Some of Richard Dawkin’s notable quotes in this debate :
* “The one belief I would give to a child is skepticism.”
* “I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.”
* “Everyone knows by common sense that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is moral. You don’t need a holy book to tell you to do that.”
* “We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences.”
* “How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.”
This quote alone, if he really believes it, makes this person an ignoramous. You have to know what is moral, because anything less purposely violates one's sanctity. Everyone knows exactly what is moral, what is right, and what is just. There is no excuse.
If a person chooses to IGNOR what is moral or listen to the lie, it is no excuse for their misdeeds.
I shouldn't say "arguments"--they read much more like pronouncements, and he continues to go virtually unquestioned in England as an "authority" who really can't answer something as simple as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (Dawkins cannot account for why the universe is here. Pretty fundamental, dontchathink?)
Dawkins enjoys this popularity over there because the Church of England has long since abandoned any semblance of Christianity--for those of you who bother to stay informed on subjects like this, you realize what I mean. There is virtually no one over there to debate with him. The press fawns all over him, and he's treated like a rock star.
I encourage all Christians to read (at least) the table of contents of his latest book. It's funny, too, that in the end, his own arguments in it rely upon nothing more than his own personal distaste for submission to a moral Creator. It's quite a letdown, really, as I had expected some "proof" rather than yet another pronouncement from Dawkins.
I found Dawkins' arguments to be self-refuting and contradictory, e.g., he argues (see prior post):
"Everyone knows by common sense that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is moral. You don't need a holy book to tell you that."
Which we contrast with another of his own statements:
"How do I know what is moral? I don't on the whole."
Dawkins should read some C.S. Lewis, particularly Mere Christianity, where Lewis brilliantly explains how everyone--aborigines, cultured modern Europeans, ancient civilized Chinese--divergent, varied cultures throughout time, history, and geographic region, understood the difference between Right and Wrong.
Morality is programmed into us. We are imprinted with it within us. And the source of that morality is eternal. We were made in His image.
Socrates even argued for its existence--sensing that it was real. He referred to it as the "inner oracle," which guides our decisions. He argued forcefully for its existence.
Sauron
BUT, if you are an athiest and you can obtain the objects of your desire by using murder or cruelty (and you know you wouldn't get caught) there is no logical reason NOT to use these methods.
If there is no God, and human beings are simply freaks of nature, what difference does anything make? If there is no objective morality, then morality is a matter of personal choice. In the end, it doesn’t really matter, for the entire universe will eventually be composed of lifeless matter. Hedonism becomes the default lifestyle. Without immortality, life is meaningless and absurd. Nietzsche was at least correct in noting that when man killed God, he killed himself. The death of God is the death of mankind.
Then he's terribly stupid.
...becomes this...
“How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.”
He's good with the self-contradiction, isn't he?
Okay, but lacking any other belief not all that useful.
“I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.”
Then he isn't very bright. It's not hard at all to conceive of such a path.
“Everyone knows by common sense that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is moral. You don’t need a holy book to tell you to do that.”
What is common sense? Where does it come from? And most importantly, WHY is it so?
“We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences.”
Nonsense, it might explain the form we are in, but not why we are here. And the consequences can be quite ugly too. I'm surprised he does not think that the "process" is beautiful. Based on his thinking, that's not logical. Why is it hideous? Based on what standard?
“How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.”
A seemingly honest statement that contradicts some of his other thoughts.
jw
* “How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.”
Nothing like directly contradicting yourself on something this important.
Just curious - does Dawkins have children? I can just see it:
Dawkins: Go brush your teeth, Johnny.
Johnny: Brushing my teeth is a waste of time.
Dawkins: No, it's not. I can show you study after study after study that says that brushing your teeth is necessary for good health.
Johnny: I'm skeptical of those studies, and until you can prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that they are accurate, I won't be brushing my teeth.
That would be the end of Dawkins claims about the one belief he would instill in a child.