Richard Dawkins and the “New Atheists” are wrong
Richard Dawkins proudly spews his personal beliefs that, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
This is one the most malignant, infantile, and silly conclusions I’ve ever heard. It certainly represents the low level of comprehension Dawkins has. The sad truth is that anyone who knows Richard Dawkins knows that he is arguably one of the most arrogant, rude, insulting, condescending, crass, close-minded, misinformed, biased, and ignorant people on the subject of the Christian God. He grossly over-generalizes, overtly misrepresents, sets up bogus caricatures, and has serious flaws in his Psychology, Philosophy, and Theology.
In short, while Richard Dawkins, one of the “Four Horsemen” of the “New Atheism” esteems himself as super intelligent, far more intelligent than religious people anyway, his arguments against God for sure are not. Many of his arguments sound more like a high school student whining about something they don’t like rather than an intellectual grappling with the issues.
His assertions and arguments are easily dismantled, but so are most of the arguments of the “New Atheists.” Perhaps this is why many other atheists were embarrassed after The God Delusion was published. It is also probably the reason why fellow atheists disassociate themselves and distance themselves from Dawkins and the other New Atheists (i.e. Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens).
The “New Atheism” is a lot of bark with little bite – a lot of hot air, but short on substance, and more of a bumper sticker atheism than anything else. The New Atheists create faulty foundations of arguments, false premises that are not accurate, and provide countless straw men arguments, meaning they constantly assert things about God or Christianity that aren’t true and then proceed to tear apart those things that were not true in the first place. All the while, their little atheist groupies applaud them, as they shake each others hands, congratulate themselves, and pat themselves on the back. Sigh.
For these reasons, fellow atheist, Michael Ruse rightly rejects their tactics and calls them out. Writing to Daniel Dennet, he says, “I thought your new book was really bad and not worthy of you … I think you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design. … What we need in not knee-jerk atheism, but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the issues.” (Quoted in Edward Fesser’s book on Atheism, The Last Superstition).
Bottom line: The New Atheism is not really new. It’s trademark is its animosity toward good people of religion. An atheism that is more emotionally driven rather than intellectually driven is hard to take seriously. The atheists of old were far more intellectual, far more honest; they actually studied the issues, and were more willing to discuss these issues in a genuine and rational way. Richard Dawkins and his buddies could take a lesson from this!
Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong, Richard Dawkins is Wrong,