Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

I went looking for a reliable and objective viewpoint expecting to find that very situation. I did find such a source. And you're wrong.

Well, Tuna, it really should be self-evident, eh? What we have here is an oxymoron. Any claim that disparagement of Dawkins is NOT due to envy, jealousy, pettiness, etc, CAN'T be made by anyone with " a reliable and objective viewpoint."

Such people are OBVIOUSLY just jealous, envious, and petty, caincha see?

So what do YOU propose as cause of first life if not random chance?

And that is a great example of Dawkins' hypocrisy. He condemns kicking the can down the road and then tries doing it himself.

All he does is point out that this particular way of kicking the can down the road reduces to a gradual process of incremental change, and hence does not require a supernatural creator

My metaphysics is 20 times more better than your metaphysics, chump.

I don't know about "better", but your statement is funny because I have no metaphysics. I believe that physics is all there is. No "meta" to it.

I believe that physics is all there is

They always seem to think that their particular metaphysical assumptions are just STONE-COLD FACT. No more, no less.

You may want to try contemplating the difference between "I believe that ___", which is what I said, and "it is a stone-cold fact that ___", which is the strawman you argue against.

Leadfoot wrote:
"So what do YOU propose as cause of first life if not random chance?"

Thomas replied:
The nonrandom laws of chemistry, and perhaps some of the nonrandom laws of physics, acting on some not-yet-known environment. An analogy might be the formation of snowflakes. They don't need a conscious snowflake-creator to emerge, either. I can't be more specific than that because we know too little about the first emergence of life. But the answer to your question is that I would propose some accumulation of incremental change, acting on molecules that can self-replicate

Like I said, there isn't a thing you or Dawkins can say to refute this argument that God's coming into existence is just as likely as your own, and that by your own reasoning.

Now about that Easter bunny.

Leadfoot wrote:
"Now about that Easter bunny."

What about it?

He is claiming, is he not, that God is a delusion.

If God's only interference in nature was to establish the initial conditions of the universe and then leave events to unfold in a natural way, could it then be said that there is no conflict between science and religion? Dawkins says no, they would still be in conflict, and he promises to explain why in chapter four.

Chapter four was a dismal failure. Much of what Dawkins had to say in the first three chapters, especially his argument against agnosticism, depended entirely on his promise to prove in chapter four that God was too improbable to exist. Dawkins based the entire credibility of his book on this chapter, and the only proof that he delivered was a rhetorical hypothesis....

Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy. Intelligent design theorists use the same tactic.

Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy. Intelligent design theorists use the same tactic

He [says he] just wants to debunk the idea of a supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us....Dawkins now attacks agnostics...Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God.

He then splits agnostics into two groups, those who won't commit yet for lack of evidence, and those who believe it is impossible to know. The difference between the two is whether the question of God's existence can ever be answered using science. Dawkins claims that it can be.

Dawkins now introduces the ‘multiverse’ theory, which says that beyond our universe there exists perhaps an infinite number of other universes, each having a different variation in the laws of nature.

He suggests that our universe might eventually collapse into a single point and then re-explode to form a new universe with different laws of nature. If this process continued indefinitely then it might create every possible configuration of universe. The more configurations, the more probable that at least one would have the right conditions for life.

A multiverse might seem extravagant in terms of the sheer number of universes involved, but if the original universe was governed by only a few simple laws, and if the mutations between the universes were small enough, then the whole process would be much more probable than an all-powerful supremely-intelligent creator.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The 'multiverse' is the ultimate answer to existential questions for atheists.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque