I don’t hate the guy, I hate what he is doing and why he is doing it.  First of all let me explain something to you…


There are things that as a scientist Dawkins can’t say, because science has a praxis and he can’t say anything that isn’t provable and peer reviewable.  So he can’t speak with the authority of science and say that he is absolutely certain that god doesn’t exist, but that is his conceit.

I know how emotional antitheists are so let me just say I am not a theist, I am a deist, I believe in god as the faculty of reason in man.  Before the misotheists turn into raging poop throwing monsters and do something stupid.

Going back to this concept of what can and cannot be said, Dawkins cannot knowingly make a logical fallacy, but apparently he can invite his disciples to do it.  And lets make no mistake, they are disciples.


He uses the Scarlett Letter as a tacit conflation of the relationship between religion and science, feminizing science and inviting his histrionic cult to feel victimized, persecuted, and ostracized by religion.  So you see, he is making a covert emotional appeal and he is not trying to indoctrinate his congregation to understand logic or debate.  He is perfectly ok with them making logical errors as long as they are in his own favor.


Earlier in his career Dawkins was much more animated in his interviews, flashing microexpressions of contempt and disgust until he went on Bill Maher with Neil De Grasse Tyson who reminded him assuming  he  knew it in the first place that science is done analytically, not emotionally.  So when he was screaming with his face like he was beheading a gorgon he was misrepresenting science and acting like a fool.  Which brings up a salient point.


Dawkins is also trying to conflate religious thinking with insanity.  That is the hidden subject in the “the god delusion“, which yes, I have read.   Belief is required in knowledge to.  In order for it to be knowledge it has to be justified, true, and believed, and you can try to tell me that the justified, true, and believed rubric isn’t used anymore but let me ask you this, When was the last time you tried to walk through a wall?  You believe the wall is solid, you don’t keep trying to prove it to yourself,  belief shapes our world.  You believe in scientific authority so you listen to it and obey it.

Secondly, am I delusional if I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man?  Lets see how Richard Dawkins sets up his defence and offence in his arguments.


Hmmm,  it seems I have lost the debate before it even began because I have to argue for the stupidest religious people in order to win and all he has to do is humiliate the stupidest religious people, which brings us to our next case in point…..


I feel like I slam dunked that one.  Lets move on.


Ouch!  Kind of a one sided victory.  I feel like I am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Dawkins would lose a debate with me, badly.  As a matter of fact, he has lost debates, and there are people that he refuses to debate because he knows he will lose.  I heard a female british philosophy professor say it succinctly, and I can’t remember her name, “whether god exists or not is a question for philosophy not for science.”  and yes she was speaking specifically about Dawkins.  Dawkins is not a smart man, he is a greedy stupid man, he is trying to set himself up as a rockstar of science as a martyr for science, he is in relationship with his legacy and he is turning science into a religion.  He is evangelizing and proselytizing science.  Science wasn’t meant for stupid people, stop selling it to them.  Science is for the people that are logical and rational and come to it.  It isn’t for the cheer leaders of science.

Dawkins is the smartest man that stupid antitheists and misotheists are capable of understanding.  He is not considered smart in any other part of the world.  There are over 10 french philosophers that would rip him to shreds, and we don’t even have to go out of our way to find someone much smarter than Dawkins.  The problem is that the smartest person they are capable of sympathising with is the authority.  But you forgot to factor something into your interpretations and judgments, the fact that you are a complete imbecile.  You can’t evaluate a person that is much much smarter than you which is why Noam Chomsky doesn’t have a huge american following….



  1. //I believe in god as the faculty of reason in man.//

    Look. That simply doesn’t look look grammatically correct. Is this what you meant?:
    “I define god as the faculty of reason in man.”

    The fact that someone chose to label an electronic device a tablet does not mean you would want to swallow one next time you have a headache, does it?

    Suggestion: Look up the logical fallacy of equivocation.

  2. Why give the idiot more exposure? He shows is ass every time he speaks.The solution is to have people think clearly, making unclear thinkers more infamous seems to be adding to the confusion.BTW I really like that, “obscene abilities” phrase. If I ever have a chance to use it I will credit the source.

    1. Ty, sir! I am exposing the idiot. There is so little dialogue out there that can rationally falsify Dawkins, I want people to know eventually that someone knew what he was doing and where he was angling this whole time and called the game from the beginning. I want theists to realize that they can’t argue their position and win against him, you can only beat his arguments from the perspective of deism and agnosticism which is why he preemptively marginalizes those perspectives. forcing them to argue for positions they don’t have.

  3. It’s an interesting post; I don’t think he is that stupid, but he certainly is nowhere near as intelligent as some people think. His ‘The God Delusion’ has been shredded to smithereens by many; his arguments are basic and very, very flawed.

    He has a limited perspective; he cannot see how his logic is just… I’d say rickety…

    I can see your point about him getting all worked up about God; well… Here in a way I see where he’s coming from, but also where he goes wrong and how he just doesn’t get it. You can read his psychological motivation very easily; in a way, I understand him… He must be upset at some forms of fundamentalism, he seems to me to have been hurt by religion. He argues well against fundamentalists, but he doesn’t understand that that’s not the point and that they are a minority. He doesn’t WANT God; that’s clear… To the point that he’d try anything to deny God.

    He also avoids debating those that he knows would ‘beat’ him; for this reason, if he had any intellectual integrity, he should start questioning his beliefs; if you know your argument does not stand up against someone else (Dr Lane Craig, Dr Lennox etc.) then you need to start at least contemplating the idea that they may be right. But he can’t; he’s ideologically motivated and just does not want God; that’s clearly his starting point.

    I actually, in a way, feel sorry for him… He looks to me like a child who has been hurt and has staked everything on the first solution that came his way, and even when he realises his solution is no solution at all (and produces a very grey, dark outlook on life, on his own!), he is just too scared to question the safety blanket he has held so tight for so long.

    1. He is supposed to be a scientist but he really hasn’t made any contributions to science. He created the word “Meme” but it is a rhetorical tautology of the word neologism. Thank you for your comment.

      1. You honestley think that the “creation” of the word meme is his only contribution to science? Is clear that you have no idea about his career and influence. This is not a problem but are you not ashamed of speaking of things you are ignorant of? I would be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s