The Dawkins Delusion - Sam Fryman
- Type:
- Other > E-books
- Files:
- 2
- Size:
- 217.11 KiB (222324 Bytes)
- Texted language(s):
- English
- Uploaded:
- 2006-12-30 16:42:08 GMT
- By:
- piratebill
- Seeders:
- 0
- Leechers:
- 1
- Comments
- 23
- Info Hash: 937891F5A7A945E297A34CDC0BAA064362BA7024
(Problems with magnets links are fixed by upgrading your torrent client!)
The sequel to Time for Dawkins to Retire. All the author's previous works are availble free on http://www.geocities.com/thmlplx/
| File list not available. |
Fryman is probably the most clueless "author" (nothing of his from a real publisher) to try and tackle Dawkins. Ever.
The man obviously has problems with women, too. He seems to think Dawkins' wife (Lalla Ward) put him under some sort of witchcraft spell.
If you're looking to find some serious, intellectual discourse from Fryman, you will be greatly disappointed. If you want to read a pathetic, personal attack against Dawkins that is bereft of any basic understanding of the things Dawkins ever wrote or said, then this "book" (and its predeccesor) is chock full of satisfying, froth-at-the-mouth, stupendous ignorance.
The man obviously has problems with women, too. He seems to think Dawkins' wife (Lalla Ward) put him under some sort of witchcraft spell.
If you're looking to find some serious, intellectual discourse from Fryman, you will be greatly disappointed. If you want to read a pathetic, personal attack against Dawkins that is bereft of any basic understanding of the things Dawkins ever wrote or said, then this "book" (and its predeccesor) is chock full of satisfying, froth-at-the-mouth, stupendous ignorance.
Fryman is a complete nitwit whose works are good not even as toilet tissue. His attacks on Dawkins are hilarious in their ignorance and bigotry.
Well guys, you have actually PROVED Sam Fryman's point conclusively. Dawkins fans are intolerant, arrogant, insolent people, who cannot tolerate another person's point of view that differs from their own. Go ahead, do some more, prove to the public what intolerant bigots YOU really are.
Let me give you a simple example: Is it arrogant, intolerant, insolent to dismiss somebody who claims that the Earth is flat? What Fryman is doing amounts to that - with the added ingredient of gratuitous ad hominem attacks.
Have you actually read the junk that Fryman writes? It's not that Fryman has a point of view different than Dawkins's; it's that Fryman seems to believe things that go against well established scientific facts, that he seems to ignore. If one tolerates Fryman's view one should also tolerate astrology, John Edward and any other scam that so many people seem to fall for.
Have you actually read the junk that Fryman writes? It's not that Fryman has a point of view different than Dawkins's; it's that Fryman seems to believe things that go against well established scientific facts, that he seems to ignore. If one tolerates Fryman's view one should also tolerate astrology, John Edward and any other scam that so many people seem to fall for.
Same tired old arguments Sistromo. We've heard them all before. Generalised unfounded allegations. No rational arguments against any single point Fryman has made. And it's got 5 stars already, so it looks like not everybody agrees with you. Good luck with your totalitarian mind police act, trying to stop anybody thinking or believing anything you don't.
5 stars.
Here's an example of Fryman's ignorance. He labors under the misaprehension that science can prove a negative by arguing that science has never proven that god does not exist. A person who doesn't understand what every schoolboy knows is wrong with that kind of premise can't possibly carry on a logical rebuttal to Dawkins (or any other idea that requires clear thinking, for that matter).
I recommend this torrent to everyone who wants to read a great example of a mind that's run amok. It gets "5 stars" for that aspect alone and nothing more.
Here's an example of Fryman's ignorance. He labors under the misaprehension that science can prove a negative by arguing that science has never proven that god does not exist. A person who doesn't understand what every schoolboy knows is wrong with that kind of premise can't possibly carry on a logical rebuttal to Dawkins (or any other idea that requires clear thinking, for that matter).
I recommend this torrent to everyone who wants to read a great example of a mind that's run amok. It gets "5 stars" for that aspect alone and nothing more.
Richard Dawkins claims to be able to assess the "probability" of God existing or not so. How does he achieve this "miracle"? Where is his data, his evidence for God not existing? He hasn't got any. Of course that doesn't prove God DOES exist. But it DEFINITELY does not prove HE DOESN'T. It doesn't even prove God's existence as IMPROBABLE as Dawkins claims. That's why Dawkins is illogical. He tries to assess a PROBABLILITY about a matter he has no information on. That's ALL Sam Fryman is pointing out. And it is COMPLETELY logical.
I'm bloody pissed of at that Dawkins chap you know.
Why can't he leave just well alone - stop interfering in other peoples beliefs?
So what if I believe in Santa, fairies, the loch ness monster, that Iraq will work out for the best and the earth floats though space on the back of a giant turtle.
So what if I want to treat aids with homeopathy?
Or have a go at trepanning to cure a migraine?
Good work Sam. for your next book how about 'gravity is a lie, and I proved it by defenestrating my self form a tall building'? That?ll show all those so called ?scientists?
;)
Why can't he leave just well alone - stop interfering in other peoples beliefs?
So what if I believe in Santa, fairies, the loch ness monster, that Iraq will work out for the best and the earth floats though space on the back of a giant turtle.
So what if I want to treat aids with homeopathy?
Or have a go at trepanning to cure a migraine?
Good work Sam. for your next book how about 'gravity is a lie, and I proved it by defenestrating my self form a tall building'? That?ll show all those so called ?scientists?
;)
Sam Fryman has more knowledge of science in his little finger than all you guys put together. Read his final assassination of Dawkins
http://piratebayproxy.live/tor/3590630/Dawkins_-The_Blind_Mischief-Maker_-_Sam_Fryman
if you dare to confront the fact that Dawkins is not a logical man or a true scientist. Dawkins has no understanding of mathematical probability, and that is his downfall as Sam Fryman explains in the above work, so clearly that a ten year old could understand it .
http://piratebayproxy.live/tor/3590630/Dawkins_-The_Blind_Mischief-Maker_-_Sam_Fryman
if you dare to confront the fact that Dawkins is not a logical man or a true scientist. Dawkins has no understanding of mathematical probability, and that is his downfall as Sam Fryman explains in the above work, so clearly that a ten year old could understand it .
Sam Fryman can belive whatever he wants, I'm sticking with truth and reason. Also Dawkins is a credible person. I can't find any info on this Sam guy, and his webpage doesn't work. I leave you with this, which society would you rather live in. One where people goes around beliveing anything or one in which people demanded proof. Oh wait, people ARE believing whatever nonsens one can come up with! But I'm actually suprised that people still belives in really old myths, without proof. Oh, but you see Jerusalem is proof, Jesus was there you see...Well, Superman does not for real in NY, even though we saw him jumping the skyscrapers at the movies.
Fryman is an ass.
By using his "logic" then the following claims are just as valid as claiming that a god exists:
Mighty Mouse exists and Fryman cannot disprove that 'fact.'
The god named "Jehovah" was created by Max Fleischer Studios and Popeye can beat him up when he eats his spinach.
There are little, sentient corn niblets controlling the thoughts of Sam Fryman.
The above are the same sort of thing which are as ludicrous as 1 or a dozen gods mucking about the universe with the sole purpose of confounding mankind with such things as science and reason. But any fundamentalist will claim science and reason are the work of a "Satan" god who evidently can't be controlled by their creator god until after Armageddon. Oh, yes! Why can't science seem to understand what is so obvious to Fryman and his ilk? It makes such perfect sense!
By using his "logic" then the following claims are just as valid as claiming that a god exists:
Mighty Mouse exists and Fryman cannot disprove that 'fact.'
The god named "Jehovah" was created by Max Fleischer Studios and Popeye can beat him up when he eats his spinach.
There are little, sentient corn niblets controlling the thoughts of Sam Fryman.
The above are the same sort of thing which are as ludicrous as 1 or a dozen gods mucking about the universe with the sole purpose of confounding mankind with such things as science and reason. But any fundamentalist will claim science and reason are the work of a "Satan" god who evidently can't be controlled by their creator god until after Armageddon. Oh, yes! Why can't science seem to understand what is so obvious to Fryman and his ilk? It makes such perfect sense!
You just haven't read Sam Fryman's works PROPERLY to make such misguided and misinformed comments on them. Go back and read them again, especially his aforementioned final work on Dawkins and you will see your objections are not valid. For instance, you don't even realise that he is against the whole concept of "belief". That is how poorly informed you are about his works.
all the negative comments poeple have made here against Sam Fryman , makes me feel very sad.
When people tend not to think for themselves but rather believe in a "name" or a reputation.
Sam Fryman's work is very good and you should be read it all..
When people tend not to think for themselves but rather believe in a "name" or a reputation.
Sam Fryman's work is very good and you should be read it all..
Oh, look! Another wanker pathetically riding the coattails of Richard's genius and success. So fucking typical. If this loser didn't put "Dawkins" in the title, then nobody on the planet would waste even a moment's time on this irrational crap.
No guys. You have got it all wrong.Just because Fryman isn't famous doesn't mean he's wrong, and just because Dawkins is, doesn't mean he's right. Van Gogh was a genius, but nobody knew his name until long after he died. Like Dawkins, you guys have got a serious problem admitting when you are wrong. Fryman doesn't claim there is a God for sure. He just says that Dawkins saying there isn't one unless someone proves there is, is not a logical position, as any properly educated person can understand. If you cannot understand that simple sentence just written, then you should go see a mathematician or logician and ask him to explain it to you.
WOW! This is so funny that I almost shat myself laughing. If you cannot see the humour in this then you really need to get out more.
A small sample:
"And then how many of us are celebrities, who before he died, could lift the phone and say ?Hi Douglas (Adams), how are you today? Fancy a chat and a drink in the Atheist?s Arms later this evening? Eight o?clock? Fine. See you there??"
Dawkins worshippers should try to laugh a bit.
Well done to Sam Fryman!
A small sample:
"And then how many of us are celebrities, who before he died, could lift the phone and say ?Hi Douglas (Adams), how are you today? Fancy a chat and a drink in the Atheist?s Arms later this evening? Eight o?clock? Fine. See you there??"
Dawkins worshippers should try to laugh a bit.
Well done to Sam Fryman!
Listen, I've seen Richards work and there are some things I think he's right about and some arguments he uses that tend to float away from strict logic. For the most part though he's right about everything except his certainty that no God exists. As an agnostic I can have peace just knowing that he is thwarting FAITH with the same strict logic that I use, which is the point that no one should NEED to believe in anything. If any of you supporting Fryman have a logical point to present (other than, "read this too so thou might be saved") then by all means present it here or counter my argument with Frymannian rationale. Otherwise, quit yer bitchin'.
Let's all calm down.
Fryman's claim is that you must BELIEVE in the teapot; it's not necessary to PROVE that it exists, as long as you have FAITH. Asking for evidence denies the need for faith. (Just read the people who support Fryman, BOY they all have faith!)
Therefore, if you don't believe in the Celestial Teapot, it will spill scalding hot water on you when ARMAGEDDON comes!
Oh, crap.
I MEANT GOD! NOT THE CELESTIAL TEAPOT!
;)
Fryman's claim is that you must BELIEVE in the teapot; it's not necessary to PROVE that it exists, as long as you have FAITH. Asking for evidence denies the need for faith. (Just read the people who support Fryman, BOY they all have faith!)
Therefore, if you don't believe in the Celestial Teapot, it will spill scalding hot water on you when ARMAGEDDON comes!
Oh, crap.
I MEANT GOD! NOT THE CELESTIAL TEAPOT!
;)
Hey piratebill, why don't you shove these files up your ass. Face it, nobody is willing to download that kind of crap.
People out here are smart enough to discern the reputation of Dawkins from the pack of lies and attacks that you are offering.
People out here are smart enough to discern the reputation of Dawkins from the pack of lies and attacks that you are offering.
"Hey piratebill, why don't you shove these files up your ass. Face it, nobody is willing to download that kind of crap."
Just because he's offering the files doesn't mean that he endorses them. In fact, the best way to make up your mind regarding an argument is by reading all sides of it.
After reading "The God Delusion", I've been looking for this book. Nice to finally find it.
Though if the summaries here are true and the only thing this book really says is "'God does not exist' is an illogical position to take", I invite all those that seriously believe that to consider Occam's Razor.
Occams razor state's, roughly, that a theory should never have any elements in it that raises more questions than it answers unless there is an extremely good reason for it. God almost invariably raises far more questions than He solves, so the position "God does not exist" is a good position to take if you believe in the basic premise of Occam's Razor.
Just because he's offering the files doesn't mean that he endorses them. In fact, the best way to make up your mind regarding an argument is by reading all sides of it.
After reading "The God Delusion", I've been looking for this book. Nice to finally find it.
Though if the summaries here are true and the only thing this book really says is "'God does not exist' is an illogical position to take", I invite all those that seriously believe that to consider Occam's Razor.
Occams razor state's, roughly, that a theory should never have any elements in it that raises more questions than it answers unless there is an extremely good reason for it. God almost invariably raises far more questions than He solves, so the position "God does not exist" is a good position to take if you believe in the basic premise of Occam's Razor.
This has got to be worth a giggle! I read the jacket in a local christian book store and couldnt stop laughing! This man is a complete disgrace!
22/12/11 the COMPLETE works are being seeded right now. I decided to seed it all instead of just individual ones because I believe seeding the whole collection will allow everyone will be able to get the pdf they are looking for and keep it all in one organised, easy to search, easy to seed torrent. http://piratebayproxy.live/torrent/6905797/Sam_Fryman_Complete_Works_Nov_2011_PDF_E-Book
Comments