Amazing how you can pile words together and make them mean nothing. Can you show us the script that generates this?
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Amazing how you can pile words together and make them mean nothing. Can you show us the script that generates this?
Part1
No, Stu, I don't ask you to cease your proposition. You really do read into things that do not exist. I asked you to cease using me as your proxy for an argument that needs to be taken to a higher level if you expect it to gain viable credibility. Right now, it only has credibility in your own sphere of influence and those of a similar mindset. Your argument has as much merit as any faith based argument. There's nothing factual in your argument. It relies on anecdotal, speculative, philosophical, and circumstancial evidence. It if weren't so, accredited institutions would have already accepted it.
It's that simple Stu.
Nonsense. Utterly so. In the orginal argument I was very much openminded with you. Even going so far as to help you find a more proper term for the type of atheism you were trying to ascribe to babies - such as noncongnitive atheists. But you just wouldn't have it. I don't have an aversion to labeling babies atheist. I have an aversion to improper word use. Which I stated ad nausem. I, myself am an atheist since I don't believe in Allah or Vishnu or other such other Gods. Yet believe in the God of the bible. That is using the term properly. I disbelieve in those other gods. And I do so out of reason, preference and in a somewhat inexplicable manner.
No, my good old son. Your use of the word is unathorative. It's that simple Stu. That simple. Grapple all you like. But until you come to terms with that fact, you'll be grappling against the foundation of language use. But not with me. I leave you to do as you like, which I said a few times.
Again, no my good old son. It went from reasonable to exasperated when you claimed that I didn't accept your point of view because I was a theist when I first told you I was against improper word use and after showing you that the resistance to your use of the word wasn't theist-centric. It made me think that you can only see red when you know someone is a theist.
It's that simple Stu. No boogiemen lurking in presupposed shadows,
No, Stu, I don't ask you to cease your proposition. You really do read into things that do not exist. I asked you to cease using me as your proxy for an argument that needs to be taken to a higher level if you expect it to gain viable credibility. Right now, it only has credibility in your own sphere of influence and those of a similar mindset. Your argument has as much merit as any faith based argument. There's nothing factual in your argument. It relies on anecdotal, speculative, philosophical, and circumstancial evidence. It if weren't so, accredited institutions would have already accepted it.
It's that simple Stu.
Nonsense. Utterly so. In the orginal argument I was very much openminded with you. Even going so far as to help you find a more proper term for the type of atheism you were trying to ascribe to babies - such as noncongnitive atheists. But you just wouldn't have it. I don't have an aversion to labeling babies atheist. I have an aversion to improper word use. Which I stated ad nausem. I, myself am an atheist since I don't believe in Allah or Vishnu or other such other Gods. Yet believe in the God of the bible. That is using the term properly. I disbelieve in those other gods. And I do so out of reason, preference and in a somewhat inexplicable manner.
No, my good old son. Your use of the word is unathorative. It's that simple Stu. That simple. Grapple all you like. But until you come to terms with that fact, you'll be grappling against the foundation of language use. But not with me. I leave you to do as you like, which I said a few times.
Again, no my good old son. It went from reasonable to exasperated when you claimed that I didn't accept your point of view because I was a theist when I first told you I was against improper word use and after showing you that the resistance to your use of the word wasn't theist-centric. It made me think that you can only see red when you know someone is a theist.
It's that simple Stu. No boogiemen lurking in presupposed shadows,
Part 2: (and Last one. I think there's enough here for reference in case anyone actually has follwed this. They know what's either being misrepresented or actual)
My responses are not heading that way at all. I disagree with your use of the word on supported and reasonable grounds. Yes, I did become frustrated with your adamant stance that because I'm a theist that somehow I can't agree with your use of the word. It was bizarre then and remains so now. So bizarre, it begged a pet name. To wit: freaky deaky freak-a-zoid.
A reasonable person would have noticed that I found an acceptable label (non-cognitive atheist) given accredited definitions of the word atheist and said, "well yes, that's correct and they can be termed that too."
But you wish to buck up against accredited standards. Well be my guest. That's a commendable endeavor albeit a fruitless one if one hasn't empiricial evidence.
Sigh. Of course other atheists would like and do use the term atheist for babies. I already pointed that out to you Stu. My point, and any reasonable person would have seen it, is that it's not unanimous among atheists. There are strong arguments against using it for babies made by atheists. The examples I gave were for the sake of debunking the notion that any dissention for using the word must be theist-centric.
OLD son, show me where I said you MUST agree. Show me. Especially in light of the fact that it was I who said people will use words as they wish. Happens all the time. I simply made the case that you don't have viable support for doing so other than as a colloquialism.
NON-SENSE! Forehead slapping non-sense. Would you like to know why? Where's your openmindedness towards religion? Non-existent! Why? Because you ask for proof. Well, here I am, ready, willing and able for you to show some accredited proof of your position. Just as you demand a standard of proof for religion, an objective standard mind you, well, here I am asking for objective, not subjective, not philosophical or anecdotal proof that babies can properly be termed as atheist.
Show me that and I will be all too happy to label babies as atheist in the manner in which you suggest. That should be clear since I have no problem with labeling them non-cognitive atheists.
Because, at the end of the day, I am a reasonable geezer.
Sure. I agree. Perhaps I could of made it simple. Reduced it to a catch phrase even. But as I said, I was looking to develop both a rapport and empathy with Jem who I never had the opportunity to post with or against, that in my estimation could not have occured without a decent background. Stu, you must understand, I don't mind your reponses. In fact, it would be unreasonable for me to expect that you won't defend yourself against the manner in which I painted you based on my observation and experience. (Relating to what I perceive as your enmity with theists)
But understanding what you seek to accomplish, I am suggesting you take it up to a level where it belongs. I don't think you understand or appreciated how language evolves. Since atheism is not a part of pop culture where the mere use or overuse of the word would merit an inclusion into an accredited dictionary, it needs to be brought to those responsible for cataloguing the meaning of words. There is more at stake than just the definition or a debate on this message board. Other branches of science and philosophy might have a stake in it to. I don't think so much of myself as to think that I can allow or disallow use of the word. I just won't do it myself since I do not have leave to use it in such a manner considering I have as a standard, the employment of accreditted references when determining how or when I should use a word or term.
Though somewhat fitting, I'm not going to call famous twins like the Olsen girls, binaries. They are twin stars after all.
What contradiction? I suggested a "brush up" (see that that was the term I used) on when an argument from authority is proper. Some where thinking it was always bad form. I could have made reference to accreditted volumes on argumentation and proper debate etiquette. Or even to accreditted volumes on logical fallacies. But I already knew that what was in the Wiki I supplied was contained ,albeit more succintly and in an informal tone, in those volumes.
So says Stu. So don't ever let me catch you berating Z^10 or Jem or any poster who makes an emphatic claim w/o substantiated emperical or accredited proof as you have done here on this topic.
Stu, if it were so, it would be in an accreditted volume already. Even the etymology of the word, if it were as you say, would necessitate an entry which suggests that atheism can be a state of being as oppossed to a worldview.
Stu, lastly, you must understand that from my point of view as well as anyone else who uses accreditted references as a standard, you appear to be, if you will allow, blowing smoke. Your position only smacks of a deep seated agenda. That's more than a simple bias. It wouldn't appear so if you had accredited support. Just like with theists. We have no support for anything we may hold by faith to be true save our experience (real or delusional) which cannot be submitted for empirical testing and similiar testimonies of others who are so like minded.
Babies are atheists? Prove it. That's all. But if you could truly prove it, beyond semantic gymnastics or gainsaying philosophical notions, you will have absolutely no barrier or difficulty when submitting your proof to the professional lexicon community. They would promptly add the entry into the English lexicon.
And I, even I would have no problem adding it to my vocabulary.
It's that simple Stu.
My responses are not heading that way at all. I disagree with your use of the word on supported and reasonable grounds. Yes, I did become frustrated with your adamant stance that because I'm a theist that somehow I can't agree with your use of the word. It was bizarre then and remains so now. So bizarre, it begged a pet name. To wit: freaky deaky freak-a-zoid.
A reasonable person would have noticed that I found an acceptable label (non-cognitive atheist) given accredited definitions of the word atheist and said, "well yes, that's correct and they can be termed that too."
But you wish to buck up against accredited standards. Well be my guest. That's a commendable endeavor albeit a fruitless one if one hasn't empiricial evidence.
Sigh. Of course other atheists would like and do use the term atheist for babies. I already pointed that out to you Stu. My point, and any reasonable person would have seen it, is that it's not unanimous among atheists. There are strong arguments against using it for babies made by atheists. The examples I gave were for the sake of debunking the notion that any dissention for using the word must be theist-centric.
OLD son, show me where I said you MUST agree. Show me. Especially in light of the fact that it was I who said people will use words as they wish. Happens all the time. I simply made the case that you don't have viable support for doing so other than as a colloquialism.
NON-SENSE! Forehead slapping non-sense. Would you like to know why? Where's your openmindedness towards religion? Non-existent! Why? Because you ask for proof. Well, here I am, ready, willing and able for you to show some accredited proof of your position. Just as you demand a standard of proof for religion, an objective standard mind you, well, here I am asking for objective, not subjective, not philosophical or anecdotal proof that babies can properly be termed as atheist.
Show me that and I will be all too happy to label babies as atheist in the manner in which you suggest. That should be clear since I have no problem with labeling them non-cognitive atheists.
Because, at the end of the day, I am a reasonable geezer.
Sure. I agree. Perhaps I could of made it simple. Reduced it to a catch phrase even. But as I said, I was looking to develop both a rapport and empathy with Jem who I never had the opportunity to post with or against, that in my estimation could not have occured without a decent background. Stu, you must understand, I don't mind your reponses. In fact, it would be unreasonable for me to expect that you won't defend yourself against the manner in which I painted you based on my observation and experience. (Relating to what I perceive as your enmity with theists)
But understanding what you seek to accomplish, I am suggesting you take it up to a level where it belongs. I don't think you understand or appreciated how language evolves. Since atheism is not a part of pop culture where the mere use or overuse of the word would merit an inclusion into an accredited dictionary, it needs to be brought to those responsible for cataloguing the meaning of words. There is more at stake than just the definition or a debate on this message board. Other branches of science and philosophy might have a stake in it to. I don't think so much of myself as to think that I can allow or disallow use of the word. I just won't do it myself since I do not have leave to use it in such a manner considering I have as a standard, the employment of accreditted references when determining how or when I should use a word or term.
Though somewhat fitting, I'm not going to call famous twins like the Olsen girls, binaries. They are twin stars after all.
What contradiction? I suggested a "brush up" (see that that was the term I used) on when an argument from authority is proper. Some where thinking it was always bad form. I could have made reference to accreditted volumes on argumentation and proper debate etiquette. Or even to accreditted volumes on logical fallacies. But I already knew that what was in the Wiki I supplied was contained ,albeit more succintly and in an informal tone, in those volumes.
So says Stu. So don't ever let me catch you berating Z^10 or Jem or any poster who makes an emphatic claim w/o substantiated emperical or accredited proof as you have done here on this topic.
Stu, if it were so, it would be in an accreditted volume already. Even the etymology of the word, if it were as you say, would necessitate an entry which suggests that atheism can be a state of being as oppossed to a worldview.
Stu, lastly, you must understand that from my point of view as well as anyone else who uses accreditted references as a standard, you appear to be, if you will allow, blowing smoke. Your position only smacks of a deep seated agenda. That's more than a simple bias. It wouldn't appear so if you had accredited support. Just like with theists. We have no support for anything we may hold by faith to be true save our experience (real or delusional) which cannot be submitted for empirical testing and similiar testimonies of others who are so like minded.
Babies are atheists? Prove it. That's all. But if you could truly prove it, beyond semantic gymnastics or gainsaying philosophical notions, you will have absolutely no barrier or difficulty when submitting your proof to the professional lexicon community. They would promptly add the entry into the English lexicon.
And I, even I would have no problem adding it to my vocabulary.
It's that simple Stu.
a-theist...
pretty straightforward... just because some ppl are confused and have misused a word over time doesn't necessarily alter its meaning... am sure one can also find a tribe somewhere where it means "cookie" or sthg, and if u ask your average street thug it may even get you into some serious trouble cause he won't like your having an attitude...
but please, do feel free to tell us more about this interesting concept, sounds like the beginning of spiritual freedom to me, not being a theist... who knows, perhaps one day u'll see the light too
pretty straightforward... just because some ppl are confused and have misused a word over time doesn't necessarily alter its meaning... am sure one can also find a tribe somewhere where it means "cookie" or sthg, and if u ask your average street thug it may even get you into some serious trouble cause he won't like your having an attitude...
but please, do feel free to tell us more about this interesting concept, sounds like the beginning of spiritual freedom to me, not being a theist... who knows, perhaps one day u'll see the light too
This is what I read, followed by my explanation of it...
I read what you wrote. Your "persist" point is clearly in two parts. I chose what I considered the more pertinent at that juncture. I covered the former point later on.
So on what grounds do you now consider I should cease the proposition or consider it to be lost, if not on the grounds of your "erudite atheists....?
You obviously have not read my previous post as thoroughly as I read yours. What higher level would you like to assign "viable credibility". Your church for instance?
It is clear even by the most cursory examination that the word atheist has a particular standard and distinct meaning directly off the root, which you are determined to dismiss at any price.
Open-minded? So you go around generally saying what, to assure your personal version of proper word use.. that you are a " 'non cognitive' -Allah-Vishnu atheist"?
No I don't think so. you probably would state something in terms of ' when it comes to Allah or Vishnu I am atheist. '
But what you won't say, by that same "proper" word usage of your own is, when it comes to babies, they are atheist
Why not? What is stopping you? It isn't from the standards of your own word use as you now describe it. But there does seem to be a problem from a theistic worldview which you assign to the word.
You have provided not one supportable or justifiable piece of evidence for making words authoritative. Words are defined. One way is by their etymology. Various meanings and usage is added onto that and words' meanings then change dramatically over time. But their root descriptions do not.
I only use the most straightforward reliable meaning of the word as given in etymology. You refuse that in preference of further definitions added subsequently, mostly from worldviews.
The references you have provided I have said I am happy to scrutinize with you. But you don't. All you do is repeat I am wrong, and your reason I am wrong, is that I am wrong.
What on earth is it then that would make you so determinedly upset enough to deny a word's rudimentary usage established upon its very own derivation? Your theistic worldview is my suggestion, and though I certainly do not wish to anger you with that, you are providing nothing else which would explain what I see as your unjustified refusal for the reasons I gave, to accept and apply a word's fundamental meaning. I maintain, not to infuriate, it is because it would have ramifications on your theistic worldview which you personally are not prepared to accept..
Whatever onesâ worldview, in my opinion it is not something which should deny a reality, simply because of either a purposeful or unintentional intent in refusing to acknowledge the most basic and significant meaning of a word.
neophyte321
Guest
Here's an honest question: Can atheism exist without religion? I'd argue, on little more than my own personal opinion, that it can not.
I think atheism is fully dependent on one's definition of god. Ancient Egyptians worshipped cats. Cats exist, do they not?
I think atheism is fully dependent on one's definition of god. Ancient Egyptians worshipped cats. Cats exist, do they not?
This really is a very eurocentric question.
Many religions in other parts of the world do not even have a god (or objects of worship, cats in the case of Egyptians). It's true that when there are no clearly defined religions, there are also no clearly defined atheism. But in many countries throughout history there were no clearly defined religions. Whether or not you want to call those cultures (at least parts of those cultures) atheists is just a matter of definition.
Does Richard Dawkins Exist?
by David Anderson
Some of the arguments here are Dawkinised versions of ones
made by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion
Dr. Terry Tommyrot questions the existence of Richard Dawkins in this brilliant spoof.
Richard: Weâre privileged to have with us today Doctor Terry Tommyrot whoâs going to be talking to us about his latest book, âThe Dawkins Delusionâ. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Tommyrot, itâs a pleasure to speak to you again.
Tommyrot: Thank you, Richard, itâs good to be here.
Richard: Now, Doctor Tommyrot, youâre famous for declaring in no uncertain terms that you are not a believer in Richard Dawkins; you donât think he really exists. Now why is that?
Tommyrot: Very simple Richard. You shouldnât ask sensible people to believe in something unless youâve got evidence for it. If there is a Dawkins, why hasnât he shown himself to me?
Richard: In your opinion, then, are people who believe in Richard Dawkins just a little bit dim?
Tommyrot: Well, in a way I can understand the mistake: simple people pick up a handful of books claiming to be written by Dawkins, and since a Dawkins seems to be a sufficient account for how they got to be there, for the similarities in all the texts, and so on â they stick with commonsense and fallaciously conclude that this Dawkins (which they have never seen with their own eyes) actually exists.
Richard: Of course, some people do claim to have seen Richard Dawkins, and even shaken his hand.
Tommyrot: Yes, if you can believe them.
Richard: You think theyâre all lying?
Tommyrot: I didnât say that. Of course, thereâs no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly some people who claim to have had these âRichard Dawkins experiencesâ are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing⦠and conjuring up an imaginary Dawkins would be childâs play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.
Richard: But the books arenât evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins either?
Tommyrot: No, of course not! As a scientist, it is no answer to the problem of âwhere did these inane volumes come from?â to stick a label on them that says, âRichard Dawkinsâ.
Each book is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming that Dawkins-did-it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Dawkins-of-the-gaps-type hypothesis.
Richard: But some people might point to the fact that the letters are arranged in definite patterns, spelling out sophisticated chains of arguments, and that this is a clear mark of intelligence, not random accident.
Tommyrot: If there were some kind of intelligence behind these books, then, judging by their contents, it is obviously a pretty poor one; we would hardly have lost much worth by not believing in Richard Dawkins or in what his books have to say.
The scientific view of the matter is beautifully simple and invigorating: the works of Richard Dawkins are nothing but a collection of fortuitously ordered aâs, bâs and câs, recombined from previous patterns. There is the Latin alphabet, there are the nonsense poems of Edward Lear, and there are the works of Richard Dawkins, and the one developed from the other, through a series of random typing errorsâ¦though admittedly we havenât got all of the details just now.
Richard: You admit that science hasnât got the answers to where they came from, then?
Tommyrot: I havenât got all the answers, science is working on it.
Richard: But can you be sure that science will get all the answers?
Tommyrot: If science doesnât have the answers to where they came from, then, sure as hell, Richard Dawkins Religion doesnât. If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins? Just tell me that.
Richard: Moving on now, Dr. Tommyrot. In your book, you have described the Dawkins revealed in the literature as a âan ostentatious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic bullyâ.
Tommyrot: Yes. That seems fair enough to me.
Richard: Now some people might say thatâs going a bit over the top.
Tommyrot: Read your Richard Dawkins, if you think that. Just read it. Read âA Devilâs Advocateâ. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence hiding somewhere beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover, on the other hand, plenty of intolerance and bigotry in every chapter; all of these very good reasons to have nothing whatsoever to do with this Richard Dawkinsâ religion.
Richard: Doctor Tommyrot, you have described this wide-spread belief in Richard Dawkins as a
dangerous delusion â but whatâs especially dangerous about people believing in the existence of Richard Dawkins, if it makes them happy?
Tommyrot: Well, for one fairly obvious reason: these people believe any book which has Dawkinsâ name on the cover, and these books say a lot of very silly things. Belief in Dawkins has been responsible for filling the internet with non-sequiturs, caricatures, strawmen and vitriol. Those of us who walk the heights and dare to doubt the assertions of this âsmarter than thouâ religion find themselves subjected to a modern inquisition â consisting mostly of journalists and spotty teenagers who believe. Dawkinsâ disciples are militant, they are organised, and theyâre out to convert you and me. Yes, I would certainly call this a dangerous delusion. If there is a Richard Dawkins, he has a lot to answer for.
Richard: In summary then, Dr. Tommyrot, what would you say is your main objection to the Richard Dawkins belief?
Tommyrot: My main objection is simply this: people are following a delusional Dawkins who is
telling them what to think and believe, when they should be following me.
â¦â¦
Richard: Well, our timeâs up. Thank you very much, Dr. Tommyrot, for joining us this morning to talk about your latest book, âThe Dawkins-Delusionâ, published by Banter & Twaddle and available from our website for £19.99. Ok. Our next item for today isâ¦
by David Anderson
Some of the arguments here are Dawkinised versions of ones
made by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion
Dr. Terry Tommyrot questions the existence of Richard Dawkins in this brilliant spoof.
Richard: Weâre privileged to have with us today Doctor Terry Tommyrot whoâs going to be talking to us about his latest book, âThe Dawkins Delusionâ. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Tommyrot, itâs a pleasure to speak to you again.
Tommyrot: Thank you, Richard, itâs good to be here.
Richard: Now, Doctor Tommyrot, youâre famous for declaring in no uncertain terms that you are not a believer in Richard Dawkins; you donât think he really exists. Now why is that?
Tommyrot: Very simple Richard. You shouldnât ask sensible people to believe in something unless youâve got evidence for it. If there is a Dawkins, why hasnât he shown himself to me?
Richard: In your opinion, then, are people who believe in Richard Dawkins just a little bit dim?
Tommyrot: Well, in a way I can understand the mistake: simple people pick up a handful of books claiming to be written by Dawkins, and since a Dawkins seems to be a sufficient account for how they got to be there, for the similarities in all the texts, and so on â they stick with commonsense and fallaciously conclude that this Dawkins (which they have never seen with their own eyes) actually exists.
Richard: Of course, some people do claim to have seen Richard Dawkins, and even shaken his hand.
Tommyrot: Yes, if you can believe them.
Richard: You think theyâre all lying?
Tommyrot: I didnât say that. Of course, thereâs no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly some people who claim to have had these âRichard Dawkins experiencesâ are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing⦠and conjuring up an imaginary Dawkins would be childâs play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.
Richard: But the books arenât evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins either?
Tommyrot: No, of course not! As a scientist, it is no answer to the problem of âwhere did these inane volumes come from?â to stick a label on them that says, âRichard Dawkinsâ.
Each book is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming that Dawkins-did-it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Dawkins-of-the-gaps-type hypothesis.
Richard: But some people might point to the fact that the letters are arranged in definite patterns, spelling out sophisticated chains of arguments, and that this is a clear mark of intelligence, not random accident.
Tommyrot: If there were some kind of intelligence behind these books, then, judging by their contents, it is obviously a pretty poor one; we would hardly have lost much worth by not believing in Richard Dawkins or in what his books have to say.
The scientific view of the matter is beautifully simple and invigorating: the works of Richard Dawkins are nothing but a collection of fortuitously ordered aâs, bâs and câs, recombined from previous patterns. There is the Latin alphabet, there are the nonsense poems of Edward Lear, and there are the works of Richard Dawkins, and the one developed from the other, through a series of random typing errorsâ¦though admittedly we havenât got all of the details just now.
Richard: You admit that science hasnât got the answers to where they came from, then?
Tommyrot: I havenât got all the answers, science is working on it.
Richard: But can you be sure that science will get all the answers?
Tommyrot: If science doesnât have the answers to where they came from, then, sure as hell, Richard Dawkins Religion doesnât. If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins? Just tell me that.
Richard: Moving on now, Dr. Tommyrot. In your book, you have described the Dawkins revealed in the literature as a âan ostentatious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic bullyâ.
Tommyrot: Yes. That seems fair enough to me.
Richard: Now some people might say thatâs going a bit over the top.
Tommyrot: Read your Richard Dawkins, if you think that. Just read it. Read âA Devilâs Advocateâ. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence hiding somewhere beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover, on the other hand, plenty of intolerance and bigotry in every chapter; all of these very good reasons to have nothing whatsoever to do with this Richard Dawkinsâ religion.
Richard: Doctor Tommyrot, you have described this wide-spread belief in Richard Dawkins as a
dangerous delusion â but whatâs especially dangerous about people believing in the existence of Richard Dawkins, if it makes them happy?
Tommyrot: Well, for one fairly obvious reason: these people believe any book which has Dawkinsâ name on the cover, and these books say a lot of very silly things. Belief in Dawkins has been responsible for filling the internet with non-sequiturs, caricatures, strawmen and vitriol. Those of us who walk the heights and dare to doubt the assertions of this âsmarter than thouâ religion find themselves subjected to a modern inquisition â consisting mostly of journalists and spotty teenagers who believe. Dawkinsâ disciples are militant, they are organised, and theyâre out to convert you and me. Yes, I would certainly call this a dangerous delusion. If there is a Richard Dawkins, he has a lot to answer for.
Richard: In summary then, Dr. Tommyrot, what would you say is your main objection to the Richard Dawkins belief?
Tommyrot: My main objection is simply this: people are following a delusional Dawkins who is
telling them what to think and believe, when they should be following me.
â¦â¦
Richard: Well, our timeâs up. Thank you very much, Dr. Tommyrot, for joining us this morning to talk about your latest book, âThe Dawkins-Delusionâ, published by Banter & Twaddle and available from our website for £19.99. Ok. Our next item for today isâ¦
Move along, nothing to see here. Just a man masturbating...