Coprophilia is a Rational Response
Atheists continue to malign logic and reason on a daily basis by insisting that absence of evidence of a phenomenon constitutes proof if its non-existence.
The perversion of logic doesn’t stop there.
David Mills, best selling atheist author of “The Atheist Universe”, and admired by Richard Dawkins, released a video showing David Mills tearing up a Bible and graphically playing with dog feces with the pages.
A psychological analysis of the act might suggest that the person engaging in such an act is consumed by an irrational hatred. Book burning is usually associated with a hatred and opposition to intellectual truth.
I suspect that this video is effective in proving that atheism is an emotional exercise and not an intellectual one.
If I didn’t know better, I would think that the outrageous and childish name calling and shenagigans by Hitchens, Mills, Dawkins and others - was a ploy by anti-atheists posing as atheists in order to destroy their credibility.
The irony is that they are all sincere atheists and they are actively destroying their own credibility with the support of the vast majority of atheists.
While I will defend a person’s right to play with feces, those who do so cannot expect to be treated as rational participants in intellectual discourse.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Since atheists don’t have a shared dogma, it is hard to get them all to work together. Plus he sends the wrong message, dog feces are very unhygenic. I think he gets a kick out of pissing people off.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:00 am
It appears for the first time that Samuel has agreed with you John. It isn’t an intellectual discourse it’s for shits and giggles.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Richard Dawkins has never stated that because there is no evidence of a phenomenon that it is therefore proof it does not exist. My understanding of what he says is there is no evidence and therefore he cannot believe in something that has no evidence. He has always said that if the religious can produce some evidence, any evidence, that he would certainly like to see it. But so far, no one has been able to provide any evidence. Just because millions of people believe a thing to be true does not mean it is true. We can remember that Galileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun which was contradictory to church doctrine and he was jailed for it. He proved it was not true and the church tried to squash intellectual progress. This is what Richard Dawkins objects to. When someone can show me evidence of a god then I would be delighted to look at that evidence. Until then I remain as many others, an atheist.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Frankie, welcome to my humble blog.
I recommend you read The God Delusion. I think it’s obvious that you haven’t, which is quite alright, but the best way to know his positions is to read the book.
For example, in Chapter Two you will find him demanding that the god hypothesis be treated as any other scientific hypothesis, which of he does, and then rightly concludes that science disproves a physical god.
True. Appealing to popularity or numbers is a poor form of debate.
Why do you mention “many others”? It sounds like an appeal to popularity.
And, as we’ve already covered, absence of proof of god doesn’t establish a foundation for atheism. It provides a foundation for agnosticism.
Cheers
December 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Richard Dawkins accepts that the existence of god cannot be disproved, any more than
the existence of a flying teapot orbiting the sun in deep space can be disproved.
We can however be ninety nine percent certain that the teapot does not exist
and the same goes for any alleged deities. The burden of proof lies firmly on the
shoulders of the believer in this instance.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
He accepts that god cannot be 100% disproved. He does however fail to realize that by assigning random probability rates, he misses invokes the error that hundred-percenters do.
That 99% is pulled out of his arse. No, actually, yours? His arguments against particular gods amount to nothing more than Straw Men and transparent cherry picking. I’m surprised that anybody with a high school education or more would no see right through it.
He states quite correctly that we cannot prove non-existence of the Celestial Teapot, but appeals to emotive reasoning. Logically, we cannot know about the TeaPot. But ignore logic, and go with your gut, the TeaPot doesn’t exist.
That kind of anti-logic is precisely why religion is compared to a disease. But it doesn’t stop Dawkins from offering his own version of a Witch Hunt.
His principle arguments are against Christianity, and it’s telling that he readily excludes Buddhism and Confucianism (page 37).
The burden of proof always rests with the person making the assertion. If you assert that god exists, the burden of proof is upon you. If you assert that god doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is upon you. If you assert specific probabilities, the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claims with facts and reasoning.
If I assert that we cannot know whether gods exist, the burden of proof is upon me.
The only way to avoid a burden of proof is to be a weak agnostic - i.e., not claiming that god exists, not claiming that he doesn’t, and not stating whether or not we can or cannot know. Simply refusing to take a position.
I support my strong agnosticism with reasoning, and frankly I think it’s cowardice to run about making assertions and then trying to avoid the burden of proof.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
You’ve prompted me to consult my copy of The God Delusion and it seems indeed that the ninety nine percent figure has been produced from my own botty
as you so indelicately describe it. I apologise to all mathematicians but the point
is that the possible existence of a celestial teapot is so vanishingly small as to be
not worthy of serious consideration, like a million other things that one might
dream up. All right MathHeads I don’t mean a million literally - expand this figure
to anything you like. Phew!
As for Buddhists and Confucians, Mr Dawkins explains that these beliefs are
more like ethical systems or philosophies than religions. Don’t know much about
‘em myself but I used to watch the TV series “Kung Fu” in the 70’s and the wise old Buddhist looking guy in the opening sequences seemed to talk a lot of sense.
“One day Grasshopper it will be time for you to leave.”
Nope, you can’t really criticise Mr Dawkins for choosing to focus on the belief systems that appear the keenest to plunge the modern world into a new dark
age of anti scientific, anti life irrationality and unreason.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Thank you for your recommendation to read The God Delusion. I have read it all ready and while I dont remember word for word what Mr. Dawkins writes, I think I got the gist of it.
Why shouldnt the existence of god be treated to scientific scrutiny? That seems a logical and reasonable response to any phenomenon doesnt it?
I think we should step away from burden of proof and examine evidence. If the evidence is not there, then I cannot support a hypothesis but if it is there it is worth examining further. That’s the scientific process. So, for me anyway, there just doesnt seem to be enough evidence to support the idea of a supernatural being that takes an interest in the minute details of everyone’s life. Although, as Dawkins says, I would be willing to see any evidence that is available. And so far there isnt any.
Have you read Christopher Hitchens book God is not Great. Also a good read. Dawkins also wrote The Selfish Gene and The Ancestors Tale..both worth reading.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Science is useful for finding the truth about physical attributes of physical objects. If science were capable of detecting or analyzing non-physical objects, it would indeed be useful in addressing the god hypothesis.
However, the hypothesized gods, the hypothesized souls, the hypothesized ghosts, pixies and spaghetti monsters are all non-physical objects. As such, science is useless in analyzing them.
I don’t know of any evidence for the existence of god. That should lead you to agnosticism. Unless, like Dawkins, you are emotionally inclined, and feel hostility to the idea of god or gods. Then you might want to be atheist.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Dave, please forgive my delayed response. I was busy. (My birthday yesterday.
)
Buddhism, especially modern Nichiren Sh?sh? (Sokka) Buddhism is very much a religion. Tenrikyo is a pantheistic religion, the kind Dawkins likes to see as harmless, but it’s very much a cult, and in Japan the followers of it have to hand over their land.
Who does more harm to science and reason? The religious, the majority of whom make no claims to science or reason; or a scientist subverting both science and logic in order to further his anti-theist agenda?
December 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Who do the Japanese mean harm to, apart from whales? Let them keep their Tenriyko, the name sounds kinda cool like many of their contributions to world culture like Judo, Samurai and Toshiba.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
So Dawkins atheism only applies to religions that mean harm to people?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:07 am
I think so. If the crazy Flinstone loving, hellfire fearing, women hating, female
genital mutilating, suicide murdering denominations can be dragged into the 21st century, then the relatively civilised belief systems may follow.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:32 am
So you’re saying that Dawkins hypothesis of atheism falls if the majority of religious people are indeed tolerant?
Then it falls.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Mills appears to have been studying at the Michael Moore school of marketing.
Let’s be careful not to crucify Dawkins for the sins of Mills.
The best response that the Christians could have is to laugh at these shenanigans. This would show a good example for the Muslims — who will try to hunt down and behead Mills when he moves on to “desecrating” their holy book.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Agreed that Christians should not be offended. Atheists, however, might be, when Mills is seen as representative of intellectual atheism.
January 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Just checked out David Mills’ u tube poo scooping antics for something to do
on a gloomy Sunday afternoon and feel the exercise might have been more
entertaining in a Snuff Movie kind of way if performed in an Iranian street
with a copy of The Koran.