riposte;279284]'Fraid not, Riposte. That isn't logical and attempts to say 'this is what we believe and you must disprove it'. Wrong way around. If some people are going to say we must live a certain way because- then they must prove that there is some reason to do so.Saying a thing is a confidence trick doesn't make it a confidence trick .... that requires proof ..... in this case proving whether God exists or not ..... an achievement which is beyond the capility of humans.
The proposer must back up the proposal. Unfortunately for the religious in the Irish context not only can they not do so but there is a mountain of evidence to say that their proposal is false, does not come from a god and has ulterior motives for putting forward its proposal.
Actually he has not attempted to substitute one religion for another. He has never departed from the rational. There has never been any indication Dawkins has ever been interested in becoming an alternative pope. Also, that statement that Dawkins has been 'widely criticised by atheists and agnostics for undermining the rational arguments for atheism' is a claim you will have a hard time backing up. Mainly because Dawkins is a trained and accomplished scientist and rationalist and while some atheists may disagree with his blunt approach to the nonsense of religion that is the only negative I have heard in connection with Dawkins from anyone on the atheist/agnostic side of the room. He's earned the right to be blunt.The Problem with Dawkins is he substitutes one religion with another ....... Anti-religion. Dawkins has been widely criticised by atheists and agnostics for undermining the rational arguments for Atheism
That accusation stems from a complete inability to see any alternative to 'belief in god' as anything but a 'rival religion' and is a damning indictment of the effect of belief on the intellect. Mainly because its adherents cannot accept the rational unless it swerves to accomodate the irrational. And once the rational does that then it is no longer rational.