Dawkins picks easy battles

>That's the biggest cop-out i've ever seen.
It sounds silly, but the image Dawkins paints of religion is, even on an anecdotical and empirical level, something that mostly resides in his own imaginarium. It's not an indiction of a real thing, nobody feels alluded, and it's mostly a reiteration of obvious truths.

Flat-earthists and evolution-deniers are whack jobs, but I get the feeling that people who argue against them at their level are just as mentally ill.

note the use of the word 'can'
I'm not saying that he succeeded or not, I am giving you an example of what I mean because you appear to be mentally retarded

here's a dialogue:
A: I think feminism is not needed because of reasons x, y, z
B: No, because of intersectional post-ironic lesbian seperatist transfat Nigerian POC feminism is still needed
A: Uhm... what is that?
B: EDUCATE YOURSELF, SHITLORD!
B: *knocks A over and slams his head repeatedly into the floor until the skull cracks open and the brain leaks out*
A: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

that's how you sound
"you haven't heard about fililoque?!?!? what a retard, you should not criticize anything!!!"

>note the use of the word 'can'
Nope.

I believe I the soul is immortal and that we are all God. I believe in the spirit world and reincarnation. But I also believe religion is man's flawed attempt to represent God's compassion on earth.

So I think Dawkins does some good work in pointing out the dangers of religion.

>Dawkins picks easy battles.
And why wouldn't he? He's an evolutionary biologist, not a philosophy of religion. He have written pop-philosophical books and apparently they became a big deal in the US. He din do nuffin.

>He din do nuffin.
Of worth.

As a cultural symbol he's done a lot for atheism to be a thing in the US so he have definitely done something of worth.

>he's done a lot to empower fedora tippers!

modern atheism is a joke user

You do not only misunderstand what Theology means you clearly have no clue what burden of proof is.

You don't have to be a scientist to see what is obvious, there has never been a single bit of evidence for the existense of a god.

period that is it, no evidence for god so why believe in it.

That doesn't mean that it is absolutely impossible for a god to exist.

Same goes for unicrons.

Dawkins himself has said that it's almost impossible for him to conceive of anything that WOULD constitute proof of God.

Here's the dialogue:
a. My conception of feminism is not needed because of x, y, z goals I arbitrarily and ignorantly ascribe to it
b. But your conception is mistaken
a. I REFUSE TO READ BASIC CONCEPTS OF FEMINISM EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES ME LOOK LIKE AN IGNORANT.

That's basically Carl.

>he dismantles the very premise of religion
He dismantles a strawman through logical fallacies and dubious logic.
He said the finely tuned universe is the closest thing that you sorta could consider.

>finely tuned universe
Didn't he write an entire book about why he thought that was an invalid argument?

Dawkins is my God. Darwinism is my religion.

Your arms are too short to box with God, kid.

Do people like Dawkins ever debate with people who aren't young Earthers or evolution deniers? Have him, Hitchens, or Harris ever debated with a Catholic or Orthodox priest or scientist?

Dawkins cites this as his favorite interview/debate he's done.
youtu.be/3L15e2sNZsU

All talk regarding religion is a joke to begin with.

Hard to debate someone when their argument is literally

>muh faith

Hard to debate someone when their argument is literally,
>Muh strawman.

Two can play this game user.

What strawman? Muh faith is constantly used.

two jokes does not a comedian make

...

Yes, many times. He doesn't debate creationtards anymore because he feels it gives them a false sense of importance. He doesn't debate people who believe Elvis is still alive either, and for the same reason.
>that might look good on YOUR cv, not so much on mine!

What was his argument against ontological arguments?

>muh semantics

...

>Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God.
>this being must exist in the mind
>must
>mfw

Ok, who is high level creationist then?
>checkmate

His beef is with religious nuts who try to pick a fight with science. No philosopher you could possibly be talking about is trying to subvert science.

Anselm's argument, it seems to me, is less plausible than Descartes'. Did Hume have a response to Descartes'?

>That's the biggest cop-out i've ever seen.

No it isn't. Theology and apologetics are convoluted drivel that make the assumption before they reach a conclusion, and mold the conclusion to fit the assumption. It's trash. I can understand why Dawkins refuses to debate "theologists": because they will always retreat into their convoluted defenses, claiming he's wrong because he doesn't "understand" that useless material, when it's all useless to begin with.

never debated craig

Every time religious people start to defend their bullshit they end up with a god so abstract that he is basically useless. We don't even need him.

Hitchens, Harris and Krauss debated William Lane Craig.
>an American analytic philosopher, Christian theologian, and Christian apologist.

From what I remember circular reasoning is all Craig had to offer.

>god exists
I don't think he does
>stupid atheist! you don't have proof that he doesn't exist
what's your proof that he does?
>the bible!
that's not evidence
>MY MOMMA TOOK ME TO CHURCH
is that why the christian god exists but not the pagan ones?
>I KNOW MY MOMMA AINT LYIN TO ME

Of course he does, he's not a significant person in any regard.
>inb4 stemfags say some dumbass shit
A biologist claiming to be an expert on religion like Dawkins and saying "God does not exist."
Has the same credibility and provocativeness as a skilled lawyer or famous artist claiming. "I checked the evidence and I conclude God doesn't exist, now buy my paintings."
This
>I will just pick apart fundamentalist strawmen and claim theism to be stupid while only addressing a very small circle of theists
Absolutely Rebbit
Also Kant broke down Hume and tore him a new one.
The Socratic and Aquinian proofs of God have yet to be refuted or challenged.

>falsifiability
This is such a meme, there's no logical principle behind or fallacious relevance.
Actually... you do. Sargon of Cuckkad can only dismantle feminism because he's read the feminist arguments within their "literature".
Also comparing an ideology embedded in Western Civilization's literary and religious legacy with an "ideology" of hating men on the internet is not a good analogy by any stretch.

So which premise of which religion of which sect does Dawkins dismantle??
I'll wait.

Dawkins literally can not attack the premises of religion if he denies himself the opportunity to understand them.
Believe it or not, every Christian has encountered the Bible in some way in some understanding.
Dawkins refuses to understand it and therefore is really attacking a non-idea or at least an idea that no one holds.
He goes after bits and pieces and commits the fallacy fallacy without ever tackling the ideology as a whole.
Reminder that Chesterton smashed Darrow and demonstrated "science" to meme tier when it comes to Evolutionary philosophy.
Why is it never an innocent explanation? Why is it always passed off as a proven (don't get me started on the proofs of physical theories vs the absolute lack of proofs in biological theories) way of cutting religion out?

>you clearly have no clue what burden of proof is
Yes, because running up to someone, strawmanning their ideas and then screeching about the burden of proof is a way to logically prove a non-sequitur.
>no evidence
literally mountains lmao.
Jesus existed
Many people claim to have seen God or had some encounter with God
Miracles still happen
Honestly if the skeptical criteria of evidence denial was applied to anything else, then nothing would exist.
I also haven't seen a single refutation for the arguments of Aquinas, or definitive non-bias proof that Jesus was not the son of God or that the people who have seen God really haven't seen or had contact with God.

>le unicorns
>pic related
>From what I remember circular reasoning is all Craig had to offer.
You do realize the nature of logic itself is circular you fucking mongoloid.
This is the problem with these "New Atheists" they seem to believe that skepticism is logical when it is skepticism which throws out logic.
They only reign in their skepticism when speaking of things that support their case, notice how easily Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins talk about unfinished and totally unproven theories in physics.
>implying anyone cares
lel, the only reason atheists like to debate is because they have nothing better to do, the only way to spread atheism is to be asked if they are an atheist.
lol, the burden of proof is only a burden if you're trying to convince people, apply the burden of proof to logic and proof ad infinitum and see where it gets you lmao

>The Bible isn't evidence
Why
>argument from silence and half baked sociology
>pic related
literally no one picks a fight with science.
Dawkins doesn't even represent science.
The idea that scientists represent science is as ridiculous as the idea that priests represent God.
let the evidence speak for itself.
>inb4 God is silent
His handwriting is the natural world and math.
Craig would destroy him.

Calm down user, you don't have to prove anything to us

>Why is it always passed off as a proven way of cutting religion out?
It doesn't disprove religion or god in general, just creationism, and argueably religions that may depend on it.

I would honestly love to see him debate Jordan Peterson.Even though it wouldn't be a debate against a fundamentalist perspective of the bible, which Jordan disagrees with as well, it would be fun to see a debate from a more philosophical/metaphysical viewpoint

The problem is he attacks religion by assuming is must disagree with evolution. He is himself a fundamentalist.

>You're not allowed to have an opinion on religion unless you believe in it

Oh, ok

You realize those pseudoscientists like Ken Ham are his intelelctual level?

Nigger a theologian is someone who studies religion.

L 2 dictionary.

Dawkins is a fag who gets in internet arguments with random people. So immature.

>Mountains
so what? Geological structures sometimes look nice. This proves nothing.
>Jesus existed
So did Muhammad, and countless other people claiming to be divine, but I don't see you using them as evidence.
>Many people claim to have seen God or had some encounter with God
Many people claim to have seen aliens at Area 51, but do you believe them? When people hear voices inside their heads, we call that schizophrenia.
>Miracles still happen
Funny how they've just never been recorded, or caught on camera, or clearly documented with physical proof.
>Rebut Aquinas
Hitchens addressed everything he said.
>proof that Jesus was not the son of God
"Oh yeah, well you prove God doesn't exist!!!"
>The Bible is evidence
Yes, because a two-thousand year old text about a guy walking on water is obviously such a reliable source.
nice strawman, btw

Most of them study religion under the assumption that it's true, they don't look at it objectively. They start of with a belief and draw up convoluted "logic" to explain religions made for and by humans thousands of years ago.

>Flat-earthists and evolution-deniers are whack jobs, but I get the feeling that people who argue against them at their level are just as mentally ill.
user are you clinically retarded

>sargon of acuck
top kek.

...

not an argument

Jordan Peterson is right about the metaphysics of religion. The argument would probably devolve to them being necessary or not.

>Like Sargon of Akkad

The biggest fucking posturing stuffy English pseud there is with a fanbase of rabid disenfranchised thirteen year olds

His video comparing America to Rome is so extraordinarily full of shit and he mistook Tiberius Gracchus for the 4th Emperor Tiberius, there is no way anyone whose head is remotely outside of their ass can take him seriously

Are you falseflagging? I wouldn't be able to write this post with a straight face, even if I was a Christian.

euphoric

You don't need to eat shit to know that it's shit.

>The Socratic and Aquinian proofs of God have yet to be refuted or challenged.

They've never been proven either.

>Also Kant broke down Hume and tore him a new one.

Except for the fact he didn't. Kant's philosophy amounted to much ado about nothing, since he has the same problem any philosopher that autistically focuses on logic has: his opponent has to be willing to play the same game for him to do anything to them.

>The Socratic and Aquinian proofs of God have yet to be refuted or challenged.

I think many people who dispute that, they just haven't been challenged to the satisfaction of their supporters.

Dawkins specifically dismantles the Aquinian "proofs" you fool

As a non new atheist I will disagree because he didn't attack the metaphysics, You could make an argument based on modern physical proofs that the metaphysics of Aristotle are horribly outdated and illogical, but he didn't make that case

Here's Dawkins vs (former?) Chief Rabbi Johnathan Henry Baron Sacks:
youtube.com/watch?v=bK0tpvcIRhU

Rabbi Sacks does not deny evolution.

On the "Dawkins never debated Craig" front, Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins on one side debated Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, and Douglas Geivett on the topic Does The Universe Have a Purpose?:
youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

>scientists still think science is rigirous

LMAO

God doesn't exist, christian cuck.
Even if he does, it's not the god from the Bible.