What's wrong with Dawkins?

[Gabriella_San_S]

Gabriella, it really doesn’t answer anything at all. It just presents a set of theist beliefs.
I’m sorry, I can’t take your post seriously. If you truly want me to respond to each of your points, I can do. Let me know.

If you can’t seriously address* my* direct answers to your direct questions, it must be that same darned evasiveness and*** fear*** that Dawkins suffers from, when declining debates and interviews with “theists”. I’m sorry, I just can’t take your position seriously if you can’t defend it when challenged. But thanks for*** trying*** to be open to an intelligent exchange with just another “theist”.

 

[Leela]

Well to start with, just visit his website.

It is apparent that he is not just noted as an athiest, he makes a great deal of money from hurling insult and mocking others.

Can you give any examples of mocking and insults? I suspect that calling certain cherished beliefs into questions is being regarded as personally insulting.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian
*
The burden of proof is not upon me. *

Is this hypocritical? Why do you demand proof from others but not from yourself?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Can you give any examples of mocking and insults? I suspect that calling certain cherished beliefs into questions is being regarded as personally insulting.

“Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the "no-contests.” Richard Dawkins

 

[Fran65]

Can you give any examples of mocking and insults? I suspect that calling certain cherished beliefs into questions is being regarded as personally insulting.

Here is a selection. It is interesting to note that the Nazis also characterised Jews as ‘infected’, ‘stupid’, ‘child abusers’, ‘evil’ and ‘dangerous’ too.

I have no problem with people who want to discuss concepts, beliefs and consequences; nor do I have a problem with people who disagree with me or with beliefs that I hold.

I do have a problem with people who mock, insult, degrade and stereotype others as less than themselves. That is one of the major things wrong with Dawkins.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” calls religion a “virus” and faith-based education “child abuse”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F#Religion_as_a_virus
Dawkins begins by explaining how a child is genetically programmed to believe without questioning the word of authority figures, especially parents – the evolutionary imperative being that no child would survive by adopting a sceptical attitude towards everything their elders said. But this same imperative, he claims, leaves children open to “infection” by religion.

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m4d1-Richard-Dawkins–pope-is-stupid-ignorant-or-dim
Richard Dawkins spoke at a press conference at the University of Valencia. Reportedly, he said “… The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.”

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian
*
The burden of proof is not upon me. *

Is this hypocritical? Why do you demand proof from others but not from yourself?

Er - because I haven’t made an assertion.

Is this really so difficult for you to grasp? If I boldly stated that the Seven Dwarfs existed, you would rightly ask me to prove it. Would you expect me to respond to that challenge with, “Well, why don’t you prove that they don’t?”

This is basic stuff - you make an assertion, you must be able to back it up with proof. That is what burden of proof is.

"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
“At all times the compulsion of proving weighs upon him who brings a suit.”

At the risk of repeating myself (although you haven’t grasped this concept to date in all the posts in which I’ve explained it, so it does seem necessary):

If you make an assertion, you must be able to back it up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove your assertion wrong - it is your responsibility to prove your assertion right. If you took someone to court for stealing money from you, and the judge asked you to prove that the defendant had taken the money, would you respond with, “No, he needs to start by proving that he didn’t?” Would you?

 

[1holycatholic]

Er - because I haven’t made an assertion.

Atheists assert that there is no God. The “but atheism means an absence of a belief” line is a weak bit of verbal gymnastics in an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheist claim that there is no God.

The Spirit That Makes War (December 15, 1940, by Msgr. Fulton Sheen)
…
So it is with atheism today. You cannot explain either the intensity of organized atheism, with its persecution of religion in Mexico, Spain, Russia, Germany, Poland, Austria, and other countries, nor its violence, on the assumption that religion is only a myth or the opium of the people. Men do not go into a rage over an illusion; they do not combat phantoms with pitchforks, nor dynamite dreams, nor bomb illusions, nor assassinate fancies, nor throw themselves into frenzies of hate against the man in the moon. The present day violence against religion can be explained only by the reality of that which is persecuted, namely, God Himself.

A few years ago I encountered a young atheist in the vestibule of a Catholic Church in London who, boasting of her atheism, shouted: “Every night I go out to Hyde Park and talk against God. I urge my listeners to drive the illusion from the earth. I circulate England, Scotland, and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in God.” When she drew a deep breath thus giving me my just opportunity to speak I said to her: “Suppose I went across the street here to Soho Square and every night talked against 20-footed ghosts and 10-legged centaurs; suppose I circulated England, Scotland. and Wales with pamphlets denouncing a belief in 20-footed ghosts and 10-legged centaurs. What would happen to me?” She said: “You would be crazy; they would lock you up.” “Correct,” said I "Now, tell me, why don’t they lock you up? Don’t you put God in exactly the same category of illusion as that in which I put a 20-footed ghost and a 10-legged centaur? Why would I be crazy and not you?” I had to tell her the answer: “Because if I attacked ghosts or centaurs the reason of men and the tradition of mankind would tell me I was attacking a figment of my imagination– which is a mark of insanity. But when you attack God you are not attacking an illusion but something just as real as the thrust of a sword or an embrace. It is the reality of God which saves you from insanity and it is the reality of God which gives substance and energy to your attacks.” And she answered: "I hate you!” To which I answered: "Now you have answered me. Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a cry of wrath.”

Universalize the case and you have the explanation for the vehemence and ferocity of modern atheism. It could not so hate a myth. lf there were no God, the rage of atheism would be without foundation. They destroy only because there is something to be destroyed. In a word, they believe. Only where the image of God is can there be the counterfeit; man can set himself up as God only because he came from God. Behind every persecution, every human perversion, and every insolence to rid the world of Him, the Divine Original shines forth. Men could not be godless without God; they could not curse God if they were not first loved by God. The wrath of God under which every atheist stands is the Divine Love, which has become a force opposed to him because he has turned against God. The God whom the atheist hates is the God whom the believer loves; God is not hate save to him who hates.
…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian
*
Er - because I haven’t made an assertion.*

Er, if you look at the upper right hand corner of any of your posts, you identify yourself as atheist. Atheism is the assertion there is no God.

Is this really so difficult for you to grasp? If I boldly stated that the Seven Dwarfs existed, you would rightly ask me to prove it. Would you expect me to respond to that challenge with, “Well, why don’t you prove that they don’t?”

If I said to you that there is global warming, and you said there was not, wouldn’t each of us have to put up or shut up?

If you make an assertion, you must be able to back it up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove your assertion wrong - it is your responsibility to prove your assertion right.

What you fail to grasp is that atheism **is **an assertion.

If you took someone to court for stealing money from you, and the judge asked you to prove that the defendant had taken the money, would you respond with, “No, he needs to start by proving that he didn’t?” Would you?

That’s because in law every man is given the benefit of the doubt concerning his innocence. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

So you have indulged us in false analogy … and a whopper!

Again:

*If you make an assertion, you must be able to back it up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove your assertion wrong - it is your responsibility to prove your assertion right. *

Abiogenesis by chance is an assertion. By all means, back it up with evidence!

 

[buffalo]

Truth Journal
**[Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist](http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html)**

 

[Leela]

Here is a selection. It is interesting to note that the Nazis also characterised Jews as ‘infected’, ‘stupid’, ‘child abusers’, ‘evil’ and ‘dangerous’ too.

I have no problem with people who want to discuss concepts, beliefs and consequences; nor do I have a problem with people who disagree with me or with beliefs that I hold.

I do have a problem with people who mock, insult, degrade and stereotype others as less than themselves. That is one of the major things wrong with Dawkins.

What those quotes demonstrate is that Dawkins is sincere rather than mocking in his concerns about religion. I share his concerns.

The only quote that sounds at all insulting to me on the surface is his remarks about the pope, but looking into the matter we see that they refer to specific comments that the pope made rather than a blanket statement about the pope’s intelligence.

Best,
Leela

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

What those quotes demonstrate is that Dawkins is sincere rather than mocking in his concerns about religion. I share his concerns.

The only quote that sounds at all insulting to me on the surface is his remarks about the pope, but looking into the matter we see that they refer to specific comments that the pope made rather than a blanket statement about the pope’s intelligence.

Best,
Leela

What do atheists like Dawkins have to be sincere about? Can they be sincere? This is a* sincere* concern of mine. Why does Dawkins have such a preoccupation with the Catholic Pope and religion in general? Maybe he is sincerely bitter towards God. I am concerned about him and those who share his bitterness. May God have mercy on Dawkins and all atheists, for their insults,mockery, pride and insincerity. And may they be delivered from the darkness of despair. Amen.

 

[1holycatholic]

Why does Dawkins have such a preoccupation with the Catholic Pope and religion in general?

Because of the reality of God. See post #247.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Because of the reality of God. See post #247.

I do sincerely believe that the good Bishop Sheen was a prophetic voice against the “new atheism” of Dawkins, revealing the stark desolation that characterizes him.
Thanks for the great post.

 

[allhers]

Having not read all the posts, I did want to say this in case no one else has.

I watched Abundant Life the other day on EWTN, Dr. Benjamin Wiker was on it with Johnette and he and Dr. Scott Hahn have co-authored a book titled:
Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, they both have written other awesome books too, such as, Dr. Benjamin Wiker has also co-authored with William Dembski: Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists.

Just wanted to add this to this thread.

 

[Fran65]

What those quotes demonstrate is that Dawkins is sincere rather than mocking in his concerns about religion. I share his concerns.

Demonstrating sincerity by using abusive, degrading and insulting terms is inappropriate and has no place in society or in discussion.

The nazis were (are) also sincere, as are racists and bigots of every type. If Dawkins had said those things about a racial group such as black people what do you think would happen?

So, as a person with a faith, you think that I am stupid, evil, a child abuser and infected?

How very disturbing. Leela, for that reason, I’m putting you back on ignore.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

Er, if you look at the upper right hand corner of any of your posts, you identify yourself as atheist. Atheism is the assertion there is no God.

Well, that’s obviously a convenient way for you to look at it, but it’s not accurate.

But let me clarify so there can be no doubt. I do not believe that God exists. My reasoning for this is that there is no evidence, and I believe it is irrational to believe in something for which no evidence exists. That, if you like, is my assertion, and I have provided my reason for it many times if you can be bothered to read my posts properly. Obviously I can’t provide evidence of the non-existence of God, but that clearly doesn’t mean that he exists. If you believe in God, you should believe in unicorns. There is no substantive difference. If you have evidence - logical or tangible - for God’s existence, please present it and I’ll grovel at your feet and ask your forgiveness. As far as I am aware, no evidence has ever been provided. Hence that is why I do not believe in God.

If I said to you that there is global warming, and you said there was not, wouldn’t each of us have to put up or shut up?

Yes. But if you make the assertion that there is global warming and I simply ask for evidence, the obligation upon you is to provide it. This is clearly NOT the same as you asserting one thing and I asserting something different. The real situation here is analagous to the former scenario, not the latter.

What you fail to grasp is that atheism **is **an assertion.

And what you fail to grasp is simply that that’s how you have chosen to perceive it, because that perception gives you a foundation for argument. Without that false foundation, your argument just falls flat.

That’s because in law every man is given the benefit of the doubt concerning his innocence. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

So to continue the analogy - God doesn’t exist unless you can prove he does. Unless you think that religion, for some reason, deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card - ie. the man is guilty until proven innocent? If so, what is that reason?

So you have indulged us in false analogy … and a whopper!

Not a false analogy at all - and you have demonstrated yourself where the religious apologetic stance falls down.

Abiogenesis by chance is an assertion. By all means, back it up with evidence!

But it’s an assertion that I didn’t make. I just compared its probability with one of the other options, which is that God started it all. And as I said before, by definition, God starting abiogenesis is less likely than it starting spontaneously. If you wish to debate this specific point, then I’m happy to. It clearly can’t be debated by evidence, but I believe it can be debated to a satisfactory conclusion using logic, as long as fallacious assertions are not inserted. Which is why I don’t hold out much hope for you being able to contribute constructively to such a debate, with all due respect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

It clearly can’t be debated by evidence, but I believe it can be debated to a satisfactory conclusion using logic, as long as fallacious assertions are not inserted. Which is why I don’t hold out much hope for you being able to contribute constructively to such a debate, with all due respect.

Have a good life.

 

[Leela]

Demonstrating sincerity by using abusive, degrading and insulting terms is inappropriate and has no place in society or in discussion.

The nazis were (are) also sincere, as are racists and bigots of every type. If Dawkins had said those things about a racial group such as black people what do you think would happen?

So, as a person with a faith, you think that I am stupid, evil, a child abuser and infected?

How very disturbing. Leela, for that reason, I’m putting you back on ignore.

I guess that is a good idea. You seem to be unable to get past some strong emotions to have a rational discussion of what is offensive about Dawkins. Maybe someone else can have the conversation with me because I don’t see it. I can see how someone like Bill Maur is mocking of religious people, but not Dawkins. He levels strong criticism but from what I’ve read he is always careful to distinguish between bad ideas and bad or stupid people. There is a huge difference between attacking ideas and attacking a group of people because of the color of their skin. If you can’t see that then it is probably a good idea for you to ignore me from here on out.

Best,
Leela

 

[wanstronian]

If Dawkins had said those things about a racial group such as black people what do you think would happen?

If he said things because of their colour or race, he would rightly be ostracised, and probably arrested. But, as you must be aware Ethnic grouping is NOT the same as religious beliefs. Your attempted analogy is irrelevant and facile.

Religion should not have an exemption from challenge purely because a lot of people are religious. Nor should theists be any more exempt from insult than anybody else.

 

[Contarini]

Truth Journal

   **[Why the Burden of Proof is on the  Atheist](http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html)**

This is a really good article. Thanks! Lots of food for thought there.

Edwin