The Dawkins' Argument.

[Jehanne]

It's so simple and I have myself wondering, "Gee, why didn't I think of that?!"

But, let me state it simply, if only somewhat inaccurately (and, I admit that I am probably being at least somewhat inaccurate, and I am sure that others will correct me on this point.)

Complex things arise from simpler things which arise from even simpler things; anything and everything, without any exceptions whatsoever, comes into being from the interactions of simpler things.

God, if "he/she/it/all of the above/some of the above/none of the above" truly existed "he/she/it/non-it" could, of course, reveal "himself/herself/itself/no-self" at any time and at any place in any instance, and yet, god remains silent and elusive.  As with Big Foot, one must appeal to all sorts of reasons beyond this "divine hiddenness", wondering why Sasquatch does not at least crap somewhere in the forest.  Talking to god is one thing, having him/her/it talk to you is quite another; the former is seen as "normal", the latter can get you committed!

In spite of god being an entirely faith-based entity with an almost limitless set of beliefs & opinions about who god is or what god has revealed or what Man must do to please god, why are left with the inexplicable question of god's origins, a being who, if he/she/it truly exists, is, arguably, more complex than we, his/her/its creation!  And, yet, all of us, without any exceptions whatsoever, started off microscopic, the result of a long, complex, yet traceable, chain of microscopic events, all the way back in time.  Ditto for every single object in our existence, from our phones to our cars to our TVs.  And, yet, many still accept the existence of an uncaused, complex entity such as "god", content not to apply to him/she/it the fundamental standard which we, as human beings, apply to every other single thing in our lives.

One solution to all of this is that human beings may simply be wired for belief, that evolution, via natural selection, simply conferred a survival advantage upon individuals & groups who would embrace a hierarchical view of nature, with the ultimate hierarchy being in "heaven", which is the sky above us.  In this respect, organized religion is simply a car which is running on fumes; an entity, such as the Catholic Church, has influence today solely due to the fact that it had influence in the past, which means that organized religion, Catholicism included, is doomed to inevitable extinction.  For instance, countries, such as Sweden and France, are showing no signs of atheists converting back to traditional religion; if anything, the exact opposite is true, the slow erosion of religious faith and interest.

In the (hopefully, near) future, Dawkins' argument will be universally (or, nearly so) accepted, as it just makes sense.  Everything in our experience attests to it being true!

[LastPoet]

Not a fan of Dawkins. The thing is, no one defines gods precisely. Doing that, it allowed it to be falsified... you must believe it, without questioning. Europe has its share of religious strife, most people I know are religious, yet, it has become like a conforting blanket to them and they keep to themselves.

In the US, there seems to be a more pervasive effect on people. Anti-theism is a thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a fan of Dawkins. A big fan.

But my criticism of him lately is that I find him repetitive and it's like a lot of the things he says and stuff he writes is just a paraphrasing of his earlier stuff he's said and written. I still like it and agree with it but I often think "Haven't you said that a million times before Dawkers, just with a slightly different metaphor or quote or something?".

[abaris]

In the US, there seems to be a more pervasive effect on people. Anti-theism is a thing.

Two extremes, actually. Probably because they are much more exposed to religion being forced down their throats on a daily basis. I'm counting on the ones in the middle to really make a difference. Coming from both sides. Extremes never had a healthy influence on society.

[Cyberman]

I'm a fan of Dawkins. A big fan.

But my criticism of him lately is that I find him repetitive and it's like a lot of the things he says and stuff he writes is just a paraphrasing of his earlier stuff he's said and written. I still like it and agree with it but I often think "Haven't you said that a million times before Dawkers, just with a slightly different metaphor or quote or something?".

Well, how much more is there to say? Look at how repetitive things get around here, with threads about atheist morality and atheist xmas bubbling up so regularly you can set your watch by it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a fan of Dawkins. A big fan.

But my criticism of him lately is that I find him repetitive and it's like a lot of the things he says and stuff he writes is just a paraphrasing of his earlier stuff he's said and written. I still like it and agree with it but I often think "Haven't you said that a million times before Dawkers, just with a slightly different metaphor or quote or something?".

Well, how much more is there to say? Look at how repetitive things get around here, with threads about atheist morality and atheist xmas bubbling up so regularly you can set your watch by it.

Very true indeed!

When it comes to the repetitive answers, he does it better than anyone.

Imagine if he decided to find an outlet to rant at theists here on AF.org if he was in a shitty mood? As an outlet and to vent? How fucking cool would that be if Dawkers came here to tell some of the shitwits here how irrational they are? Lol.

Obviously he has better things to do but imagine if he went on a downer and here became his hobby to vent LOL

[Cyberman]

We probably should invite him. I once invited AronRa, but he said he was far too busy just then.

[Brian37]

Not a fan of Dawkins. The thing is, no one defines gods precisely. Doing that, it allowed it to be falsified... you must believe it, without questioning. Europe has its share of religious strife, most people I know are religious, yet, it has become like a conforting blanket to them and they keep to themselves.

In the US, there seems to be a more pervasive effect on people. Anti-theism is a thing.

He is a bit of a stuffed shirt and nobody I would want to hang out at a bar with, I'd go with Hitchens for that.

But exactly what is he wrong about? In his book the God Delusion he explains scientifically why humans flawed perceptions lead to god claims. He is dead right. God claims are merely reflections of human traits, it is no different than a dog barking at it's own reflection in the mirror. His book describes god belief as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight".

Humans fall for their own false perceptions just like if you tell a kid at a Halloween party in the dark kitchen that the bowl of covered olives are eyeballs. No different than seeing that butterfly in the inkblot. 

Flawed perceptions are evolutionary, and they stem from life not always having the time to assess in fight or flight. The antelope on the African plains doesn't always have time asses if the swaying tal grass is mere wind or a lion stalking it. Our brains gap fill all the time every day most of the time with us never taking notice. It is why you can walk into a closed glass door because you falsely think there is no glass there because it is so clean. No different than when you cant find your keys while you are carrying them around. 

Humans gap fill and religion and god claims are a result of not understanding how our brains work and can easily fool us.

Yes anti theism is a thing, just like if you had a friend going around claiming the Yankees won the Superbowl. I see nothing wrong and everything good about challenging bad logic and naked assertions. Now, if you confuse that with lack of empathy for others, or anti human rights, that is your baggage. Humans have rights, but claims as ideas don't deserve blind value. Having the right to make a claim does not make the claim itself credible. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

[Edwardo Piet]

We probably should invite him. I once invited AronRa, but he said he was far too busy just then.

That would be awesome.

Reading TGD is what brought me here in the first place back in 2008.

Then we could laugh at all the theists who started saying "See! He is the leader of the cult!".

Haha... thing is if Dawkers ever did visit an atheist forum wouldn't this be a likely one he'd visit if he ever did visit one?

Isn't this the most active atheist forum on the internet now?

[Brian37]

Anti theist is merely being anti bullshit, just like you'd be right in saying "bullshit, don't expect me to blindly buy your invisible pink unicorn selling me an invisible Lamborghini for $100 bucks that makes ice cream in it's glove box"

Don't mistake blasphemy of naked assertions as being anti human rights. "Bullshit" is simply a blunt word, not a call to violence or oppression.