Rebuttles to Various Loser New Atheist Arguments

3 Part Rebuttle to "The God Who Wasn't There".

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

A Scholarly Rebuttle to the Zeitgeist. (Not that it deserves it)

Skeptics Annotated Bible Refuted In Kind.

Dan Barker's Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Decimated.

Oops, Dawkins makes an admission

In a recent debate with John Lennox, Richard Dawkins said the following:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

It was first pointed out here, in a Spectator article entitled "Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?". Now that's a pretty startling admission for the author of the book "The God Delusion".

His defense of saying that as he gives it to his little sycophants is:

As I'm sure Layla has worked out for herself, it is a standard reasoning technique to bend over backwards to concede that a better case can be made for X than for Y, as a prelude to putting the boot in to Y. It does not, of course imply support for X.

Now as awesome as it would be for Dawkins to pull a Flew, the fellow has far too much of his reputation invested in being a jerk off atheist, and offending people.

It is possible that he merely meant to concede this point as a rhetorical strategy, because he was so badly busted up in his previous debate with Lennox, but in that case I think Melanie has a relevant point when she says:

The great question, however, is whether his own theory is now in the process of
further evolution -- and whether it might even jump the species barrier into
what is vulgarly known by lesser mortals as faith.

Not that I particularly agree with that definition of "Faith", but I think the implication is clear.