[002]
me_zimm
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It seems we have a Dawkins fanboy in our midst. I will fully concede that I am wholly unimpressed by Dawkins\' treatment of major theologians and theology in general, and my opinion seems to be shared by a significant portion of the atheist community, including such prominent members as Michael Ruse, H. Allen Orr, Thomas Nagel, and Peter Higgs. I strongly suspect he could not articulate the differences between the theological views of, say, William Lane Craig and Brian Davies, even though the two hold radically different conceptions of the Christian God and would require radically different responses to properly address. Many have noted his astounding ignorance of even great theologians like Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and even pagan philosophers like Aristotle.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \
to:
It seems we have a Dawkins fanboy in our midst. I will fully concede that I am wholly unimpressed by Dawkins\\\' treatment of major theologians and theology in general, and my opinion seems to be shared by a significant portion of the atheist community, including such prominent members as Michael Ruse, H. Allen Orr, Thomas Nagel, and Peter Higgs. I strongly suspect he could not articulate the differences between the theological views of, say, William Lane Craig and Brian Davies, even though the two hold radically different conceptions of the Christian God and would require radically different responses to properly address. Many have noted his astounding ignorance of even great theologians like Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and even the earliest philosophers like Aristotle.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \\\"major theologians\\\" whom it is alleged that Dawkins has extensively researched.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \\\"major theologians\\\" whom it is alleged that Dawkins has extensively researched.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It seems we have a Dawkins fanboy in our midst. I will fully concede that I am wholly unimpressed by Dawkins\' treatment of major theologians and theology in general, and my opinion seems to be shared by a significant portion of the atheist community, including such prominent members as Michael Ruse, H. Allen Orr, Thomas Nagel, and Peter Higgs. I strongly suspect he could not articulate the differences between the theological differences between, say, William Lane Craig and Brian Davies, even though the two hold radically different conceptions of the Christian God and would require radically different responses to properly address. Many have noted his astounding ignorance of even great theologians like Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and even pagan philosophers like Aristotle.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether.
to:
It seems we have a Dawkins fanboy in our midst. I will fully concede that I am wholly unimpressed by Dawkins\\\' treatment of major theologians and theology in general, and my opinion seems to be shared by a significant portion of the atheist community, including such prominent members as Michael Ruse, H. Allen Orr, Thomas Nagel, and Peter Higgs. I strongly suspect he could not articulate the differences between the theological views of, say, William Lane Craig and Brian Davies, even though the two hold radically different conceptions of the Christian God and would require radically different responses to properly address. Many have noted his astounding ignorance of even great theologians like Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and even pagan philosophers like Aristotle.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \\\"major theologians\\\" whom it is alleged that Dawkins has extensively researched.
I suggest that his section be edited extensively if not eliminated altogether. It reads like a propaganda piece under a thin sheen of appearing objective, while failing to cite any of the \\\"major theologians\\\" whom it is alleged that Dawkins has extensively researched.
