did he have to practice. Sounds to me like has a secret boner for RD or something. Excuse the language, but it's all Alister is gonna get from me.

*pushes vain back into neck*

Other Comments by Caesar Best

26. Comment #22307 by BaronOchs on February 14, 2007 at 2:37 am

One man, at one talk he gave said he'd lost his Dawkinsian views as a result and

McGrath: "what you mean I actually managed to I . . .Yippeee I'll gloat about this in every talk for the next 20 years"

Other Comments by BaronOchs

27. Comment #22360 by Lionel A on February 15, 2007 at 4:51 am

Comment #22195 by BaronOchs

WRT Richard Wagner and his music; '...the fact an awful man can write great music is a cause for optimism rather than anything else.'

I fail to see how you can possibly draw such a conclusion. He was as you indicate a not very nice man, a racial bigot, so how can his good music (and that is very much a matter of opinion and taste - much of it being too strident and over-emmotional, to the darker side of human feeling for my liking - Bach is far more uplifting and clever, as is Mozart) make amends?

Other Comments by Lionel A

28. Comment #22394 by melisande on February 16, 2007 at 6:40 am

OK. I just have to get out a personal attack first.

Did Alister McGrath learn how to speak from Hugo Weaving in The Matrix? I kept expecting him to end his sentences with "..Mr. Anderson..."

Second I think he wins by exhaustion...isn't that in the over 300 proofs that god exists list?
It's unfortunate that the refusal to debate someone creates a default winner of the challenger. (speaking of---does anyone have a link to his debate with Sue Blackmore? I'd love to hear it.)

I really tried to listen to his arguments and think about them, but then they start talking about rubbish like Mary and Jesus and I just can't take any of it seriously.
Except I do take it somewhat seriously because it's the most...seemingly thoughtful rebukes to the book but maybe that's just the learn-ed accent.
Dang there were things I was going to say now but it's all gone straight out of my head.
I think that the fact that yes there are historical references to the evils done in the name of religious faith in TGD and McGrath makes some historical references to evils done in the name of atheism or liberty or whatever, We have _contemporary_ problems with religious faith that we don't have with atheism.
He kept on talking about modern and post modern but certainly we're even beyond that. It's....post post-"ern" now, isn't it?
And..OH. yes his first example of the person who came up to him and was aggrieved because he _believed_ in Dawkins and McGrath has shaken that faith--
Isn't the point to start thinking for yourself? It's like we have this template of belief that we are used to placing on the thing that resonates with our thinking or experience of the world the most. Now I could be completely wrong here but I don't think that Dawkins is trying to gather a flock of sheep. It's more like "Would The Real Secret Atheists Please Stand Up..."
;^P

The guy who was at a loss for what to believe in now is still template-ing. (I feel like making some joke about "contemplating"...)
I could be on my own here but isn't the point to break the template? It's not completely possible or feasible but that's at least what I want to do. I don't just _BELIEVE_ everything Dawkins says.
I do find him a helluva lot more compelling than this guy. Especially in oration. He's a professor? Crap, bring a pillow and a tape recorder to class.

I do wince a little at Dawkins' derision in his descriptions of faithheads etc. But come on, you're either so PC that you're just embarrassed but you secretly agree, or you are one of those people he's describing, so you're offended.
I'm probably going over the word limit. I'll stop here.

Other Comments by melisande

29. Comment #22396 by melisande on February 16, 2007 at 7:09 am

Oh, and ....people actually refer to their work as "apologetics"? I thought that was a derisive description applied by other people who deplore the person's milquetoast-ness...

Other Comments by melisande

30. Comment #22397 by Lionel A on February 16, 2007 at 7:23 am

I was in the local book shop this morning to pick up my ordered copy of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel when I noticed copies of McGrath's Dawkins Delusion on a shelf. A bit thin isn't it in all senses of the word.

Sorry but I wasn't about to aid McGrath's pension fund by purchasing a copy of this overpriced religious tract, even in the name of research.

Thinking about it though, is that not just the way fundamentalists would react to The God Delusion?

Other Comments by Lionel A

31. Comment #22415 by Sancus on February 16, 2007 at 10:51 pm

... think of the ethic of nonviolence that Jesus advocated. Can you point to a single point in the Gospel where Jesus either allows violence to happen, advocates it, or anything like that?

Uh, yeah? Matthew 10:34-39 And if you think that's just one of Matt's quirks, JC really goes at it in Luke. Check out Luke 12:49-53, Luke 14:26 and Luke 22:36.

Jesus explicitly telling his disciples to bring those who do not want him to be their king and kill them in front of him? Luke 19:27. Alister must have missed that one. Here it is from ten different versions.

NASB: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

GWT: "Bring my enemies, who didn't want me to be their king. Kill them in front of me.'"

KJV: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

ASV: "But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

BBE: "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me.

DBY: "Moreover those mine enemies, who would not have me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.

WEY: "But as for those enemies of mine who were unwilling that I should become their king, bring them here, and cut them to pieces in my presence.'"

WBS: "But those my enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

WEB: "But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.'"

YLT: "but those my enemies, who did not wish me to reign over them, bring hither and slay before me."

There's your god-on-a-stick.

Other Comments by Sancus

32. Comment #22417 by Estragon on February 17, 2007 at 2:02 am

I'm not trying to be picky but in the above-mentioned passage Jesus is telling a parable, and the king (or whatever) in the parable says bring my enemies before me and slay them.

Either way Jesus' disciples obeyed the command, although not until a few centuries later.

R.E melisande The latin "Apologia" meant more "to defend" than "to apologise" and it's that meaning that apologetics comes from.

Other Comments by Estragon

33. Comment #22656 by bokonon on February 20, 2007 at 8:32 am

Yes, the above mentioned scripture i.e. Luke 19:27 is jesus telling a parable. However he must really mean it because he is about to ride into jerusalem through the traditional gate which would symbolise his coming as king; and he is about to be rejected as their king. the only interpretation that I can take from this part of the parable is that, as king, jesus is going bring those inhabitants of jerusalem that reject him before him and slaughter them, I suppose because he wanted to watch... he does hide behind the parable though, plausible deniability in modern parlance...

Other Comments by bokonon

34. Comment #22796 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Actually, I think he had just finished the parable in the penultimate verse. He did not say, "he said to them," like he did in previous verses for other statements by the king.

Those are Jesus' words; the lesson of the parable. He is not speaking for the character.

Other Comments by Sancus

35. Comment #22797 by Sancus on February 22, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Look, ancient Greek did not have quotation marks. It's all he said/she said.

So, in Luke 19:26 when Jesus says "I say" -- that's him!

Other Comments by Sancus

36. Comment #22972 by Ogum on February 25, 2007 at 4:42 am

Calling atheism a religion makes as much sense as calling abstemious life a kind a alcoholism. But that is not the point. The point is to label activist atheists dogmatic. That's why they call us religious, for they themselves acknowledge that religion is an irrational and obstinate world view against reality. We also have a world view, but this world view does not include a god, nor the Christian contradictory epistemology. Hardly "religious".

And about the Jesus guy, the mere fact that a moral educator would choose a parable like that is disgusting. I don't think he existed though

Other Comments by Ogum

37. Comment #22979 by scottishgeologist on February 25, 2007 at 8:48 am

Seems there is quite an industry in producing books with Dawkins' name in the title. How about this one:

"Deluded by Dawkins"
http://www.standrewsbookshop.co.uk/isbn/1842913557.htm

Well, full marks for an original title there....

Or this one from our old chum David Robertson:

"The Dawkins Letters"

http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/dawkins-letter-the-1001601.html

Amazing how one man can produce such a response, all these faith heads running round trying to stem the flow of reason....

All I can say is that Dawkins must have hit the target bullseye to have got such a reaction.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

38. Comment #23109 by Sutasie on February 26, 2007 at 12:01 pm

McGarth seems to have such a vendetta against Richard Dawkins that frankly, it is embarassing.

Not only was his lecture repetetive, monotonous and downright boring, but he also skirted around giving a direct answer to what he was being questioned about, while attempting to give an impression of a balanced argument.

I could see no balancing of view points in his argument.

Dawkin's rhetoric? I think he used pleanty of it himself.

Other Comments by Sutasie

39. Comment #23271 by melisande on February 27, 2007 at 11:30 am

33. Comment #22417 by Estragon

Hey, thanks for clearing that up.
Still...
Well it's the same reaction I had when someone told me I should get a degree in "rhetoric" ---to me it has a negative connotation and i was kind of insulted. In my mind it was rather analogous to "propaganda", until I learned what the original definition was.

Still....Apologetics...it just evokes this image of a dog that just bit someone and the owner saying "Usually, he's really good! He's never bitten anyone before! I've had him since he was a puppy and this is the first incident..." and so on.

It's just the impression, and I thought that it was just what people called those who were defending all the bad parts of christianity with things like "That's just a metaphor" or "Of course no one does that sort of thing now...."

This "academia" thing is... all rather confusing, really.
;^D

Other Comments by melisande

40. Comment #23343 by Rick777 on February 28, 2007 at 2:31 am

So many false statements and outright slanderous lies . I would have to spend a week going over them all to even begin to address the falsehoods and mischaracterizations McGrath is guilty of here . This reminds me of Kent Hovind and his tirade against the "Evil Lie" of Evolution.

Other Comments by Rick777

41. Comment #26734 by Jables on March 21, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Sancus: "There's your God on a stick".

Sancus, you really missed the stick on that one!

The quote that you took doesn't show Jesus inciting murder, it comes from the parable of the ten Minas in which Jesus quotes a king saying: "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

My quote can be checked at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=19&version=31

In future please research your subject matter.

So many problems are caused by people voicing opinions about something they haven't read. Reading one sentence of a chapter doesn't make you an authority, or qualified to talk about it.

Other Comments by Jables

42. Comment #26737 by Jables on March 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm

ScottishGeologist:

"All I can say is that Dawkins must have hit the target bullseye to have got such a reaction."

So, people who are write books against holocaust-denial are... what? Secretly afraid that they'll be proved wrong? People frequently voice their opinions without the intention of defending themselves.

Other Comments by Jables

43. Comment #29160 by Plato on April 2, 2007 at 12:22 am

Dear me ... well done, Richard! Mc Grath and Company are certainly showing their true colours. Their projection / denial and displacement mechanisms are working overtime! The tone of Mc Granth's book says more than the pathetic content; circular reasoning is a sad reflection on academia. Maybe, just maybe, Richard Dawkins has struck a raw nerve! If so, well done, Richard ... I, amongst many, am sick and tired of the emotionally biased propaganda thrust, unasked, into my face by evangelicals. Democracy demands tolerance - not evangelicalism or divisive religious paradigms!

Other Comments by Plato

44. Comment #196049 by DjSouthPaw on June 19, 2008 at 8:47 am

i thought McGrath was a very good debater for an apologist, when he talked to Dawkins

but equating The term "virus of the mind" to actual viruses instead of a meme, witch it obviously is all about, just seems like Word-twisting and dishonesty!

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw