Dawkins Debunked.... Far too Easily.

Is Richard Dawkins an intellectual charlatan? How about a psychological terrorist?

A friend recently posted the following video. While I've been railing against Dawkins for quite a while now, I will share the video before I debunk it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTnbtSvjAQc

With all complete respect to intelligent atheists, I present this as a counter-argument, and not a personal attack.

All religions -- including atheism -- have a claim to ultimate truth or reality.

Having read Dawkins, I realize the philosophical errors he is prone to. This video is no different. His main thesis tends towards the idea of "religion leads to hate and death." He fails to address how atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union -- free of a absolute reference point for ideas such as freedom or human dignity -- have slaughtered people and amassed body-counts large enough to make the crusades look
like a cub-scout outing.

The very first person Dawkins interviews in this video brings up this very point. Dawkins ignores the query, instead labeling the man as a religious "fundamentalist." In doing so he avoids the question which is devastating to his entire argument. Hate-monger or not, the very first person Dawkins interviews in this video is capable of demolishing him in a public debate: it is fortunate for Dawkins that he controlled the editing of this video.

Dawkins also fails to recognize the begged-for question: how are atheist fundamentalists any better than religious fundamentalists? Aren't both working on philosophically-supported faith? Aren't both as historically prone to mass carnage?

This is why guys like Dawkins infuriate me -- they present themselves as de-bunking scholars and "clear-thinkers," while time and time again failing to address the most basic points regarding their so-called world view. A sophomore philosophy major could demolish most of their arguments.

Dawkins' chosen vocabulary is suspect. Words such as "beauty" and "goodness" and "evil", let alone "right" or "wrong" have no real basis outside of individual opinion when an absolute position -- God -- is denied.

"Freedom," for instance -- and the American revolution to gain it -- were justified as a basic right which comes from God. Take away God, and America will fall. The philosophical reason is simple: if nothing exists -- if nothing is absolute -- then all concrete ideas such as "freedom" become untenable.

For instance: Dawkins says that "killing for God is not only hideous murder, but also totally ridiculous."

I agree with Dawkins whole-heartedly, but I agree BECAUSE of religion, not in spite of it. I can justify my belief: Dawkins cannot.

Lastly, words such as "hideous" cannot be used, the idea of the immorality of "murder" becomes questionable, and even the idea of what is or is not "ridiculous" cannot be upheld without an absolute reference point.

I am reminded of the pro-pedophile from New Zealand who I heard publicly criticize the "hardline American perspective" on youth sexuality. Deny absolutes, and anything else is possible.

Dawkins says: "unlike religion, science does not pretend to have all of the answers."

Really, Mr. Dawkins, can you honestly name a religious system which claims to know everything? My experience with religion rather admits to a lack of knowledge, encouraging personal humbleness in the face of what we don't know -- and will never know -- in our current reality.

In his "teapot" argument, he commits an error of equivocation in both his philosophical and historical arguments, all complete with nicely-filmed visuals.

Can it be any clearer?

Atheism has no reference point. It has no ultimate goal. It merely stares into an empty and indifferent cosmos, unsure of how to proceed beyond the realm of personal opinion.

Dawkins ultimately presents us with this bleak world-view while ultimately failing to justify his beliefs. He is therefore no better than a believer who cannot justify his belief. He is just as guilty of "faith" as the Christians and Muslims he lambasts.

Dawkins and his kind are no better than the charlatan Christian cult leaders and Muslim hate-mongers who hijack the trappings of faith to manipulate the vulnerable and uninformed. I would like to say that both types are equally dangerous, but history has already demonstrated the far-greater threat of relativism and atheism.

In short: While atheism has had admirable defenders, men like Dawkins or Hitchens are not in their company.

For my part, I'd rather be a part of something prone to error, as opposed to destined for it.