Holy Dawkins!!

[qayak]

So, I had a great time kayaking Desolation Sound and get home a half day early. I unload my stuff and realize that I haven't had a cup of coffee all day and head of to my local Tim Horton's. I grab The God Delusion because I have been combing through it a second time, as I do with most books.

I get my coffee and sit down to read. I take my first sip and open the book when someone at the next table says 'Excuse me!"

I look over and there is a 65 year old man and his wife. The gentleman asks me if I have read the book. I tell him "yes." He says, "I did too and I think his thesis is wrong!"

"What do you mean?"

"Are you from a religious background?"

"Depends on what you mean by that."

"Well, you would know if you were. His thesis is wrong because he should be arguing that science cannot know if God exists."

"He doesn't need to argue that, he grants it in the book."

"Yes, and so he does believe in god!"

I'm stunned to say the least! "Dawkins? Are you sure you read this book?"

"Yes, and that is the natural conclusion."

"I don't think so."

"Well, I just wanted to let you know so you could get the most out of the book. UBC has it in their library."

I look at this guy and think, "How long ago did you go to UBC? Dawkins' book has only been out for a year!"

At this point several others show up to join him and his wife so I go back to reading but he is making a point of instructing these people about all manner of things in a voice loud enough for me to hear. What people want to believe is no concern of mine so I continue reading and drinking my coffee, which tastes absolutely perfect.

I finish a chapter and I close the book while I think about it. I figure I will just finish my coffee and head home but then a woman walks in and she is quite lovely so I admire her for a minute and continue thinking about the book.

Now all along here, I have heard this gentleman, it turns out he is a pastor in some church, telling the people at the table how scientists cannot explain why worms have never evolved legs and walked. "All those years of evolution and they still slither in the dirt!"

I have heard him say how the Big Bang theory has been proved wrong. "Even scientists admit there is something bigger out there!"

And I have heard him say how scientists base all their knowledge on faith which is exactly counter to religion which bases its knowledge on provable facts. "In a complicated world, scientists have to make up more lies to support the ones they already made up! And they have faith in these lies"

But, I am in a happy mood and there is a good looking woman to be admired so I take my last swig of coffee and start to leave. Before I can the pastor says, "Take this book that this guy here is reading . . ."

As soon as he says this everyone at the table pulls a rubber neck trying to see what I am reading so I hold it up for all to see clearly and I ask the most interested "Have you read this?"

"No."

"You should, it is an amazing book."

The pastor jumps in with, "But his thesis is wrong!"

I figure he has been spoiling for it the whole time I have been sitting there, so, what the hell. "Explain his thesis to me."

"He should be saying that science cannot know if God exists!"

"He said that but he also points out that religion can't know either that's why you have faith. But that is not his thesis and I want you to explain what it is."

"Scientists are the ones that have to have faith."

"Do you know what the definition of faith is?"

"Yes."

"What is it?"

"It is reasoned through evidence."

"Not in any dictionary I have ever read. Faith is unreasoned belief."

"You're wrong!"

"Go look it up. You need faith to get into heaven. There is no evidence for god. If you reason, that is the only conclusion you can come to. However, if you have faith, you can believe anything you want. So, you can get into heaven, I never will."

"Existentialists like Nietzsche and . . . Marx had to say god was true to prove him false!"

"That's not what I got out of them but I don't see what that has to do with Dawkins."

"Well, science is based on faith!"

"I've never heard a single scientist say that you have to have faith in their theory but the last time I was in church, that's all I heard was 'fath this' and faith that'!"

"Well . . ."

"And you shouldn't be teaching science to these people, you don't know what you are talking about. You assume that an earthworm is less evolved because it has legs and that is just a species bias from one with legs. The Big Bang is not a theory, it is fact just like evolution."

The pastor tries another tack, "Look, when you walked into Tim Horton's tonight you had faith that when you put your hand on the door and pushed, it would open!"

"That's not faith! I was 99.999...% sure it would open based on; knowledge of what a door is and does, my past experience of walking through that door and untold numbers of others just like it, and from my observations of others opening that door. Faith had nothing to do with it."

"But you didn't think about it, that's faith!"

"No it isn't. My thinking about doors was done when I first experienced them. Once I had them sorted out I no longer had to think about them, it simply became engrained in muscle memory what I should do when I encounter one. However, should that door be locked, I would walk right into it and bang my nose because it is out of the ordinary. No matter how much faith I had that it would open, if someone locked it, my faith would not open it."

"I also don't think about traffic lights. I know when it says 'walk', I can cross the street, I don't have to think about it but I also check both ways before I step off the curb. I don't have faith in lights or drivers."

At this point he reaches for his watch and I think he is going to say he has to go but he isn't willing to give up yet. "If I find a watch on the street, I know there was a watchmaker."

I can't believe he is going with this argument. I hold up Dawkins' book and ask "Have you read his other book?"

"Yes."

"What was it called?"

"I don't remember."

"Well, the one relating to the watchmaker is called The Blindwatchmaker and in it he proves that the argument you are about to make is wrong."

"Well, a watch needs a watchmaker."

"Yes, but the universe doesn't need a universemaker. There is nothing in universe that we are aware of that needs a creator to explain it. The only question that allows your god to exist is that no one knows for sure what came before the Big Bang, so it is fine for you to claim god did it. However, it is just as accurate, maybe more so, for scientists to say that it was something else."

"But god said 'I am the Lord thy God!"

"But I could say that and if you believed me it still wouldn't make me a god, would it? Show me something else that proves he is a god. In fact, show me anything that proves there has been any god, at any time, anywhere in the universe."

"You don't trust the word of god?"

"I don't believe in god so how can I trust his word?"

"But god said . . ."

"God apparently said a lot of things. I don't believe any of them."

One of the other guys jumps in and says, "How come some of the astronauts have said that after seeing the earth from space they believe there is something bigger?"

"Maybe they have been raised to believe that there must be something bigger. How come only some of them say it and not all of them?"

"Well they get to see a bigger picture than we do so they have a better understanding."

"If that is the criteria, how come so many scientist that get to see a large portion of the universe are atheists? If it is the person with the biggest picture who is right, shouldn't you be an atheist like me?"

At this point a woman at the table gets up and makes a move for the door and they all follow suit except the pastor who moves to my table to continue the discussion. One of the guys reminds him that he has an appointment so the pastor reluctantly gets up to leave as well.

One of the men comes over and holds out his hand. I shake it and tell him I have enjoyed the conversation. Another comes over and gives me a little pamphlet saying, "Here is the story of my life."

I say, "Thank you, I look forward to reading it."

And then they are gone . . .

So, coffee done, chapter finished, no more women to admire, it is time for me to go home. As I get up one of Tim Horton's female employees who knows me says, "What was that all about!"

A male employee says, "They wanted to argue about religion with him."

She scolds me, "You know you're not supposed to talk about religion with people!"

"I wasn't! I was talking about science and atheism, they were talking about religion."

The male employee says, "Just so you know, he wasn't my pastor, he was my highschool English teacher."

"He was an English teacher and he didn't know the meaning of the word 'faith'? I'm sorry for your education."

"No kidding! Well, have a nice night."

To which I replied, "I already did!"

[l0rca]

How can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Were you on some sort of debate team when you were younger? And how old are you?

[hellaeon]

Thats great, I wish I had the patience like you to be able to point out the absurdity as you did in his arguements.

I guess I should read more and more and more....more...m..o....r.............e............ ....

[chipmunk stew]

How easy life must be for one whose story fits on a pamphlet.

[This Guy]

Good story, and good job :)

[VulcanWay]

If only you could have drawn up a sign that said, "I've read your book, so before you comment about my book, make sure you have an idea of what you're talking about" and placed it on the edge of your table while you enjoyed your book and coffee. :p

Good job!

[Chimera]

(slow clap)

I aspire to be able to defend my beliefs like that. Good for you!

[joobz]

very interesting. I find it irritating the attitude that the english teacher would claim to have read something that it was obvious he hadn't. I find that more unforgivable than a person spouting out arguments from ignorance. At least a person who doesn't know better can at least correct their position with new information. However, to blatantly lie about reading/knowing something is an admitting to willful ignorance, which I have no respect for.


BTW: you do tell a fine tale. I could taste the coffee you were drinking!

[qayak]

Thanks everyone, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was actually great fun and I can't say it could have gone any better for me. The best part was that no one jumped in to muddy the debate. I was able to stick with the pastor on one point long enough to show he didn't know what he was talking about.

The debate itself was almost a half hour long which I obviously couldn't capture completely in my post but those were some of the main points that we covered.

10rca - No, I wasn't on a debate team and I am older than dirt. Well, that's what my kids tell me. I am 45. I used to hate confrontation (except for fighting when I was younger) but then I read Sun Tsu's the Art of War and that changed my perspective on it.

Hellaeon - I have around 150 books in my science library. I have all Feynman's books, most of Sagan's, 5 of Dawkins', most of Shermer's, a couple by Simon Singh, Jay Ingram, etc. I also have the KJV and a NIV of the bible. Yeah, I read a lot. :)

Chipmunk stew - I did indeed read his life story and it is a very sad read. He apparently started living the day he became an alcoholic and then he found god which ended his life. Now it is god's life.

VulcanWay - The sign is a brilliant idea. I wonder if it would reduce the number of people engaging me or increase it. :D I did have one atheist couple discuss it with me quite awhile back. That was truly refreshing.

Chimera - I had an unfair advantage really. I got to hear all his points before he engaged me. I knew my adversary but he did not know me. He made the mistake of picking someone who actually read the books he was trashing.

When the second group of people sat down with him and his wife, they talked for a minute and then one said "I don't understand," to which his wife told him, "Honey, you are going to have to stop using those big words you learned in university." I noticed that it was a technique he used to hide his ignorance. If one of the people disagreed with him, he would just keep throwing out big words and names no one had heard of as if it proved his points. I didn't let him do that. I used simple language that everyone could understand and I asked him to define his big words, which he couldn't. I told him all his big names were irrelevent to a discussion of Dawkins, except for anyone who had rebutted Dawkins and god, of course. :D

Joobz - I didn't find out about him being an English teacher until after and I had the same response. He did tell one person at the table that he had taught in two schools in Surrey, BC in the early 1980's. I can't imagine he would have done very well if his method was the same as now. He would have been chewed up and spit out but even a moderately capable student. Perhaps that is why his teaching career was so short.

ETA: According to the pastor, "it is your rational mind that is causing you all these problems. If you didn't use reason, you would understand."

I asked him what he proposes I use. He couldn't answer so I asked everyone at the table if they knew of any other way to figure out a problem than to reason it out. Everyone shook their head "no", including his wive! :)

[grayman]

I dream of being able to debate as well. Usually I end up pondering a point for a while and by the time I think of a proper response, the moment is gone.

Great story qayak. :thumbsup:

[kmortis]

qayak,
I hate you. You have a Tim Hortons in your vicinity. The closest I have is a couple Dunkin' Doughnuts and a slew of Starbucks. Oh, how I miss those Timbits.


Oh, good story about the crowd, tho.

[strathmeyer]

Sorry, but I'm the type of person who quickly embarrasses someone who claims to have read a book when it is clear that they haven't. Lying is wrong, you know.

[kmortis]

Sorry, but I'm the type of person who quickly embarrasses someone who claims to have read a book when it is clear that they haven't. Lying is wrong, you know.

Only under oath...it is "false WITNESS" after all.

:boxedin:

[qayak]

qayak,
I hate you. You have a Tim Hortons in your vicinity. The closest I have is a couple Dunkin' Doughnuts and a slew of Starbucks. Oh, how I miss those Timbits.

Where do you live that there isn't a Tim Horton's nearby? I think it is a law in Canada that everyone is entitled to have a Tim Horton's within a few minutes of their home. And if it isn't, it should be.

I can throw a rock from my home to the nearest Timmy's. The other, I have to walk to the end of the block before throwing the rock! :D

[geni]

His thesis is wrong because he should be arguing that science cannot know if God exists."

"He doesn't need to argue that, he grants it in the book."


How? I mean the cloest you can logicaly get to that is "science doesn't at the present time know if this or any other universe has a god or not".


There is nothing in universe that we are aware of that needs a creator to explain it.

Um the computer you typed that into? I'm pretty sure computers don't breed.

[juryjone]

qayak, that was terrific. I know I'm not nearly as fine a debater as you are, so I read through your argument to see where I would have gone wrong. I think I found it early on:

"He said that but he also points out that religion can't know either that's why you have faith. But that is not his thesis and I want you to explain what it is."

I would have been trying to define what I thought the thesis was, rather than throwing it back on him. It would have lost him and the rest of his group.

Great job!

[skeptifem]

i cant believe how much of that you remember! good for you. well done btw. the door argument and the watch argument bother me to NO END, its so illogical.

[kmortis]

Where do you live that there isn't a Tim Horton's nearby? I think it is a law in Canada that everyone is entitled to have a Tim Horton's within a few minutes of their home. And if it isn't, it should be.

I can throw a rock from my home to the nearest Timmy's. The other, I have to walk to the end of the block before throwing the rock! :D

That's fine, but I'm not in Canaduh. I just had the pleasure of spending 2 weeks in december-january one year in Montreal. Mmmmm Timbits and poutin....

I'm gonna go cry now.

[qayak]

That's fine, but I'm not in Canaduh. I just had the pleasure of spending 2 weeks in december-january one year in Montreal. Mmmmm Timbits and poutin....

I'm gonna go cry now.

Timmy's also has stores in ten US states.

http://web.sa.mapquest.com/timhortons/?tempset=search

The last time I ate poutine I could actually hear my arteries harden. :D

[EHLO]

Bravo gayak. If that little confrontation went as you have described then you have my admiration.

It's a valuable skill to think on your feet like that, and certainly more effective than thinking of a cool reply 2 hours after the event when nobody cares...

[qayak]

i cant believe how much of that you remember! good for you. well done btw. the door argument and the watch argument bother me to NO END, its so illogical.

I wrote it right after it happened so it was pretty fresh in my mind.

I have since talked to Josh, he is the male employee who had the pastor as a teacher. Josh said that the guy substituted for a month and didn't teach them any English. He spent all his time teaching them theology. :mad:

[joobz]

I wrote it right after it happened so it was pretty fresh in my mind.

I have since talked to Josh, he is the male employee who had the pastor as a teacher. Josh said that the guy substituted for a month and didn't teach them any English. He spent all his time teaching them theology. :mad:
that makes me even more annoyed.

[Wheezebucket]

Good show! Thanks much for sharing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Your story is too long and drawn out. Quite a pointless story anyway. Unremarkable. You shouldn't have added in so many details. I don't care whether or not there was an attractive woman sitting next to you or how the coffee tasted.

[skeptifem]

Your story is too long and drawn out.

...

Unremarkable. You shouldn't have added in so many details. I don't care whether or not there was an attractive woman sitting next to you or how the coffee tasted
funny, i dont remember this being the critique section of a creative writing forum.


Quite a pointless story anyway.


oh yeah, the story was completely devoid of points :rolleyes:

[Mashuna]

Your story is too long and drawn out. Quite a pointless story anyway. Unremarkable. You shouldn't have added in so many details. I don't care whether or not there was an attractive woman sitting next to you or how the coffee tasted.

Your post is too long.

I mean,

Yr pst tlng.

yptl

[slingblade]

dustin's arguments are just like icebergs, in reverse.

That little tiny bit you can see is actually the bulk of it. There's practically nothing below the surface.

[Mashuna]

dustin's arguments are just like icebergs, in reverse.

That little tiny bit you can see is actually the bulk of it. There's practically nothing below the surface.

So you're saying that Dustin's arguments are like an inflatable floating toy? They do make more sense in that light.

[Darat]

...snip...

Um the computer you typed that into? ...snip...

That's just your human centric view of the universe showing; computers are no different to say a sun. So unless you wish to claim some divine spark in humanity that sets us apart from everything else in the universe a computer is just the result of natural processes like a rock, like a human being, like everything else.

[CynicalSkeptic]

I dream of being able to debate as well. Usually I end up pondering a point for a while and by the time I think of a proper response, the moment is gone.

Me too. It's much easier to argue online because you can refine your thoughts before you hit 'send'.

[skeptifem]

^^yeah but it helps your real life debate skills because you have already formulated responses and thought hard about your position.

[Paulhoff]

That's just your human centric view of the universe showing; computers are no different to say a sun. So unless you wish to claim some divine spark in humanity that sets us apart from everything else in the universe a computer is just the result of natural processes like a rock, like a human being, like everything else.
I like that and will be using it, but not many will understand the point, oh well

Paul

:) :) :)

[Jon.]

... he had taught in two schools in Surrey, BC in the early 1980's. ...

Well, that explains it. Explains Surrey, I mean. :D

[qayak]

Well, that explains it. Explains Surrey, I mean. :D

Yes, the guy is probably above average for Surrey! :D

[ned flandas]

You should have said to him..

'You are supposed to be like Jesus, and Jesus would have just brought me a coffee'

[ned flandas]

I'm a Christian and I feel I must apologise on behalf of them for the lame arguments thrust at you in your coffee time...

[qayak]

'You are supposed to be like Jesus, and Jesus would have just brought me a coffee'

:D :D :D Now that is a good pne! I'll use it or a variation of it the next time I run into someone like this.

I'll tell them that I am only willing to debate if there is a coffee on the line and to show their good faith, they should just go buy me that coffee before we start. :p

[c4ts]

I can never argue with these guys, so I congratulate your patience.

Still, I see the same patterns emerge in Christian thought. Faith is suddenly confused with a misinterpretation of a priori reasoning, God is called into existence before being argued for, and they think atheism is some product of modernism that suddenly sprang up last century. Christians are kept from understanding their own religion and given some horrid soup of dramatized metaphysics with bits of scripture selection as a substitute for moral philosophy. You get a diluted version of all this because they're also told to save time and not make the shoddy arguments, since the layman has no time to understand them all. Christians are kept from knowing their audiences and their opponents until prosletyzing is all that remains. Rational discourse which permits the honest exchange of ideas is impossible at this point.

[The Grave]

Thanks everyone, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It was actually great fun and I can't say it could have gone any better for me. The best part was that no one jumped in to muddy the debate. I was able to stick with the pastor on one point long enough to show he didn't know what he was talking about.

The debate itself was almost a half hour long which I obviously couldn't capture completely in my post but those were some of the main points that we covered.

10rca - No, I wasn't on a debate team and I am older than dirt. Well, that's what my kids tell me. I am 45. I used to hate confrontation (except for fighting when I was younger) but then I read Sun Tsu's the Art of War and that changed my perspective on it.

Hellaeon - I have around 150 books in my science library. I have all Feynman's books, most of Sagan's, 5 of Dawkins', most of Shermer's, a couple by Simon Singh, Jay Ingram, etc. I also have the KJV and a NIV of the bible. Yeah, I read a lot. :)

Chipmunk stew - I did indeed read his life story and it is a very sad read. He apparently started living the day he became an alcoholic and then he found god which ended his life. Now it is god's life.

VulcanWay - The sign is a brilliant idea. I wonder if it would reduce the number of people engaging me or increase it. :D I did have one atheist couple discuss it with me quite awhile back. That was truly refreshing.

Chimera - I had an unfair advantage really. I got to hear all his points before he engaged me. I knew my adversary but he did not know me. He made the mistake of picking someone who actually read the books he was trashing.

When the second group of people sat down with him and his wife, they talked for a minute and then one said "I don't understand," to which his wife told him, "Honey, you are going to have to stop using those big words you learned in university." I noticed that it was a technique he used to hide his ignorance. If one of the people disagreed with him, he would just keep throwing out big words and names no one had heard of as if it proved his points. I didn't let him do that. I used simple language that everyone could understand and I asked him to define his big words, which he couldn't. I told him all his big names were irrelevent to a discussion of Dawkins, except for anyone who had rebutted Dawkins and god, of course. :D

Joobz - I didn't find out about him being an English teacher until after and I had the same response. He did tell one person at the table that he had taught in two schools in Surrey, BC in the early 1980's. I can't imagine he would have done very well if his method was the same as now. He would have been chewed up and spit out but even a moderately capable student. Perhaps that is why his teaching career was so short.

ETA: According to the pastor, "it is your rational mind that is causing you all these problems. If you didn't use reason, you would understand."

I asked him what he proposes I use. He couldn't answer so I asked everyone at the table if they knew of any other way to figure out a problem than to reason it out. Everyone shook their head "no", including his wive! :)


READ!...more.

Griff.

[CaptainManacles]

I think I would have bailed out when he started talking about existentialism, "that's cute but I don't see how that's relevant, if you don't mind I'm going to get back to reading" I probably couldn't think of as quick and clever responses to the rest of that stuff anyway. It would have taken me too long to explain the door thing to him and I would have lost ground, I'm sure. But an interesting encounter for sure, true or otherwise, thanks for sharing.

[JohnChasWebb]

It is a function of logic.
Because you cannot prove that something exists cannot lead to a logical conclusion that 'it' does not exist.
If someone lost their keys and after a week of not being able to find them then it would be illogical to conclude that the keys no longer exist. The truth is that they may not exist any longer but it is illogical to conclude that....... unless you take a leap of faith that is otherwise unprovable.
The pastor was simply saying (opinion) that Dawkins took a leap of faith when he concluded that God does not exist.... just like in the key scenario.... there is insufficient data to form a testable conclusion.
Nevertheless, on the flip side, "God" is important to Dawkins because Dawkins exhausts himself arguing against the existence of God. Dawkins is illogical. Like the wife who concluded that her husband was not having an affair because her husband's jacket never had any other woman's hair on it.
Bottom line... there is insufficient evidence to form a logical conclusion.

If Dawkins were to say "I can find no evidence of the existence of God" then that would be logical (for him). For him to take an inverted leap of faith and concluded that God does not exist, based solely upon a lack of supporting evidence, is utterly illogical.

Here it is as a logic equation... "No pink busses go to city hall" therefore "pink busses do not exist because I see no evidence of them despite many others speaking about pink busses".
The fallacy is 'reasoning' from the particular to infer that one's personal reality must exist (be true) in the macrocosm. The 'inference', in this instance, is illogical and if the inference is illogical there IS NO WAY that you can ever arrive at a logical "conclusion'. Even mere inferences are based upon established fact(s). Dawkins only established fact is that he, Dawkins, has not seen any evidence of the existence of God.... and then leaps to the conclusion that God does not exist (Conclusion: What is true for Dawkins must be a universal truth..... a very big ego in this Dawkins character).

My only conclusion is that Dawkins has a monumental "Oedipus Complex".

I have never seen Dawkins (nor God). I have only seen references to Dawkins (other people who believe that Dawkins exists) and illogical writings (like the bible?) that are attributed to Dawkins. I can infer that Dawkins exists but I cannot make a logical conclusion that he does. Even my 'inference' would be unjustified because I have not investigated the truth of the supporting propositions (Dawkins writings are genuine and other people's hearsay about Dawkins is accurate).

Bottom line: The evidence for Dawkins is identical to the existence of God. You are presuming that Dawkins exists because the name "Dawkins" is inscribed on a tome plus you may have heard some supporting hearsay (folklore).

Dawkins issues are psychological and emotional. They are not, in any way, shape or form "logical". Not by any stretch of logic.
Dawkins starts with the premise that God does not exist. His premise is based upon a seeming lack of evidence. However, the 'seeming lack of evidence' is Dawkins subjective conclusiuon and has no value, as truth, beyond Dawkins miniscule ego—driven microcosm.

It is, paradoxically, impossible to prove non—existence. The mere fact that someone is discussing the non—existence of something creates that something, even if only as a shadow to box with.

Huziletuzernty does not exist because I have seen no reliable evidence suggesting it. Therefore, I AM the ultimate authority on "Huziletuzernty" in the known universe and there is no other higher authority.
The above paragraph sums up Dawkins' cosmology. It is illogical to the point of absurdity.

Dawkins writings are emotional and thinly veiled and presented as 'logical'.

[Jon.]

It is a function of logic.
Because you cannot prove that something exists cannot lead to a logical conclusion that 'it' does not exist.
If someone lost their keys and after a week of not being able to find them then it would be illogical to conclude that the keys no longer exist. The truth is that they may not exist any longer but it is illogical to conclude that....... unless you take a leap of faith that is otherwise unprovable.
The pastor was simply saying (opinion) that Dawkins took a leap of faith when he concluded that God does not exist.... just like in the key scenario.... there is insufficient data to form a testable conclusion.
Nevertheless, on the flip side, "God" is important to Dawkins because Dawkins exhausts himself arguing against the existence of God. Dawkins is illogical. Like the wife who concluded that her husband was not having an affair because her husband's jacket never had any other woman's hair on it.
Bottom line... there is insufficient evidence to form a logical conclusion.

If Dawkins were to say "I can find no evidence of the existence of God" then that would be logical (for him). For him to take an inverted leap of faith and concluded that God does not exist, based solely upon a lack of supporting evidence, is utterly illogical.

Here it is as a logic equation... "No pink busses go to city hall" therefore "pink busses do not exist because I see no evidence of them despite many others speaking about pink busses".
The fallacy is 'reasoning' from the particular to infer that one's personal reality must exist (be true) in the macrocosm. The 'inference', in this instance, is illogical and if the inference is illogical there IS NO WAY that you can ever arrive at a logical "conclusion'. Even mere inferences are based up established fact. Dawkins' only established fact is that he, Dawkins, has not seen any evidence of the existence of God.... and then leaps to the conclusion that God does not exist.

My only conclusion is that Dawkins has a monumental "Oedipus Complex".

I have never seen Dawkins (nor God). I have only seen references to Dawkins (other people who believe that Dawkins exists) and illogical writings (like the bible?) that are attributed to Dawkins. I can infer that Dawkins exists but I cannot make a logical conclusion that he does. Even my 'inference' would be unjustified because I have not investigated the truth of the supporting propositions (Dawkins writings are genuine and other people's hearsay about Dawkins is accurate).

Bottom line: The evidence for Dawkins is identical to the existence of God. You are presuming that Dawkins exists because the name "Dawkins" is inscribed on a tome plus you may have heard some supporting hearsay (folklore).

Dawkins issues are psychological and emotional. They are not, in any way, shape or form "logical". Not by any stretch of logic.
Dawkins starts with the premise that God does not exist. His premise is based upon a seeming lack of evidence. However, the 'seeming lack of evidence' is Dawkins subjective conclusiuon and has no value, as truth, beyond Dawkins miniscule ego—driven microcosm.

It is, paradoxically, impossible to prove non—existence. The mere fact that someone is discussing the non—existence of something creates that something, even if only as a shadow to box with.

Huziletuzernty does not exist because I have seen no reliable evidence suggesting it. Therefore, I AM the ultimate authority on "Huziletuzernty" in the known universe and there is no other higher authority.
The above paragraph sums up Dawkins' cosmology. It is illogical to the point of absurdity.











Dawkins argument is emotional.... not logical.

Have you read The God Delusion? I think you will find that he addresses your argument in there (I don't have a copy to hand so I can't cite a page number - maybe someone else can). IIRC, he never claims to be able to prove the non-existence of God. However, he does point out (in quite a logical, non-emotional manner) that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Since the burden is on those who would argue for the existence of something, this is as far as he need go. To crib from Sam Harris, a claim which is made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As for the argument that the evidence for the existence of God is as good as the evidence for the existence of Dawkins, you are wrong in a number of ways.

First, as Sagan points out, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The existence of a particular human being is not an extraordinary claim, whereas the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being is an extraordinary claim.

From that basis, we examine the evidence.

Richard Dawkins: I have seen television programs that show someone who purports to be, and is accepted by reliable presenters as, Richard Dawkins. I know people who claim to have met Richard Dawkins, and when I ask them what they mean by that, they tell me that they shook hands with a middle-aged English male person. I have perused web sites that list publications by Richard Dawkins, and that show his appointment as Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. I have read books written by Richard Dawkins, and they are consistent with what one would expect from a person with his qualifications. I have seen photographs of Richard Dawkins which correspond to the television images and to the descriptions provided by people who have met him.

God: I have never seen a non-fictional television program that purports to show an image of God. I do know people who claim to have met ("experienced" would be a better word) God, but their descriptions are contradictory and more consistent with other psychological phenomena. I know of a few publications that purport to be authored by God, but these show every evidence of having one or more human authors and most serious scholars view them as having been written by humans who were at best "inspired" by God. I have never seen a photograph of God.

Clearly, you are wrong.

Have a nice day.

[qayak]

It is a function of logic.
Because you cannot prove that something exists cannot lead to a logical conclusion that 'it' does not exist.

True, but based on a preponderance of evidence, it can be said that 'it' probably doesn't exist. In this case there is not just a preponderance of evidence to favour the non-existence of god over the existence, there is a landslide.

I think that if this is your best argument against Dawkins, you have not read his books, any of them, and you have no argument. You say that Dawkins cannot prove that god does not exist which you then seem to think means god does exist. That is a fallacy.

It is impossible to prove a negative but it is possible to prove a positive. So, it should be possible to prove the existence of god. Unfortunately for your bizarre line of reasoning, people have been trying that since the dawn of man and not a single one has been able to. More evidence in that landslide that says there is no god.

If someone lost their keys and after a week of not being able to find them then it would be illogical to conclude that the keys no longer exist. The truth is that they may not exist any longer but it is illogical to conclude that....... unless you take a leap of faith that is otherwise unprovable.

Well, I have looked for keys before and when they existed, I have always found them. I am sure some people have failed to find their keys when lost but many, many people have actually found them. How about your god? Has anyone found him/her/it? There sure have been a lot of people looking and not only have they not found god but they haven't even found a single shred of evidence to suggest god's existence. And it isn't just your god, it is everyone else's, too.

The pastor was simply saying (opinion) that Dawkins took a leap of faith when he concluded that God does not exist.... just like in the key scenario.... there is insufficient data to form a testable conclusion.

No he wasn't. The pastor said, "His [Dawkins'] thesis is wrong!"

Dawkins' thesis isn't wrong. His thesis is that god is a delusion and, according to all evidence, he is correct.

Nevertheless, on the flip side, "God" is important to Dawkins because Dawkins exhausts himself arguing against the existence of God. Dawkins is illogical. Like the wife who concluded that her husband was not having an affair because her husband's jacket never had any other woman's hair on it.
Bottom line... there is insufficient evidence to form a logical conclusion.

Wow, you really have to stretch to come up with this one. Exactly what part of the claim made for the christian god, the muslim god, the jewish god, the Norse god, the Roman gods, the Greek gods, etc. hasn't been shown to be wrong or completely improbably.

The fact is, your god is hiding 15 billion years ago, before the big bang. Our universe has no need for a god, which is quite fortunate because there is none!

Dawkins starts with the premise that God does not exist. His premise is based upon a seeming lack of evidence.

You have this wrong. Dawkins started off with no believe, when he was born. then he was taught to believe with a Christian education. Then he became an atheist. So, your point here is completely wrong. Dawkins did not start out a non-believer, it was the evidence that led him there.

I wonder what your story is? Did your first exposure to the god myth come from another believer or were your parents atheists who educated you as an atheist and then you became a believer based on the evidence? I doubt it! :D

It is, paradoxically, impossible to prove non—existence. The mere fact that someone is discussing the non—existence of something creates that something, even if only as a shadow to box with.

So, now you try to blame Dawkins for creating the god myth by entering into a discussion on god's existence. What about all those people who for thousands of years have claimed there were gods and marvelled at all the great things their god could do? What about the writers who wrote in the bible/koran/etc., that there was a god and how great he was? What about the billions of believers worldwide who believe in and speak about the various godsgods? Don't you think they had a little more to do with creating a god myth than Dawkins does simply because he has cleared up their muddled thinking on the subject? Talk about a logical fallacy!

Huziletuzernty does not exist because I have seen no reliable evidence suggesting it. Therefore, I AM the ultimate authority on "Huziletuzernty" in the known universe and there is no other higher authority.
The above paragraph sums up Dawkins' cosmology. It is illogical to the point of absurdity.

The absurdity is that you think this is Dawkins' argument. Dawkins' argument isn't really even his. He has built it on the evidence discovered mainly by others. The chain of scientists that proved the Big Bang and the chain of scientists that proved Evolution.

So this is not an argument you can blame on Dawkins' ego as you seem to think. this is an argument based on a landslide of overwhelming evidence which all converges on the same point: "There almost certainly is no god."

Dawkins writings are emotional and thinly veiled and presented as 'logical'.

Many believers make this false claim based on a complete misunderstanding of the evidence, complete ignorance of the argument Dawkins is actually making, complete denial that their dearly held but false beliefs could be wrong, any and/or all of the above. I see from your post that you also fall into at least a couple of these catagories.

[qayak]

Clearly, you are wrong.

Short, sweet and to the point! :)

[Mashuna]

It is a function of logic.
Because you cannot prove that something exists cannot lead to a logical conclusion that 'it' does not exist.
If someone lost their keys and after a week of not being able to find them then it would be illogical to conclude that the keys no longer exist. The truth is that they may not exist any longer but it is illogical to conclude that....... unless you take a leap of faith that is otherwise unprovable.
The pastor was simply saying (opinion) that Dawkins took a leap of faith when he concluded that God does not exist.... just like in the key scenario.... there is insufficient data to form a testable conclusion.
Nevertheless, on the flip side, "God" is important to Dawkins because Dawkins exhausts himself arguing against the existence of God. Dawkins is illogical. Like the wife who concluded that her husband was not having an affair because her husband's jacket never had any other woman's hair on it.
Bottom line... there is insufficient evidence to form a logical conclusion.

If Dawkins were to say "I can find no evidence of the existence of God" then that would be logical (for him). For him to take an inverted leap of faith and concluded that God does not exist, based solely upon a lack of supporting evidence, is utterly illogical.



Fortunately, Dawkins doesn't argue the things you ascribe to him. Here's an cut-down excerpt from his book, describing a spectrum of probabilities about the existence of God;

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God
2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. Cannot know for certain, but lives on the assumption that God exists.

[snip the next few as I'm lazy]

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbably, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins counts himself in category 6, and posits that anyone who classed themselves as category 7 would be holding a faith-based opinion.

[qayak]

It is a function of logic.
Because you cannot prove that something exists cannot lead to a logical conclusion that 'it' does not exist. . .

http://www.glumbert.com/media/atheistdelusion

[Lonewulf]

"Yes, but the universe doesn't need a universemaker. There is nothing in universe that we are aware of that needs a creator to explain it. The only question that allows your god to exist is that no one knows for sure what came before the Big Bang, so it is fine for you to claim god did it. However, it is just as accurate, maybe more so, for scientists to say that it was something else."

Actually... from what I remember from my introduction to Astronomy...

The question, "What came before the big bang?" is answered by, "What do you mean, before?" "Before" is a function related to time; but without space, there is no time. Time and space are correlated according to the theory of general relativity, and there was no real space before the event of the big bang.

It's confusing and counter-intuitive, and I would say that generally you are right; there's still a lot there left to be discovered in the end. I just wanted to point that bit out, and see if anyone else has heard of something similar to this.

[tdn]

Have you read The God Delusion?
I would posit that Dawkins' greatest critics, those with the strongest opinions against him, those that are entirely sure of what Dawkins has said, have not, in fact, read a single word of Dawkins.