Area_boy: LOL. Nice thread here. At first I felt I was alone in my disbelieve of the Abrahamic religions brought about by so much research until I had a peek in the religious section of Nairaland and indeed one name stands out.... Logicboy

Makes it a lot easier to express my views in an otherwise 0rgy of religiousness Nigerians tend to adopt.


So Logicboy is our own version of Christopher Hitches?

We need a Nigerian Atheist convention

I'm already on this..........



https://www.nairaland.com/1028706/atheist-convention-lagos

All I can say is Huxley T Paine.

Pastor AIO: All I can say is Huxley T Paine.

I can understand the guy. Some atheist arguments look compelling at first. Particularly if you have not been exposed to them or if you are not a thorough student of the Bible. Upon closer examination of these arguments (particularly the ones relating to Bible contradictions) they fall to pieces.

Uyi Iredia: I can understand the guy. Some atheist arguments look compelling at first. Particularly if you have not been exposed to them or if you are not a thorough student of the Bible. Upon closer examination of these arguments (particularly the ones relating to Bible contradictions) they fall to pieces.

So you hold the bible to be without errors ?

jayriginal:

So you hold the bible to be without errors ?

Yes, as far as I know the Bible has no errors. Now I would like to see an atheist answer to whether a book like The God Delusion is infallible. Would you be the first to answer ?

Uyi Iredia:

Yes, as far as I know the Bible has no errors. Now I would like to see an atheist answer to whether a book like The God Delusion is infallible. Would you be the first to answer ?

I, like most atheist, have never read the god delusion. That is just Dawkins' own viewpoint. Dawkins merely reiterates , in print, what most atheists already know.
Dawkins is not credited with any new revelation.
It is not possible for any atheists to have reverence for any book or individual.
We read books to learn, not worship them or have them hold our minds hostage.

Uyi Iredia:

Yes, as far as I know the Bible has no errors. Now I would like to see an atheist answer to whether a book like The God Delusion is infallible. Would you be the first to answer ?

Sorry I couldnt be the first to answer. I'm just seeing this.

I picked up the God Delusion some years ago. I started reading it and gave up somewhere around half of the book. I found it boring. I have many of his other books which I havent opened.

Ive read The Grand Design and A Brief History of Time both by Stephen Hawking and a couple of other "atheist" literature. These however were long after I became an atheist. As I've explained before, I didnt require any of these to set me straight. It came from within me.

As to whether the God Delusion is infallible, that question is extremely strange. Its not a holy book or a sacred manual. It was obviously written by a human being. Dawkins is a man of science. Whatever science he presents is left for his peers to review.

jayriginal:
Dawkins is a man of science. Whatever science he presents is left for his peers to review.

God Delusion is not a book of science either. I know you know that but I'm just stating it for emphasis.

Pastor AIO:

God Delusion is not a book of science either. I know you know that but I'm just stating it for emphasis.

Sure.
I said man of science. Its not a book of science in the way a peer reviewed article is or a biology textbook but he does base his material on science.

Uyi Iredia: I can understand the guy. Some atheist arguments look compelling at first. Particularly if you have not been exposed to them or if you are not a thorough student of the Bible. Upon closer examination of these arguments (particularly the ones relating to Bible contradictions) they fall to pieces.

You mean to say "upon closer apologetic mental gymnastics, one can rationalize these bible contradictions"

MacDaddy01:


You mean to say "upon closer apologetic mental gymnastics, one can rationalize these bible contradictions"

yes.

some of the religious apologetics (e.g. anony) are like a skilled lawyer, they will defend and justify any bullcrap from christianity. the funniest thing is that other religions too have their skilled apologetics to justify whatever bullcrap their religion presents.

cyrexx:

yes.

some of the religious apologetics (e.g. anony) are like a skilled lawyer, they will defend and justify any bullcrap from christianity. the funniest thing is that other religions too have their skilled apologetics to justify whatever bullcrap their religion presents.

lmao.

Anony is not a skilled lawyer. You and the homer and other atheists hesitate to abuse him when he tries to dodge or change the subject on tough questions.

Anony always runs away from me because he knows I will not be nice when he tries to lie his way out.


You guyz are too civil with him

MacDaddy01:


You mean to say "upon closer apologetic mental gymnastics, one can rationalize these bible contradictions"

Misquoting me won't damage the integrity of what I've said. I repeat atheist arguments fall to pieces upon closer examination.

jayriginal:

Sorry I couldnt be the first to answer. I'm just seeing this.

I picked up the God Delusion some years ago. I started reading it and gave up somewhere around half of the book. I found it boring. I have many of his other books which I havent opened.

Ive read The Grand Design and A Brief History of Time both by Stephen Hawking and a couple of other "atheist" literature. These however were long after I became an atheist. As I've explained before, I didnt require any of these to set me straight. It came from within me.

As to whether the God Delusion is infallible, that question is extremely strange. Its not a holy book or a sacred manual. It was obviously written by a human being. Dawkins is a man of science. Whatever science he presents is left for his peers to review.

Are you saying the book is fallible ?

jayriginal:

Sure.
I said man of science. Its not a book of science in the way a peer reviewed article is or a biology textbook but he does base his material on science.

Dawkins never based the book on science.

Uyi Iredia:

Misquoting me won't damage the integrity of what I've said. I repeat atheist arguments fall to pieces upon closer examination.

Explain how? Le me give you one simple contradiction;

The bible says that incest is bad. However
-Abraham married his step-sister
-Adam was Eve's biological parent from rib cloning. Therefore, their relationship was incestuous
-The only way Adam and Eve could have had grandchildren is through incest of their children

Uyi Iredia:

Dawkins never based the book on science.

Jesus christ? Hasnt Jayriginal explained himself on this point?

Uyi Iredia:

Are you saying the book is fallible ?

Uyi Iredia:

Dawkins never based the book on science.

MacDaddy01:

Jesus christ? Hasnt Jayriginal explained himself on this point?

The thing tire me oh.

Uyi, about the fallibilty issue, I am still not sure about what you mean. Are you asking for fallibilty in a work of a human ?

Do you need to even ask ?

What kind of fallibility ?
If you say his work is not based on science, lets put that aside. Are you asking for typos ? What ?

I'm still wondering why you are asking if its infallible. Who the hell refers to The God Delusion as a monumental piece of literature (even here on nairaland). I'm yet to hear of an atheist who says reading The God Delusion was a major milestone for him.

In any case, until you are more specific, I'll have to be general. If you are asking for "infallibility", I havent scrutinized the book with a mind to discovering these. If one were to do so, there might be found errors in the book. That would not be surprising seeing as he is a human being and not "God".

@Purist
I think it's good you opened this thread. Much of the name-calling and vilification he attracts is not justified. I'm not particularly sure why he's such a ban magnet since a lot of posters equally hurl abuses around here. I believe he can do without the abuses, though - hopefully when he becomes a man, as opposed to his current boyhood. While I don't buy or support his atheism, I think Phillip is quite logical in a lot of his criticism of the religions. He can be extremely illogical on occasions, though. Now, that would be fair enough.

**Edited**

jayriginal:

Sure.
I said man of science.

No: Dawkins is NOT even a man of science. He is, as obvious from even the sligtest reading of his nonsensical claptrap, a disgrace to every scientific canon known to man.

He is also desperately and frighteningly illogical and illiterate.

Worse so; those who credit him with any iota of scientific inclination.

You see: science is logic: and the desperately illogical is therefore necessarily desperately unscientific.

In my humble opinion, the schools he attended should be closed down, his certificates withdrawn and used to wrap shawarmas, his books used as toilet paper, his postulations circulated on Joke sections of Internet Forums, and his brain fed to maggots.

jayriginal: Had to smile at the OP. I guess Logicboy (not to boast) did start something or at the very least fuelled something on Nairaland.

Oh, yes he did fuel alot on NL. . . . such as increased juvenile idiocy.

Deep Sight:

No: Dawkins is NOT even a man of science. He is, as obvious from even the sligtest reading of his nonsensical claptrap, a disgrace to every scientific canon known to man.

He is also desperately and frighteningly illogical and illiterate.

Worse so; those who credit him with any iota of scientific inclination.

You see: science is logic: and the desperately illogical is therefore necessarily desperately unscientific.

In my humble opinion, the schools he attended should be closed down, his certificates withdrawn and used to wrap shawarmas, his books used as toilet paper, his postulations circulated on Joke sections of Internet Forums, and his brain fed to maggots.

Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

Awards and Recognition
Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year for his work on the BBC's Horizon episode, The Blind Watchmaker.

His other awards include the Zoological Society of London's Silver Medal (1989), the Finlay Innovation Award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002), and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).

Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. He was short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll. In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006, as well as the Galaxy British Book Awards's Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph's 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses. He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.

Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done the most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year; it is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins's own efforts.

In February 2010, Dawkins was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Honorary Board of distinguished achievers.

In 2012, scientists studying fish in Sri Lanka honored Dawkins by creating Dawkinsia as a new genus name (members of this genus were formerly members of the genus Puntius). Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that "Richard Dawkins has, through his writings, helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined [...] We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Your words judge you.

Deep Sight:

Oh, yes he did fuel alot on NL. . . . such as increased juvenile idiocy.

Watch your blood pressure mate.

jayriginal:




Your words judge you.

O, i SO KNEW you would revert with an appeal to i.diotic authourity.

Dawkind is D.aft.

And so is anyone who regards him as anything more than daft.

N[u]A[/u]NSENSE.

jayriginal:




Your words judge you.

And so did many ecclessiatical scientists back in the day. . . . for postulating NANSENSE.

Dawkins is illiterate. Lousily so. Not a thousand flying pigs will change that fact.

jayriginal:

Watch your blood pressure mate.

By record, Juvenile Illiteracy is an increasin source of angina, and general heart DYSfunction. As such, I will urge you: and other "logicboy" admirers, to WATCH yours!

Deep Sight:

And so did many ecclessiatical scientists back in the day. . . . for postulating NANSENSE.

Dawkins is illiterate. Lousily so. Not a thousand flying pigs will change that fact.

A thousand and one then ?

Deep Sight:

By record, Juvenile Illiteracy is an increasin source of angina, and general heart DYSfunction. As such, I will urge you: and other "logicboy" admirers, to WATCH yours!

You're quite smitten with him. Go easy.

Deep Sight:

O, i SO KNEW you would revert with an appeal to i.diotic authourity.

Dawkind is D.aft.

And so is anyone who regards him as anything more than daft.

N[u]A[/u]NSENSE.

If it were just you, I wouldnt have bothered. But people need to see you for who you are.

Thats all.

jayriginal:

A thousand and one then ?


You're quite smitten with him. Go easy.

Ironically funny attempts at being funny will not erase the frank facts: Richard Dawkins is about as respectable as logicboy: and both are about as admirable as brains consisting of the snuckle from the faeces of an Orangutan, as I have said before.

Children.

jayriginal:

If it were just you, I wouldnt have bothered. But people need to see you for who you are.

Thats all.

For years before you turned up here, there have: they have reviled me in more BRILLIANT ways than you or Dawkins could dream up nonsensicalities. Don't change a thing bro. St.upidity remains st.upidity. Dawkins remains st.upid, and worse: his admirers. Worse still - his CLOSET admirers - who when called out - deny him - as Peter denied Christ.

Yuck. This is not worth my bandwith. Times are hard. Skoot off, baby atheist, Logicboy and Dawkins admirer. NANSSENSE. CAPITAL.

^^^
Aww how cute. The baby is name calling again.