As I stated earlier - I haven't read the whole book so I won't pretend to be able to mount a completely informed attack on the subject. But a few comments, of course:
Dawkins makes another point that I've never seen anybody rebut - if you're a person who's committed to rational inquiry in their lives and not just in their day jobs as scientists, it's impossible for you to be anything but an atheist. That's 100% true, as near as I can tell. I'm not an atheist because I want to be; I'm an atheist because, rationally, that's what's true about the universe.
Actually, from my view of the label "atheist," atheism is as irrational as theism.
But from what I've read, and heard, from Dawkins, he seems to almost intentionally play fast and loose with terminology. When Dawkins says "atheist", he actually means "agnostic." And when he says "atheist" while meaning "agnostic", it seems to be in reference to the popular monotheisms (who I realize are the subject of his attack).
PS: I've heard exaltations from them along the lines of "What the hell is Dawkins thinking?"
CF: That it's time to realize that religion isn't something that gets a pass just for being a religion.
That's nothing more than a cheap-shot, a claim that the only reason a scientist could doubt Dawkins' logic, veracity, or methods is out of blind respect for religion.
If you do not think it is possible for people to disagree with Dawkins for any other reason, then perhaps Dawkins is your God.
I haven't read the dialogue - yet - thanks for the link.
The vast majority of religious narratives are based on events that, we can rationally conclude, did not occur.
I agree completely (at least with literal readings).
That it's considered "crazy" to point out something so obviously true is a sign of how religion has perverted the thinking of even those who aren't terribly interested in it.
I agree completely.
Dawkins point is that there's no reason for religion to get a pass on being false, and I find myself in complete agreement.
I agree completely, but is that
really "Dawkins' point"?
Somewhere in there he said the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis, and that is bullshit.
That it's considered "crazy" to point out something so obviously true is a sign of how science has perverted the thinking of even those who aren't terribly interested in it.
™ Version 4.2
