Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by _SilentAssassin_
From Web Of Knowledge I see Dawkins has published at least 100 articles in scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Journal of Neurophysiology and
Clinical and Experimental Immunology. Further his books, e.g. the Selfish Gene, have introduced (at least wider scientific community) to new ideas,
which have turned out to be correct. So, he's very much a scientist. A very high profile one actually. You might call them crappy books, because they
(the ones about religion) totally trash your belief system, but you calling them anything doesn't make it so (I doubt very much you've actually ever
even touched a book from Dawkins). For this we'd need proper arguments, which you will fail to deliver. Also, is it a belief system to say that you
don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe? Is it a belief system to say you don't think an elephant farted the Earth into
existence? Atheism, at heart, is denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented (e.g. christian god). If it's a belief system, you
could just as well call it rationalism, in contrast to religions, which we can group into one belief system: irrationalism.edit on 27-6-2011
by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
I was going to reply to only a portion of your post, and then I noticed that most of it is actually in need of a rebuttal.
You're correct and the original poster is wrong. Dawkins is very much a scientist and a very prominent one, probably one of the most knowledgeable
biologists alive today. What he isn't, however, is a philosopher.
I've read his books. I've read God's Delusion and I've read The Greatest Show on Earth. As far as the former "totally trashing my beliefs",
you're solely mistaken. As I said, Dawkins is not a philosopher. He presents absolutely no new argument against Christianity. In fact, he presents
absolutely no argument against Christianity that doesn't already have an answer, sometimes over a thousand years old. Dawkins knows nothing of
theology and only taints his own reputation by somehow thinking that his credentials as a scientist warrant him the necessary knowledge to dabble in
other intellectual fields. The God's Delusion is an endless stream of appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks, plus the occasional strawman. Yes,
it is a crappy book. No shortage of books exist in reply to it, demonstrating how it is faulty from all of logical, factual, and theological sides.
Yes, it is a belief to say that "you don't think a transdimensional giraffe created the Universe." It is also a belief to say that "you don't
think an elephant farted the Earth into existence." Negative opinions exist. Do not confuse skepticism (the lack of opinion) with pseudoskepticism
(assumption of negative as default).
I like how you redefine "atheism" to make a point. It is a denial of insane ideas for which no proof whatsoever is presented? Am I atheist now
because I deny the idea that vaccines prevent death? There have been no proof whatsoever of this, as no studies have ever been made to prove this
point. Atheism is, and will always be, defined as "absence of believe in a god", your silly redefinitions notwithstanding.
As I am sure you're aware of this, and by the context on which your argument is presented, I am to assume that by "insane ideas" you are refering
to "belief in God." In this case, prove. Since you state with such absolute certainty that it is an insane idea, you need to prove it, or recant.
If you believe that atheism is rational, you might want to provide the necessary logical arguments to support it, as well. Please, spare me of the
argument of ignorance usually offered. I want a real logical argument, for a change.
If you believe that theism is irrational, you might want to provide the necessary logical arguments to support it, proving it to be irrational.
Otherwise, you might want to refrain from making naked assertions for which you can offer no proof whatsoever in the future. Wait, if I deny your
insane ideas for which you offered no proof whatsoever, according to your definition, am I now an atheist, despite the fact that I believe in God?
