12 of 22 people found the following review helpful
Short but to the point.,
This review is from: Dealing with Dawkins (Paperback)
This is a short, yet well-researched work, in which, John Blanchard outlines Richard Dawkins views and arguments for atheism. These include the view that science gives and answer to everything, and that religion is the cause of all evils. Blanchard then goes on to show how flawed those views are, and offers vastly better views pointing towards the existence of an Almighty God. This will be an encouraging read for Christians and could help them sharpen up their own arguments for the existence of God and the person of His Son Jesus Christ. It will also be of use for interested non-Christians who are seeking.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 24 Aug 2010, 14:00:19 BST
Apparently the books authors qualifications are actually somewhat suspect, having been delivered by one of those dial-a-degree institutions ! I'm sure there must be some more reputable challenges to Dawkins arguments ?
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Aug 2010, 23:11:12 BST
Last edited by the author on 29 Aug 2010, 23:11:53 BST
What does the author's qualifications have to do with anything?
I haven't read this book but I found this one very enjoyable:
The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Sep 2010, 09:06:39 BST
Why don't you guys ever read the thing first and see whether his arguments are valid? Also check whether the arguments about the author's qualifications are valid? You obviously haven't done that either! This is only a short book but it does show just how ignorant many of Dawkins' statements are!
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Sep 2010, 02:04:40 BST
Like the Blanchard book (which I haven't read; I did read 'Evolution fact or fiction?') this review is very short and tells me virtually nothing - I assume the book postdates 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (which I read and enjoyed)? So I voted against the review. And the above comments add little.
I do not believe that Dawkins' scientific views are ignorant or incorrect.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Mar 2011, 23:38:12 GMT
You can be sure that even if Dawkins does warrant correcting on a few points, Blanchard's own arguments will be ten times as flawed, contradicting himself left, right and centre, and displaying a total inability to put a valid argument together (good though his pronouncements may sound to those unable to recognise a logical fallacy). Indeed, I have already found a gaping error in Blanchard's own pronouncements, and this just on flicking through. Apparently, he is ignorant enough to still believe that the four canonical gospels actually WERE written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Despite the fact that this is not the view of the scholarly community and hasn't been for a long time. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels; they were all anonymously written. Nobody has EVER known who wrote them. Probably nobody ever will.
On the strength of the evidence, John Blanchard is a pitiable flat-earth fundamentalist who believes every last scrap of nonsense in the Bible, no matter how ludicrous, dreadful or discredited.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Mar 2011, 00:16:08 GMT
From reading a previous short work of his, Blanchard's arguments are slightly easier to see through than those of Jonathan Sarfati the author of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' which I have reviewed - somewhat verbosely I admit - at Amazon.
I see that a couple of deluded invisible creationists have voted against my previous comment. C'est la vie. (Or should that be verite?)
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011, 11:16:19 BST
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2011, 06:00:14 BST
Peter Oz says:
"Apparently the books authors qualifications are actually somewhat suspect, having been delivered by one of those dial-a-degree institutions ! I'm sure there must be some more reputable challenges to Dawkins arguments ?"
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011, 11:21:24 BST
Peter Oz says:
"On the strength of the evidence, John Blanchard is a pitiable flat-earth fundamentalist who believes every last scrap of nonsense in the Bible, no matter how ludicrous, dreadful or discredited."
Again, utterly fallacious! Have you at least ONE argument in your locker?
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Oct 2011, 01:03:26 BST
Call Me Woody says:
Just read a defintion of ad hominem as
An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.
This defintition has got all your favorite words in it.
Matrixes post is not an ad hominem. Its just saying that Blanchards qualification is a joke. which is a fact.
I used to think you were very wrong but clever. Now I no that you just puke the definition of ad hominem up for every post cos you dont have the brains for a real argument.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›