The illogic of Atheism

It is apparent the thrust of this thread is to rage over of Dawkins... rather than pointing out the illogic of atheism; I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the evidentiary evidences.

No one here is raging over Dawkins. It's interesting that you think this is a deflection from the thread's purpose, since Dawkins is among the most vocal and well known atheists today. More likely than not anyone wishing to discuss the rationale behind atheism would come up against something said by Dawkins at some point.

Please, don't hold your breath. Go look for yourself, and you'll find it without trouble. This isn't hard to do.

Dante, I have been looking for myself. I haven't been finding what you are describing. You say that videos and articles showing his bad character are readily available, yet those that I find do not show this. That's why I'm asking for your help. Either you are looking at different articles/videos from me, or we are looking at the same ones but drawing different conclusions. Either way, it would help to know what you are looking at.

I find video a tediously slow way to obtain information. If the way he conducts himself in a video is relevant though, watching it is useful.

Linda

I once heard Dawkins refer to an opposing metaphysic as "baloney". I mean, really! He even wrote a book about it. Oh hang on... that was someone else.

No one here is raging over Dawkins. It's interesting that you think this is a deflection from the thread's purpose, since Dawkins is among the most vocal and well known atheists today. More likely than not anyone wishing to discuss the rationale behind atheism would come up against something said by Dawkins at some point.

Please, don't hold your breath. Go look for yourself, and you'll find it without trouble. This isn't hard to do.

Since you say Linda will finded it without trouble why is it too much trouble for you?
I'm not defending Dawkins, Hitchens or anyone. But so what if he's vocal? The point is if anyone makes or insinuates an assertion like you have than it's up to you to provide direct evidences which none have save Chris - maybe. If not, than you're just blowing smoke. In the words of Chris: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

The point is if anyone makes or insinuates an assertion like you have than it's up to you to provide direct evidences which none have save Chris - maybe.

Actually not only is the tweet I linked to an example of boorish and arrogant behaviour, it's also a return to the topic of the thread.

Here's what Dawkins wrote in response to what seems to me a reasonably coherent and thoughtful discussion of the relationship between faith and reason:
Ladies & gentlemen, behold the theological mind in all its wishful-thinking fatuousness: http://nyti.ms/2BPsXuo  “Denying the existence of God is as much a leap of faith as asserting it.” And the same for the tooth fairy?
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/statu...2903029760

I wonder if anyone here would agree with Dawkins that the article represents "the theological mind in all its wishful-thinking fatuousness:" Or that his reference to the tooth fairy somehow disproves the existence of God?

The point is if anyone makes or insinuates an assertion like you have than it's up to you to provide direct evidences

Woah there Steve.

The assertions were made by the author in the OP's link.  Linda is the one asking, over and over, for someone to help her understand the basis for the OP's commentary on Dawkins.  Let's not twist this into something it isn't.

A few of us gave examples (Linda's dismissal of the example I provided was purely based on her interpretation and not some objective, evidentially based "proof").  Linda keeps asking for more so the community finally resorted to suggesting she look into it herself if she's truly interested.

Btw, don't be happy clappy with this person. He would just as quickly and scathingly attack the faith based beliefs of yours. He's not your friend.

He would just as quickly and scathingly attack the faith based beliefs of yours.

Are you talking about Chris?

Regardless, no one would be able to attack my faith based beliefs because I'm not sure what they are myself.

Are you talking about Chris?

I wondered that too. 

Mind you, as Steve referred to me and quoted Christopher Hitchens as "Chris" almost in the same breath, anything's possible.

I once heard Dawkins refer to an opposing metaphysic as "baloney". I mean, really! He even wrote a book about it. Oh hang on... that was someone else.

That's different.

Linda