Atheists Dumbfounded to Discover Richard Dawkins is a Closet Christian!

I'm going to prove to you that Richard Dawkins is a Christian. Not only that, he is a creationist who affirms the triune nature and the omnipotence of God. Using the same hermeneutic that the typical ATS Bible skeptic employs I shall gather all of my evidence from The God Delusion

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

- The God Delusion p. 52

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

- The God Delusion p. 54

"God is the Omnipotent Father"

- The God Delusion p. 58

"I am a Christian"

- The God Delusion p. 67

Now, I want to emphasize that I've simply used the exact same technique that ATS Bible bashers use with the Bible...lifting verses out of their overall context and then claiming a contradiction or some sort of horrible fact about God. On this very same basis, I have proven that Richard Dawkins is a Christian who believes in the Trinity and holds that God created the universe!

If it's legitimate for you to do this, then it's legitimate for me to do so...and if I'm wrong in doing so (as I surely am, since I ignored the context when finding these statements), you are just as wrong for doing the same thing with the Bible.

Now, i know this is a satire, but quote mining richard dawkins isn't convincing at all.

Speaking of bible context, it's typically the christians denying a message that is actually there. Rarely atheists trying to make different messages seem like they're there. Christians only look at the messages they want, ignore the rest, then cry "out of context!" whenever a less than favorable message is shown.

I could post numerous videos on that topic too(just because their filled with examples). But I already gave you 15 minutes of Dawkins. I'll share them still if you wish.

Edit:

Oh, it's a three part video.

reply to post by Bigwhammy



Your argument is not very convincing to say the least.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I believe that Richard Dawkins actually frequents ATS.

Couldn't be sure though, he stopped replying when I asked point blank if he was Richard Dawkins (I just had a strong suspicion).

(sort of off topic, I suppose, but probably interesting to the general ATS science crowd).

Richard actually professed to being a Christian when he was younger (according to Wikipedia) but could not reconcile his faith with his views on science and evolution.

Perhaps it would be easier for him if he practised a real science (like Physics) instead of one of the "Life Sciences".

To Atheists and Christians...and anyone else dumb enough to argue over religion:

Why do you care? Keep your opinions about these matters to yourself and to those who actively seek to hear it. THE END

Although this post was entertaining, I have to ask what it will profit? I mean this will surely spiral downward until it is an all out assault against Christianity. I think that all sides will get along better when they all realize that there is no convincing either side. I am a Christian and I have my faith and I have been vocal about defending the rights of others on this site of having their own personal faith. I do not like it when Christians are bashed here. That being said, I question the wisdom of "picking a fight" with atheists on this site.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm going to prove to you that Richard Dawkins is a Christian. Not only that, he is a creationist who affirms the triune nature and the omnipotence of God. Using the same hermeneutic that the typical ATS Bible skeptic employs I shall gather all of my evidence from The God Delusion

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

- The God Delusion p. 52

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

- The God Delusion p. 54

"God is the Omnipotent Father"

- The God Delusion p. 58

"I am a Christian"

- The God Delusion p. 67

What a bunch of intentionally inflammatory crap taken out of context, although I see that is your point, which is why this should be moved to rants where it belongs. If you want to blame people for taking biblical scriptures out of context, you might want to turn that pointy finger of yours in the exact opposite direction, too.

If it's legitimate for you to do this, then it's legitimate for me to do so...and if I'm wrong in doing so (as I surely am, since I ignored the context when finding these statements), you are just as wrong for doing the same thing with the Bible.

"I'm immature because some of you are immature!"

Congrats, do you want a scratch-and-sniff sticker?

Unfortunately, Atheism is not a "group think" like religion, so you're telling people that they have tactics that they don't neccessarily subscribe to based on their LACK OF a belief; nothing short of idiotic.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I wrote to Richard Dawkins.
Curious as to what side he decided to be on.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


would you be totally baffled if i told you he convinced me ? all in all i knew dawkins was too far up the pupe schute to be making any logical statements about god, i think hes mad cus some kid who looked like jesus tripped him off at the burger store when he was younger. true story look into it.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


you better do well to remember your a monkey sir and thoughts of such nonsense are likely to offend, ill get on out of here neow.

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

would you be totally baffled if i told you he convinced me ? all in all i knew dawkins was too far up the pupe schute to be making any logical statements about god, i think hes mad cus some kid who looked like jesus tripped him off at the burger store when he was younger. true story look into it.

Who convinced you? The OP or Dawkins?

I'd be slightly set back that if the OP convinced you. Citing a book that, even in the title, shows clearing being against the case for god, to show something for the case of god. And admitting it was out of context.

That's what happens when people don't pay attention to what's behind claims.
~
I wouldn't be set back at all by if Dawkins convinced you. He's a genius, and is the figure head of public arguments against theism. He's not mad about a kid looking like jesus(what kind of story is that?), he's just, like most of the smartest men we have, realized the fallacies behind the notion of the god we're taught to believe in.

The fact that he puts forward valid reasoning, and doesn't reuse refuted arguements, makes it very believable someone could find him convincing. Especially after seeing the lack of true arguements for the theistic gods.

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood

 

you better do well to remember your a monkey sir and thoughts of such nonsense are likely to offend, ill get on out of here neow.

I'm only an ape(not monkey) by my beliefs, as much as you are dirt by your beliefs. And I don't go around telling christians they're dirt.

reply to post by newcovenant


Richard Dawkin's is NOT a christian or believer in God or ANY God/God's for that matter. That quote the op posted was taken out of context, which I believe the OP knew that he was trying to prove a point. So the OP didn't mess up either.

But the actually paragraph states this:

It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'. (To be fair, this milksop persona owes more to his Victorian followers than to Jesus himself. Could anything be more mawkishly nauseating than Mrs. C. F. Alexander's 'Christian children all must be / Mild, obedient, good as he'?) I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or, Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.

Notice he says he's defining the God Hypothesis that most believers in God believe in. He's stating such to prove a point.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood


What a bunch of intentionally inflammatory crap taken out of context, although I see that is your point, which is why this should be moved to rants where it belongs. If you want to blame people for taking biblical scriptures out of context, you might want to turn that pointy finger of yours in the exact opposite direction, too.

Wooooooosh went right over your head didn't it? Thanks for making my point for me...

Originally posted by J.Son79
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Richard Dawkin's is NOT a christian or believer in God or ANY God/God's for that matter. That quote the op posted was taken out of context, which I believe the OP knew that he was trying to prove a point. So the OP didn't mess up either.

Now this is amusing! You actually feel it's necessary to prove he's not a Christian now?

Perhaps re-read the last paragraph of the OP, but thanks for the brilliant apologetic.

Originally posted by J.Son79
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Richard Dawkin's is NOT a christian or believer in God or ANY God/God's for that matter. That quote the op posted was taken out of context, which I believe the OP knew that he was trying to prove a point. So the OP didn't mess up either.

But the actually paragraph states this:

It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'. (To be fair, this milksop persona owes more to his Victorian followers than to Jesus himself. Could anything be more mawkishly nauseating than Mrs. C. F. Alexander's 'Christian children all must be / Mild, obedient, good as he'?) I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or, Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.

Notice he says he's defining the God Hypothesis that most believers in God believe in. He's stating such to prove a point.

Oh totally I know. Richard won't listen to me tho, I give him so many solutions.

Richard Dawkins is awesome. He's my hero! I loved his book "Battle of the Sexes." He makes so much sense!
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Okay, I admit, I'm stupid. I don't get it. What are you trying to say now?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


LOL epic. That's precisely how skeptics read and criticize the Bible. S&F

reply to post by J.Son79

Richard Dawkin's is NOT a christian or believer in God or ANY God/God's for that matter. That quote the op posted was taken out of context, which I believe the OP knew that he was trying to prove a point. So the OP didn't mess up either.

Context, context, context. The skeptics are always complaining about context. We just read what Richard believes, it says so right in his book. It's in black and white.

(Sorry, couldn't help getting in on the fun.)