David Anderson #fundie

David Anderson #fundie david.dw-perspective.org.uk

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

64 comments

old comment by Papabear

"As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?"
Well, pop that question on out of your head because I have seen Mr. Dawkins. Never saw God or Jesus though. "Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question." For being scientific and rational, you're off to a bad start. "If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science." Well then, trundle your sorry butt on out to one of his speaking appearances. "If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?" It is not up to him to appear to you. He doesn't claim to be an omni-present deity or any other supernatural being, he is but a man and that's all he claims to be. If you need proof of his existance, go see him. Unlike your God, no one is claiming that Mr. Dawkins is invisible. Unlike your Jesus, Mr. Dawkins didn't die 2000 years ago.

old comment by Skeptical Witch

Well, like with the Bible, one does not need to believe specifically in the existence of an author in order to gain value from writing attributed to them.
Take James Tipree Jr, for example. He wrote excellent stories for entertainment. He didn't exist, he was made up by Alice Sheldon, who actually wrote the stories, but learning of his nonexistence didn't ruin the entertainment value fo the work. Richard Dawkins writes to educate. It doesn't matter whether he exists or not, because the value of the work can be figured by how much it enlightens the reader and teaches them about human nature, history, religion and science. Are the lessons in the Bible useless and invalid if you don't believe in the attributed author? Is it not entertaining or enlightening? Not unless the author definitely exists? In that case I suggest you find a better book and author then.

old comment by Yorkshireman

In a great example of self-referential twittishness, David Anderson has commented on these comments here on his blog. In doing so he ticks another great fundie box - the partial quote from Sungrazer #149743, where he leaves off the sentences critical of his own site and leaves in the steer to the other commenters. And, unsurprisingly, he completely fails to understand the irony of our own comments, prefering to caricature us as saying "what kind of idiot is this man who genuinely beieves Dawkins does not exist?" (Can anyone find this quote in the comments? I can't).
Anyway, I've met Richard Dawkins. So there. I've never met William Shakespeare, but as well as just his plays (a) I've been to his birthplace, (b) there are paintings and busts in existence done by people who did meet him, and (c) people don't make extraordinary claims about him that require extraordinary evidence. He was just a bloke, and from the evidence surviving in public records, one who needed a better accountant. Any comeback on that, Mr Anderson?

old comment by The Sherlockian

Hmmm, lets see here...
Thousands of eye witness accounts that are actual backed up by each other and do not contradict each other. Multiple writings and books attributed to Dawkins that have all been published by reputable publishers, and many commentaries made by Dawkins about making the books and writing them. The many peopl elisted in the contributions sections of the book can attribute to him having personally written said books. Multiple accounts of his debates and meetings; many a video showing him directly that can be corraborated by eyewitness and written acounts.
Yep, sounds like a pretty damn good case for his existence if you ask me.
Now, if you can give me corroboration to that extent of the bible, you might have me convinced.

old comment by Anon2

I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

Last week, I bought a train ticket to Oxford, UK (something everybody can do), to visit a lecture where Richard Dawkins was speaking. It was a very easy thing to do. Only a train ticket, and a 15 minute walk.

Well, he was there, standing on the podium, giving a fine speech.

Enough proof? And "David Anderson", you can do the same.

But there is a huge difference to "God". I believed in him when I was young. I searched him, actively, in all possible ways. He NEVER answered prayers. He NEVER answered anything. I NEVER saw him, regardless how hard I tried.

Being a scientific and rational person, I concluded at a certain point that this "God" thing does not exist, due to absolute lack of any evidence, despite I tried really hard and honest. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, "revealed" himself to me, and it took only minor efforts from my side.

David Anderson #fundie david.dw-perspective.org.uk

64 comments

Confused?