Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Ryft]

This is preposterous. So the Christian world fills the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete ... [snip rest]

First, this has zero relevance to the point I made. An advanced course in X is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X. You can substitute X with nearly any subject (as I said, "such is the case for pretty much any subject"). Advanced courses are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of biology, of history, of mathematics, of literature, etc. Advanced courses in biochemistry are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of life's building blocks. In precisely the same way, advanced courses in theology are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of God. This was supposed to be practically self-evident: to delve deeper into a thing requires advanced learning about that thing.

"We cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field," I said, "but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter." Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

Second, anything children learn is incomplete, in virtue of them being still children. Third, Christianity has never pretended to be an all-encompassing discipline. Christianity does not teach Algebra, but then English Literature does not teach Biology. Would you rage against Geology for filling the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete because it taught them only Geology?

You are rowing the boat upstream, my friend, for statistics show that higher education means lower rates of belief in the supernatural.

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

Second, that says something about what they are being educated with, and nothing about the supernatural (in the very least because their education likely had nothing to say about the supernatural). I should not be surprised that if someone is taught extensively about A, B, and C, but not a thing about D, they would exit their education affirming A, B, and C while demonstrating remarkable ignorance about D.

You suggest that there is a relation between the complexity of nature and the complexity of god

No, I didn't. I suggested that delving deeper into X requires advanced learning about X. At no point did I ever suggest that no matter what you substitute X with it will all be equally complex. Your apparent distate for anything that so much as smells like Christian theism is causing you to hallucinate, seeing arguments no one made. It is almost embarrassing to observe.

The God concept as invented by academic theology is not capable of explaining any detail of the complexity of nature at all. Nada, zilch, nope, nothing. There is not a shred of relevance, of all academic theologian effort, on questions still open in the study of nature. And that while ... [snip rest]

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

Second, this is all true given your presuppositions. However, your presuppositions are not a given.

Emptiness is what you get if you try to sum up the tenets of Christian dogma without compromising certain ... [snip rest]

So my point stands unrefuted: Dawkins not only admits ignorance about theology in his writing about theological issues, he is proud of said ignorance. Furthermore, the fact that you seem unaware of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., theological tenets affirmed across every Christian tradition and denomination) merely testifies to your own theological ignorance. With my point unrefuted and your apparent ignorance exposed, there is not much left to say.

If you claim that some advanced consistent and coherent god concept can be found in this mess, then please let me know.

You are content to believe that none can be found. I feel no pressing need to disrupt that.

... the god concept that ... offers no verifiable statement regarding the plain reality we live in.

In order for a God concept to offer a "verifiable" statement regarding "the plain reality we live in," it would have to conform to the presuppositions of your worldview (e.g., what constitutes reality, verification criteria, etc.), which you have not provided, which likely preclude the supernatural even prior to investigation, and which I am given no reason whatever to accept as coherent in the first place.

To conclude that I thought it relevant in a critique of Dawkins' is missing the point. I was simply commenting on the attempts thusfar made by the vast army of apologetical authors to discredit Dawkins' The God Delusion.

First, if it was not relevant to critiques of Dawkins' claims, then it was... err, irrelevant. Excellent. Second, apologist authors discredit Dawkins' claims by evaluating Dawkins' claims. "Presenting clear evidence for divine claims," I said, "is irrelevant in a critique of Dawkins' claims." My point again stands unrefuted.

To state that the belief in this God concept is delusional is legit when (a) there is strong evidence that contradicts a number, but not necessarily all, of claimed characteristics and capabilities of that God and (b) there is no positive evidence for remaining characteristics.

I may have listed some of the fallacies he committed. And I may have mentioned something about Dawkins freely admitting ignorance with respect to theology. I suspect the former has a lot to do with the latter. At any rate, both are why "he does not present a single solitary piece of evidence that contradicts God-belief."

1. The claim that the bible is the word of god and shows his impeccable moral
2. The claim that the bible is consistent throughout showing divine origin
3. The claim that god answers prayer
4. The claim that god's existence is traceable through the supposed irreducible complexity in nature
5. That there is evidence of god's purpose with man in nature (anthropic principle)

Even granting these for the sake of argument,

1. An immoral Christian God does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
2. A partially divine Bible does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
3. Some unanswered prayers does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
4. Refuted ID arguments do not prove a non-existent Christian God.
5. Finding no divine purpose for man does a not prove non-existent Christian God.

Not one thing in his entire book accomplished its title and aim. But, again, that probably has a great deal to do with his ignorance in this arena. Like I said, if one is going to speak about 'X', one had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter.

Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.