In short periods of time he appears to flow from frustrated and annoyed with the opposing view, to unwilling to even engage the opposing view, to accepting certain propositions from the opposing view.

While he still seems it at times, he no longer appears as confidently smug as he use to.

I think that this points to the foundation for his belief system being crumbled away. Becoming less and less tenable for Dawkins to hold.

Well, not exactly. To the fanatical Christian, one can always say, “stop violating the life-affirming principles set forth in your doctrine.” Even when those principles are violated, the potential for reformation is built in. (We are made in the image and likeness of God, and we should treat one another accordingly).

No other thought system, not atheism (Darwin-monism etc.) or religious (Islam) contains such a concept. No other world view insists on the “inherent dignity of the human person.”

Neither Atheism, nor Islam contains an inherent fail-safe mechanism to curb its destructive side. Islam teaches that we are all slaves to an unapproachable God. We do not bear his imprint or resemble him in any way. Therefore, we do not “deserve” to be free.

Darwinism teaches that we are all products of a undirected, purposeless, mindless process. That means there can be no design, no purpose, and no inherent dignity.

Only the Judeo-Christian ethic affirms both the sanctity of human life and the imporance of political freedom. Its fanatics, therefore, are not nearly so numerous as are those of Atheism or Islam, nor are there actions nearly so rationalized by their peers.

I’d recommend that anyone who is interested in the cosmological argument, check out comments 254 thru 256 to see how “i” am doing it:

http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77415

http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77416

http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....age6#77418

Try this logic on:

1. The construction of Utopia is the greatest good.

2. I believe I am qualified and mandated to implement Utopia.

3. Since Utopia is the greatest good, the lives of individuals must be sacrificed in whatever manner necessary, including death, when there is a conflict of interest.

4. There is no higher power, God, etc, that I should be plausibly be concerned about, who may have conflicting views with my own, particularly with regards to premise #3, therefore I shall act according to premises 1 thru 3.

With regards to your first paragraph, I find your use of terms idiosyncratic but I appreciate your candor.

With regards to your second paragraph, I think that human psychology is a tangled skein of beliefs and desires, both conscious and unconscious, and it’s almost impossible to determine the “impact” of a philosophical position on the decision to commit genocide.

Whether an atheist takes the route of Stalin or Russell, or whether a Christian takes the route of Torquemada or King, Jr., is indeterminable with respect to one’s views regarding the metaphysical status of the god called God.

In that respect I agree with Dawkins that there is no logical argument with atheism as a premise and the moral permissibility of murder (let alone genocide) as a conclusion.

Firstly, in that statement, he compares apples to oranges. He compares “religion” with “atheism” as if they were opposites. They are not. The opposite of atheism is theism, and generically has no religious dogma associated with it. Religious are ideologies, and everybody has one, theists and atheists.

Secondly, he assumes that atheism has no impact on, or with, the ideology that a given atheist would have. This is sheer nonsense. Do you really think Joseph Stalin’s atheism had no impact on his decision to murder 50 million people in the name of his ideology?

Get real.

Since I’m looking at the ‘debate’ in those terms — i.e. as much more of a cultural debate than a ‘scientific’ one — I’m as interested in rhetoric as I am in content (argumentation).

And so I’m interested in the deployment of similar rhetoric on both sides — e.g. how each vilifies the other side.

One would not think, based on the rhetoric used here or on richarddawkins.net, that either side regards the other as comprised of people who are basically reasonable and well-intentioned.

It is our presuppositions which ultimately lead us to different conclusions. The best thing to do is to test those presuppositions.

How do you figure that? Who on our side is trying to shut someone up/ruin someone’s life/destroy someone’s reputation for honest criticisms of ID?

Who on our side falsely presents the positions of our opponents — at all, much less akin to “ID is creationism”?

Maybe if we ran the academy — weak and fallen beings that we are — we might be tempted. But I’d like to think if that were the case, I’d be sticking up for the honest evos.

After seven years of independent research into the antrhopic physics (as a previously completely naive fool about it), I can say this as a general fact:

If there is only one universal truth that requires compromise from both “sides” in order to be realized, then it may as well not even exist.

That’s reality…