Skip to content

Hello, I’m a staunch atheist, and I hate Richard Dawkins.

December 5, 2009

Let me start this out by offering a more stimulating conversation than my own.

This is the first part in an entire debate hosted by Intelligence², a London-based company that hosts “Oxford Union” style debate on controversial topics. The question is whether the New Atheism (as popularized by people such as Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) is a new kind of agnostic fundamentalism. The debate, if you’re curious, ends up with the consensus being a negative on that. But, clearly, there’s a lot to be said. I recommend watching all of it, for one because it’ll enrich your wonderful brain, and for two because it’ll make everything I’m going to ramble on about more clear.

The key thing of note in this debate is comparing the two attitudes that pervade the entire event. On one side, you have A.C. Grayling and Bishop Richard Harries who are thoughtful and respectful, even if they disagree. Dr. Grayling has all sorts of tactful analogies and thoughtful insights about the atheist position, while Harries actually made me pause and consider the other side with his idea that the whole of human experience, not just the scientifically verifiable, should be considered, at least philosophically, by other people who claim to be empathetic and interested in humans.

On the other side is Charles Moore (who comes off as a petulant child whining that atheists have the gall to claim they’re right while constantly exhibiting the selfsame arrogance), and Richard Dawkins. To his credit, Dawkins is not known for being very kind to his opponents, so no one was surprised by his performance here. But he embodies this arrogant, vitriolic attitude that I despise in some fellow atheists, an attitude I am ashamed to admit I used to give, back when I was sixteen. More accolades where they’re due– Dawkins is a master of pop biology. If you’ve read any of his first few books, you know that when he focuses himself on the task of explaining how evolution works to the uninitiated, it’s hard to match. When it comes to explaining, much like Brian Greene before him, the wonders of nature even absent any sort of theism to tie it all together, you understand the sense of awe and amazement scientists feel.

But it doesn’t excuse his behavior, especially when he claims to be a Humanist.

As an atheist, I worry (and rightfully so) that other atheists will attempt to take up this callous mantle. So far, it’s borne out true. It’s damaging to a movement that is picking up speed at a tremendous rate. Here ‘on the ground’ as it were, in the South, I can see the problems inherent in this method of espousing my religions non-belief. It does indeed come off as dogged fundamentalism. When I look at someone like Dawkins, and then look at intelligent but pedantic, mean-spirited Christian fundamentalists, it’s hard to draw the line.

I throw my weight much more behind people like Grayling (as seen in the above debate), or for an even better example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

The number one difference in this approach of reaching out to theists to explain our position is that instead of commenting on the fact that 85 percent of scientists are atheists (a vastly different number from the average person, implying that education leads to atheism), then patting ourselves on the back for our brightness in combating this so-called ‘ignorance’ with science, Tyson asks about the other 15%. What is it about this group of people that, steeped in all the evidence they could ever need about the trouble with faith and the lack of proof of a god or gods, that they hold on anyway? Why do they do this? Is this unique to them?

This approach is much akin to asking why the terrorists hate us rather than using that hate to justify any action against them. That is food for thought, and more Humanist than Dawkins ever impressed me with. Understand your fellow man, no matter what their beliefs. If they’re wrong, it’ll show you how to prove it to them, if such a thing can be done.

Advertisements
44 Comments leave one →
  1. December 7, 2009 1:45 am

    Nice post. I am having a similar feeling as I am reading both The God Delusion and books by Christian fundamentalists.

    I look forward to watching the videos tomorrow.

  2. December 7, 2009 11:46 am

    I wonder if recent posts aren’t something of a violation of first principles: (https://generalissimo.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-silly-serious-spectrum/) God, criminals, history, death… Either I’m too stoned or you’re not stoned enough.

    Despite other interests, we must remember to keep with our specialties. Nobody eats the pizza at a Chinese buffet.

    yours in the good fight,

    • David Ogles permalink*
      December 18, 2009 5:01 am

      Ah, fair criticism. But please note there are multiple authors on this blog. And also, I’m not hanging out with you in a bar (where such talk would be inappropriate among sillies), but writing for a blog that is “Fighting the good fight against over-specialization and irksome conversation.” I make no claim about how successful we have been about the latter, but you certainly can’t begrudge us the former 🙂

      ~David

  3. Marc permalink
    February 6, 2010 12:54 am

    I couldn’t agree more.

  4. Rob permalink
    February 6, 2010 1:25 am

    Honestly I think more atheists need to be like Dawkins. All this talk of “Dawkins is the same type of fundamentalist that he keeps criticizing” just means you have no idea what he is refering to by a fundamentalist. He even said himself that if there was the same type of proof for a god that there is for evolution, he’d be among the first to say “I was wrong”. If you want to believe that he is this big bully who should lay off religion that’s your opinion. Personally I think that his approach gives more respect to religion if anything. He tries to look at it on the same level of science and label it as a hypothesis (a very poor one at that) instead of other atheists who try to separate religion and science, insisting there is room for both and that science should just lay off religion. I find that kind of sad. It is no different than those atheists who lie about their beliefs and are ashamed about who they are. Dawkins wants to inspire pride in atheists everywhere, to rise up and find pride in who they are instead of having to apologize. Those who believe he gives atheists a bad name are those who are insecure about who they are in their beliefs.

    • Kiki permalink
      March 7, 2010 11:31 am

      I really have no idea how people can be so aggressively against dividing the spiritual from the scientific. I’m not saying either is mutually exclusive or that they go hand-in-hand, just that I’m confused by the logic. And I think many would disagree that treating people’s faith as a scientific hypothesis to be disproved is showing it the highest level respect. (If Dawkins and his like aren’t fundamentalists, than I’m quite certain the type exist in the sciences.)

      Dawkins doesn’t just give atheists a bad name, he’s an embarrassment to any who consider themselves “educated”, for surely anyone as clever and enlightened as he imagines himself wouldn’t reek of the same mean-spiritedness rarely found outside of the playground.

      I am an atheist. I have never been embarrassed about this, but neither is it some great accomplishment to be proud of. I was born in a country and a time where this is the norm and I will never understand this culture that needs to pat itself on the back for being intelligent, and wily enough to evade the “evils” of religion.

      I have a sneaking suspicion those who insist on degrading the beliefs of others might be the insecure ones.

      • Ross permalink
        October 9, 2012 9:22 pm

        I know you commented on this 2 years ago, but I just want to say to you that you have nailed everything that I believe on this subject in one concise argument. Thanks!

      • Easy like Sunday permalink
        January 24, 2013 6:56 am

        I second that (I’m atheist – always have been). You pretty much summed my feelings up on Dawkins, and his quick-to-war disciples. It’s like they’ve just realized there isn’t a god after reading The God Delusion, and are now extremely pissed off about it.

        The lack of acceptance astounds me in what is just another harsh message of conformity – it has been put forth as a religion itself. I find Dawkins himself to be very naive, and something of a media whore now an American audience keeps thanking him for showing them the way (Bill Maher shows etc – btw Bill Maher, a Christian into his 40s!?!).

        Dawkins said, something along the lines of, “I really thought The God Delusion would be taught in schools” in one of his shows. This is a man that doesn’t understand human nature. Yes, he is obviously clever – but he doesn’t have restraint (“religion equated child abuse”), because he doesn’t understand people. And now of course he’s (majority) yank applauded and thanked, so there’s no stopping the limit to his wanting to be down in the history books as “the man who unmasked god”. Even Peter Higgs (Atheist) called him an embarrassment. Such a silly man, I wish he’d finally just piss off and take up a hobby somewhere quite. Maybe fire Max Clifford, too.

        Sad. It’s liuk

      • timothy permalink
        February 28, 2015 7:21 pm

        I couldn’t agree more, Dawkins the “moral crusader” offensively and unnecessarily because attacks people’s personal beliefs so mean heart-idly.
        Why so bitter Dawkins? Life is meaningless to you?
        Well so is it to me, now take your bitterness elsewhere and stop harassing and hurting people.

      • timothy permalink
        February 28, 2015 7:22 pm

        Excuse me, but exclude the typo of because :/

    • SK Williams permalink
      February 23, 2014 7:24 pm

      It’s four years later so I shant elaborate unless beckened to do so, but yoru wrong about Trusting Dawkins. Just because he says he’d be the first to admit he’s wrong if evidence came to Light that God existed doesn;t mean he’s telling the Truth, he’s just playing up to the Image. He’s basically a salesman, whose peddling his Wares, and that’s just part of the Speil used to make a strong, albeit emptional, connection to his audience.

      I think we all know deep down that Dawkins is really just arguing for his own beleifs, not lookign for Truth. he isn’t really concerned with Loic and Reason and Science in these discussions on Religion, ust in undermining Theism.

      Even the thign you claim gives Religion mroe respect, by callign it a Hypothesis, is nothign mroe han a Rhetorical tool to Dawkins, and the factthat he starts out by sayign its a poor one shoudl tip you to that. He’s decided in advance its not True therefore he now sets out to find arguments to spport his accusations.

      I’s all too silly for me.

  5. Liz permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:21 pm

    I agree with your argument, however, I am on the other side of it. I am staunch theist and I hate Richard Dawkins. I went to a rather liberal school where I studied religion so Dawkins is one of the main authors we have had to read. But we also had to read authors that were on a rampage to save the souls of all their readers, example the creators of the Creation Museum. I have been lucky to look at both sides but when you stop to think they are the same arguments. Both think they are right and will step all over anyone who thinks differently. Dawkins may not be the worst of the two groups, growing up here in the south you see overly zealous fundamentalist “Christians” but he has a big following. I find him and anyone like him to be just as bad as a Jerry Falwell or a Joel Olson. They are not open to discussion though they say they are; what they really mean is listen to me yell at you and make fun of you because you are wrong. They are like children who are throwing tantrums.

  6. Mecurian permalink
    October 21, 2010 1:19 pm

    How refreshing to see a forum where the theists and the atheists are not at each others throat. I hope I find more, but having trawled the web a bit i fear they will be few and far-between. I do feel that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens bear much responsibility for the current antagonism that exists between the two groups., as well as the extreme discrimination that atheists are currently the brunt of in much of the world. Simply put, if you want to convince someone of the rightness of your point of view, insulting them will not win them over.

    • Roland permalink
      February 12, 2012 5:47 pm

      “I do feel that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens bear much responsibility for the current antagonism that exists between the two groups., as well as the extreme discrimination that atheists are currently the brunt of in much of the world”

      But being vilified by the religious establishment, which exercises influence to deny basic human rights…certainly has nothing to do with it, right?

      Do you also think that blacks are to blame for being discriminated against?

  7. Roland permalink
    January 8, 2011 7:02 pm

    I fully agree with Rob. Atheists who hate Richard Dawkins: (1) are insecure in their own beliefs and (2) just don’t know enough about Dawkins. Perhaps he’s’ simply too intellectual for them to grasp and their only method of defense is hatred. Wouldn’t that put them in the religious camp, though? 🙂

    • Mecurian permalink
      February 17, 2011 1:55 am

      Ah – the good ol’ if you’re no with us you’re against us bit? How very intellectual of you.

      • Roland permalink
        February 12, 2012 5:27 pm

        And exactly how “intellectual” is it to hate someone just because you disagree with them?

      • February 12, 2012 5:29 pm

        Not very, but thankfully I don’t actually ‘hate’ Dawkins and I’m not an intellectual to begin with.

    • July 26, 2016 1:09 pm

      I don’t hate him because i disagree with him – how would that even make sense logistically for an atheist to hate someone who says god isn’t real because they disagree. There’s so many contradictions there. Unless you’re Deepak Chopra of course, in that case, well said.

      What I hate is the militaristic approach, the attacks, the treatment as if they’re intellectually inferior is childish and hateful as much as it is hurtful. I get that Richard is mostly professional, but he does succumb to this a lot, and his followers (at least on the comments of his debates) sound like Nazi’s. It’s disgusting and sad to see people rendered into such fat, hateful slobs.

      Also I do think people should let religion just be. So long as it isn’t infringing on the rights of other peoples well being, then protest against that all you want. Religion is necessary in a similar way to art, but different in that it provides a bit of deeper fulfillment. People break. It’s difficult to put them back together without a shard or two hanging out, if religion helps them do that then more power to them.

      Also, don’t be one of the bigots who says “I broke and i didn’t need help, so you’re weak.” If you suffered but you still have the resolve to criticize others for being weak, it just means either you’re lying for attention, or you haven’t suffered enough to justify “breaking”.

  8. George permalink
    September 2, 2011 7:24 pm

    I think what everyone is missing is that Dawkins is British. Arrogance is sort of like fog there.

    • October 16, 2011 5:36 pm

      A very wise person once said;
      “Stereotypes are devices for saving a biased person the trouble of learning.”
      That is all.

  9. Kent99 permalink
    September 5, 2011 7:56 am

    It’s funny, because us Brits view Americans as being arrogant as well.

    The problem with Dawkins is that he is neither religiously or philosophically literate. Anyone who has read his works can come to the obvious conclusion that all he is doing is rehashing the same old arguments against god and religion, and to be honest, it’s really very boring as he adds nothing new to the debate. Not only that, but when he comments on some religious doctrines, he shows that he has completely misunderstood them. Not a good start for a so-called intellectual.
    The second problem that Dawkins has is that he refers to himself as a ‘clear thinker’, well nothing could be further from the truth. It is a logical fallacy to claim that god does not exist, because there is no proof for or against the existence of god, so if Dawkins wishes to hold on to his title as a clear thinker, then at best his position should be agnostic.
    As someone who has studied both Philosophy and Religion, I can honestly say that Richard Dawkins should in no way be taken seriously. Not only that but anyone who does fall in with his very distorted views, becomes a victim of the same mental illness that he claims that all those who have some kind of faith have.

    • Justin Michael permalink
      September 5, 2011 11:39 am

      1. False Attribution: Your “two problems” with Dawkins, even if we were to grant the arguments as true on their face, are really the same problem with Dawkins: That he is not to be taken seriously because he is not philosophically literate.

      2. Ad Hominem: He is boring because he does not bring in new arguments, therefore he is not an intellectual, therefore his arguments are flawed (should not be taken seriously). New arguments are not necessary if old arguments are true.

      3. Straw Man: Dawkins does not claim that god doesn’t exist (which is a gnostic atheist position) but rather that it is not likely that god exists (an agnostic atheist position, evidence here) which is in fact a claim that is well supported by “there is no proof for the existence of god”. It is furthermore false to claim that there is no proof against the existence of a god, as most of the claims made for particular gods have been shown to be unlikely or flat-out contradicted by hard evidence.

      For someone who has studied both philosophy and religion, you sure are disappointing on the first part. A giant pile of logical fallacies does not a rebut make. Call him callous (I did, in that post) but to call him philosophically illiterate is a bit hasty. To call him philosophically illiterate and then to support that claim with a bunch of falsity and mis-characterization isn’t hasty, it’s just hilarious.

  10. CWH permalink
    September 15, 2011 12:56 am

    “2. Ad Hominem: He is boring because he does not bring in new arguments, therefore he is not an intellectual, therefore his arguments are flawed (should not be taken seriously). New arguments are not necessary if old arguments are true”

    Credit where credit’s due:

    Dawkins does (or at least DID) bring something new.
    Ironically though for such a self-styled rationalist, it’s style rather than content:
    for his fans an uncompromising, dynamic, not afraid to offend-in-a-good-cause approach, for others vitriolic, arrogant, disrespectful and possibly most offensively for fellow atheists, boorish and priggish.

    My guess is many atheists out there feel they could do a better job.

    • Roland permalink
      February 12, 2012 5:42 pm

      And how noble of these unseen individuals who care enough to spend so much of their valuable time, thanklessly trolling internet forums to criticize Mr. Dawkins anonymously. Because that certainly is “doing a better job”, right?

      These unsung heroes certainly are to be lauded for their valiant efforts.
      Whatever would the cause of atheism do without them?

  11. Ian Robinson permalink
    November 21, 2011 1:30 am

    Dear members
    I was just wondering if you were aware of the Ancient Hebrew writing ( Dimensions 300 kilometres long X 120 kilometres wide) written on the sea bed just off the west coast of Ireland?

    Kind Regards

    Ian Robinson

  12. Bellatrix permalink
    November 23, 2011 5:47 am

    Richard Dawkins, above all, is a scientist whose expertise lies in evolutionary biology (and not a philosopher or theologist). He is unapologetic in his pursuit for scientific fact (truth) and I’d argue that on the contrary of being arrogant that he is a well spoken gentleman who articulates his poistion without flowery sentiment. The video linked here intending to show an example of Dawkins’ unkindness to his opponents particularly exhibits this weak interpretation of the man’s public presence. It could, at most, be argued that Dawkins is not sensitive towards religious or irrational beliefs, and in effect towards those who (of their own chosing) confront him. Also, since when was humanism synonomous with niceness?

  13. Chris Misvader permalink
    February 10, 2012 11:56 am

    I hate Richard Dawkins more than you. Every day I search the internet looking for people who share my hatred. I can’t stand the sight of him, I hate his voice, I hate his egotistical attitude to everything, I hate his stupid theories, I hate his ignorance of the bigger picture and his naive little brain. He has spent years of his life trying to prove his little point and if you go to Google Trends and enter “science” and then “God” you will see that popularity for the former is declining and the latter increasing. 2004-2012 stats. Too bad Richard, you stupid little ego wanker.

    • exatheist permalink
      March 7, 2012 4:35 pm

      Agreed

      Richard Dawkins is the reason I’m considering Christianity 🙂 If he is what atheists become longer term I want nothing to do with it.

    • June 17, 2012 12:37 am

      Thank goodness the popularity of science is waning! We were dangerously close to a cure for cancer or alternate fuel sources, God knows what might’ve happened had that gone through.

      • March 8, 2017 5:35 am

        Ha ha! Ok, granted, your joke is valid. They should ban Google trends so that we don’t know what the masses are thinking and the general response to the science/God debate. Heavens, spare us the truth! But seriously, give the masses some credit: two decades ago, science was mostly proclaiming to have, “discovered almost everything”. However, since quantum-physics began to get more understood, superstring theory, branes, multiverses, multi-dimensions, science has begun to accept that it still has a long, long way to go in understanding how the universe actually works and whether there is a creative force driving it or not.

    • February 27, 2013 4:58 am

      Good post. I to am an atheist but despise Dawkins. I wish to educate the majority of ardent Dawkins Micky Mouse atheists that believing in evolution or multiverse is as big of a leap of faith as is believing in God. I want atheists to see that their beliefs are ultimately drawn solely on ideology rather than evidence. Absolutely no evidence for multiverse theory, or theory for the Planck Era before the Big Bang, or not a shred of evidence for the initial self replicating molecule that is the entire foundation that makes evolution possible as the origins of life. New Atheists need to wise the fk up and stop persecuting and trolling religious people. It’s not acceptable towards homosexuality or ethnicity, nor should it be acceptable or even popularised by fundamentalists like Dawkins, towards religion.

  14. Nuthatch Siesta permalink
    June 16, 2012 10:44 pm

    Dawkins is the same as religious fundamentalists in just the same way that that Harvey Milk is the same as Fred Phelps.

    Get a clue.

  15. Luisa permalink
    October 11, 2012 1:38 pm

    You shouldn’t hate Richard Dawkins. Just because you have different ideas doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.

  16. the king of carisma permalink
    October 15, 2012 2:46 pm

    I am not a religious person myself but do believe that Dawkins has an insane hatred of religion. Not just christianity, and Catholicism but Islam, Buddhism and all religions. His views are very ignorant as well by saying silly things like “Islam is a great Evil”. and that bringing up children as christians is “Child Abuse”. Everyone is entitled to there own opinions but he is unbelivably arrogant in his views,

  17. the king of carisma permalink
    October 15, 2012 2:48 pm

    Dawkins assumes that he is right and that anyone who doesn’t share his views is stupid.
    As i’ve said i’m not religious but think his hatred is a bit silly.Islam isn’t evil.

  18. Martin H permalink
    July 26, 2013 12:38 pm

    I gave up ‘The God Delusion’ when I realised it was full of illogical argument. You cannot disprove that there might be an ‘invisible intangible unicorn ‘ says Daw.kins.
    Yes I can. If something is invisible and intangible it cannot be a unicorn.

    What I tell people is that the World behaves the same whether it was created or sprang into existence due to quantum fluctuation. Which is more likely, and what use is religion when the universe is the same as if there were none?

    The true god of mankind is fear. The first hunters prayed to gods to prevent the herds of animals from disappearing (pity they didn’t use their brains to work out they were overhunting). Since then its been fear of crop failure, no life after death hell etc.

    Lets stop praying and apply our minds to devising solutions for the World’s problems and to carry them through.

  19. John permalink
    December 12, 2014 1:39 pm

    The atheist is in the horrible position of a terminal Catch 22.
    He is forced into a dilemma, against all reasonable methods of logical argumentation, where he cannot surrender any ground–even obvious and self evident truths–because his eternal Doom awaits if he is wrong.

    This is like no other debate. You just can’t relinquish part of your contruct and expect to survive. Its not like…..ok, I was wrong….Babe Ruth was the greatest ball player to ever live. Such beliefs can be absorbed, corrected, or even left partially open. This is all or nothing and will be the most devastating mistake that can possibly be made.

    This explains the first and second stages of grief deniers of a truth almost every human that has ever lived can see in all of 3 seconds are trapped in. Dawkins is the full manifestation of that denial and anger. The self righteousness and false humility of most atheists is so transparent that its astonishing they don’t have the insight to recognize how utterly full of crap they appear to the world. “Lets stop praying and apply our minds to devising solutions for the World’s problems and to carry them through.” Yeah right….sounds completely sincere.

    The list of things you have to deny to remain an atheist requires self deception. Thats why as a worldview it has the lowest retention rate(somewhere in the teens). So science states most here will abandon this farce because the obviousness that a lego building world complete with laws that build people that all recognize that God is the only explanation for the world we observe is logical and the self refuting beliefs of atheism cannot coexist in the rational mind for an entire life.

  20. Martin H permalink
    December 12, 2014 2:14 pm

    How about this for logic. If I am Catholic (or Presbyterian or Jeohvah’s witness etc) then I will go to Heaven and all other religions will go to Hell. If I am Moslem, I will go to Paradise and infidels will go to Hell and so on . Therefore there can only be one choice, the rest mean going to Hell. There is no way one can logically choose which religion to choose (how’s that for Catch 22?) but all of them rely on someone writing what they considered the will of God to be many hundreds of years ago, long before there was any scientific method’
    .
    Please don’t accuse me of not being sincere because I am, I would rather spend my time and money helping those who put their efforts into helping the sick, the starving and the abused in this world than washing my hands because ‘God will see they are all right in the next’.

    If you choose to believe in a diety fair enough, please allow that I have considered this long and hard and every day that goes by confirms me in my atheism. I just wanted people to know that not all atheists see things like Richard Dawkins does.

    If I’m wrong and do go to Hell at least there will be many religious people there to tell me how wrong I was.

  21. April 1, 2015 10:56 am

    Sorry,I know this is an old blog post, but…

    One of the most common problems I come across is that Richard Dawkins thinks that believing, that there is an intelligent creator, is always founded on religious beliefs. There are many people who are not religious at all but agree that there is so much we don’t know yet and purely base their reasoning on the fact that “nothing comes from nothing” – which isn’t too far fetched. And he presumes that a person who is convinced that there must have been an intelligent being involved in the origin of life and the universe, must be somewhat unintelligble and poorly educated. This creates a very strong obstacle to open conversations between Atheists and people who think there might be something more to it. What a lot of Dawkins followers also presume that Scientists are all on the same wavelength with him although most Scientists would probably just not believe in an intelligent creator because they have no instruments to measure it with – therefore the whole idea is out of the question for them – but they are usually a lot more balanced towards religious people than Dawkins. I come from a strong atheistic background and my father and I had more discussions than I care to remember. I never expected him to become religious or suddenly change his mind but there was no room for intelligent discussion whatsoever most of the time – all I wanted him to do is show some kind of understanding for my viewpoints – not take them on. His favourite quote was: “Have you ever seen God? No? So that means he doesn’t exist..”
    To which I usually replied: “Have you ever seen a cell popping up out of nowhere? No? Well I think we are both sitting in the same boat…”

    I am a sceptic just like my dad (hence I am not just sceptic about all sorts of religions or medical approaches but also of more popular views – if you consider yourself a sceptic you have to be sceptic towards Science, too) but my views are not based on feelings or religious upbringing – I was born in a communist country. It stems from a lot of reasoning on how life could just develop by itself. Often, Atheists start explaining things from the wrong end. They go straight into how a cell could have developed rather than how the conditions for the cell to develop could have come about in the first place. Why not explaining how non-living matter came about first? I guess that’s a lot harder to explain and doesn’t tickle the ears of many (by the way one day I will be starting to count the amount of “maybes” “could have” and “Might have’s” in scholarly articles) The best one is: “No we can’t prove it yet but one day we’ll probably find it” Isn’t that just as vague as what Atheists accuse religious people of believing? (I also do think that many religious people believe for the wrong reasons or without thinking it through but that is a story for another day) – So I don’t want to convince anybody, just hope that people will one day understand why some people consider intelligent design as a very likely possibility, Whether that being is the God most people affiliate with certain religions is a completely different story. And dear Dawkins fans – please, please, please do me a favour and don’t let good old Richard think for you, I think you are capable of doing it for yourself – If you can’t see the difference between believing in a tooth fairy and an intelligent designer it might be a good idea to stop making RD richer and yourself poorer…I would love to see him do a proper documentary rather than get the most nuttiest people on his program to convince others that religious people all have a screw loose..
    Last but not least, we ALL have to rely on the things we read, written by Scientists, religious zealots, Media etc – reading and studying is today the most acceptable way of educating yourself. But on what premise do we blindly trust all of these articles? It seems like having a PHD and sounding uber-intelligent is somewhat enough to convince people of everything. Who stands with the scientists in the lab and observes all these results? Who has the education required to interpret them? Hardly anybody! So we have to rely on someone interpret it for us.
    Science is a very important part of our life and has achieved great things but some scientific fields cannot produce results beyond any reasonable doubt. We all have to be sceptic – especially of people who are biased in their views and if you approach a study with the presumption that there was nothing involved but pure chance then I would call this person to be biased and real Science simply can’t afford to do that. I believe that many studies are also abused to interpret things that are simply neither right nor wrong – not by the Scientists themselves but by the media and people like Richard Dawkins. So if you want to be sceptic you have to be sceptic towards all and not be selective in your approach. Just be balanced!

  22. NoAtheistsInHell permalink
    February 12, 2016 7:28 pm

    Dawkins is nothing more than a Zionist tool of the NWO. His tired and trusted formulaic diatribes against religion has become religion in itself. The religion of New Atheism. But it’s nothing new. His bunk is merely taken from his heroes like Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Kepler why tried to convince us of an imaginary force called gravity that somehow allows for a spinning ball to rotate around the sun at phenomenal speeds and somehow hold everything together. We of course feel none of these forces.

    All of the above were deeply religious people. Most if not all were freemasons. Freemasons worship the sun and solar deities. They also worship a transgender demon called Baphomet. Dawkins erroneously accuses GW Bush of being a Christian but if he actually bothered to do any research he would realise he is actually another worshipper of Baphomet, being a Skull and Bones member of the Illuminati.

    By removing God from the equation they have created a world that has no meaning or purpose. Life just happened by chance. There is no purpose to life. It’s all about survival of the fittest, the strongest get their way. It’s all natural selection. This is the world we live in today where the corporate bullies attack and invade countries they deem game. Rape them and rob their resources then manufacture false terrorism to justify their agenda of state control. This is not about God, rather a lack of God and morality. Do what you want, it all goes to the highest bidder anyway. Everything can be bought or subverted, nothing is sacred.

    Behind all this is the devil himself. The one that hates God but is on the losing team knowing that his game is lost but wants everyone else to lose with him. Therefore religion must be invented. The religion of atheism and its counterpart counterfeit Christianity which is Satanism. The God delusion! More like self delusion. God will not disappear because fools don’t believe in him! Hell is a real place. It is a dead eternity where those who deny Christ end up forever. Make your choice while you have a chance because there are no atheists in Hell. Only believers!

Trackbacks

  1. From A to B to E (picking and mixing religion) | The Josh Holley
  2. Is this a photo? Is this a slur? Is this an argument? | Uncommon Descent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: