If someone feels moved to go to great lengths to tell you that they're a genius - they're probably not. Oh well, I got a good laugh out of the book.
An objective observer would come to the same conclusion.
Those are all physically measurable things. He decides this is a good rebuttal to there being no evidence of God: "But then, there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists, either, much less that she loves you." You've seen your mom, you've hugged your mom, and your mom has told you she loves you. The major argument I've heard is lack of evidence. His chapter "occam's chainsaw" he describes atheist arguments for why god does not exist. His arguments are petty and not logically sound. He seems to make fun or scoff at people who never graduated high school a lot, but then he also implies that educational degrees are no more than "pieces of paper collected from paper-selling institutions". A lot of the book seems to assume that people are idiots,and they must be if he's smarter than them, which he also seems to assume- he's in mensa, after all. This guy says things like "the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience".
0 kommentar(er)
