Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Leadfoot Quote:
"The 'multiverse' is the ultimate answer to existential questions for atheists."


Horseshit. What an idiotic claim, even by your low standards. It does demonstrate, however, that you just came here, as is the case with so many holy rollers, to vilify atheists.

Doesn't . . . the verb form you want was "doesn't."

If you truly have nothing against atheists, why do you spend so much time cobbling together witless straw man fallacies about what atheists think? Whay are you so obsessed with atheists?

I'm can't get this repetitive song out of my head - 'No proof, no proof...

Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God....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....Dawkins then claims that because biologists are so intimate with natural selection, they are uniquely qualified to pontificate about the probabilities of the existence of the universe, whereas theologians are just ignorant....At this point Dawkins says that we can completely dismiss the existence of God and shake our heads disappointingly at anyone who is too blind to see the logic of his argument. Maybe the reason for such blindness is because of people's widespread ignorance about the power of natural selection...

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

But seriously FBM, Dawkins arguments regarding the implausibility of a God were - LAME.

...you just came here, as is the case with so many holy rollers, to vilify atheists

I just call them holy rollers because it tends to piss them off.

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.

Makin up tales about creation, using natural selection as the moderator, is that the suggestion?

I blame it on layman. Been hang'n wit dat dood too much, ya knows?

adios

Oh no! More wimmins ! ! !

I ain't never gonna post in this thread again!

Yes. He recently became a cosmologist

Dawkins then claims that because biologists are so intimate with natural selection, they are uniquely qualified to pontificate about the probabilities of the existence of the universe, whereas theologians are just ignorant.

Well, I wouldn't look at it as "recently." As a zoologist, Richard has long-recognized the awesome power of natural selection. Once you grasp that, you're an expert in everything: physics, theology, cosmology, you name it.

PZ Myers calls it "bad science."