The illogic of Atheism

There he said, go mock... . What I can't  discern is, did he mean to mock an individual personally or mock to no one but mock in general. Do you know?

Its at the 15 minute mark.  "Mock them.  Ridicule them."  There was nothing general about it.  He was speaking in reference to what one should do when talking to a creationist.

I'm only surprised he didn't label those "idiots" who believe such things as infidels.

As I said, I find the mind boorish and unkind.

EDIT: Apologies to all as I failed to read ahead and see Dante's more eloquent response.  Makes what I wrote here duplicitous.

Hate to be "that Guy", Slience but I'm not sure you meant duplicitous in its usual sense: deceitful. I think you were suggesting the point had been made more than once (duplicated). Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

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?

Just trying again, can anyone help me with the relevance of the "tooth fairy" to the logical argument that there can't be sufficient evidence to conclude there's no God?

Isn't it analogous to saying "Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, therefore God doesn't exist"? Am I missing something?

Just trying again, can anyone help me with the relevance of the "tooth fairy" to the logical argument that there can't be sufficient evidence to conclude there's no God?

Isn't it analogous to saying "Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, therefore God doesn't exist"? Am I missing something?

I think he is using tooth fairy in the same way that he used spaghetti monster or Russell used the Flying Teapot. The idea being that they can't prove that God doesn't exist in the same way they can't prove that the spahetti monster or teapot or tooth fairy don't exist. Not being able to prove they don't exist doesn't lead one to believe that they do. By association, however, they are equating the sublime with the ridiculous which is an intended insult directed at people of faith.

I think he is using tooth fairy in the same way that he used spaghetti monster or Russell used the Flying Teapot. The idea being that they can't prove that God doesn't exist in the same way they can't prove that the spahetti monster or teapot or tooth fairy don't exist. Not being able to prove they don't exist doesn't lead one to believe that they do.

Yes, but the point Dawkins was responding to - indeed ridiculing as fatuous - is that there's insufficient evidence to show that God doesn't exist - that that position requires a leap of faith.

And in any case, disbelief in the "tooth fairy" or Sherlock Holmes is scarcely comparable, considering that we have positive evidence that they are both fictitious.

Yes, but the point Dawkins was responding to - indeed ridiculing as fatuous - is that there's insufficient evidence to show that God doesn't exist - that that position requires a leap of faith.

And in any case, disbelief in the "tooth fairy" or Sherlock Holmes is scarcely comparable, considering that we have positive evidence that they are both fictitious.

Completely with you on this. How Dawkins managed to find himself in the position of authority responsible for public understanding of science is beyond me. Notable that his successor was yet another atheist, Marcus du Sautoy. However, the latter seems a little more considered than Dawkins and has been quoted more recently:

“I wonder, though, whether, as I come to the end of my
exploration, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an
atheist,” he writes. “With my definition of a God as that which we
cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe
there is nothing we cannot know.”

Du Sautoy no longer believes that. “In some sense I think I have
proved that this God does exist. The challenge now is to explore what
quality this God has.”

Just trying again, can anyone help me with the relevance of the "tooth fairy" to the logical argument that there can't be sufficient evidence to conclude there's no God?

Isn't it analogous to saying "Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, therefore God doesn't exist"? Am I missing something?

It amounts to nothing more than mockery that adds nothing to the discussion. It's like saying, "Well, if you think there's a god, then I think there's a flying spaghetti monster, and my belief is just as legitimate as yours." 

It might be even less developed than that, which is saying something.

Though, to your Sherlock comparison, (though not defending it remotely) I think the idea behind it is not that "X doesn't exist, so god doesn't exist", but rather "We know the tooth fairy does not exist and is a made up thing to serve some emotional purpose, and god is in essence the same thing (with no evidentiary basis)." I could be wrong, or could probably find a better way to phrase that last bit - but I think the gist of it is drawing a parallel between a knowingly fabricated being and god, to weakly dismiss any god and any evidence/logical arguments associated with god as a foolish thing only children and those lacking intellectual maturity buy into.

In reality it seems to me anyone choosing to say something so obviously daft and lacking in any depth of thought whatsoever might reconsider their course of action if they hope to be taken seriously.

Edit: Just saw Kam's reference to spaghetti monster as well. Apologies, hadn't read his response before posting.

Completely with you on this. How Dawkins managed to find himself in the position of authority responsible for public understanding of science is beyond me. 

Perhaps as a zoologist Dawkins is qualified to give opinions about evolution, but I wonder how well suited he is to pronounce on metaphysics and philosophy. It's not as though people haven't been considering these issues in great depth for hundreds of years, and I suspect that generally those people were considerably more highly trained in logic than most of today's scientists.

Perhaps as a zoologist Dawkins is qualified to give opinions about evolution, but I wonder how well suited he is to pronounce on metaphysics and philosophy. It's not as though people haven't been considering these issues in great depth for hundreds of years, and I suspect that generally those people were considerably more highly trained in logic than most of today's scientists.

A very good point. 

Reminded my of something Martin Rees said regarding Stephen Hawking's proclamations about the nonexistence of god:

"Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've know for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic[.]"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...90421.html

Rees is someone whose ideas I've enjoyed reading in the past. He certainly has a more amenable point of view to me than Dawkins does, and I have little doubt that Dawkins is similarly unfamiliar with philosophy or theology. A person may be brilliant in one sphere and quite lacking in another.

Is not his point that the ‘notion of the tooth fairy’ and the ‘notion of god’ are both human constructs?