Dawkins Continues To Use "Religion" As A Pejorative

 Dawkins continues to debate Christians that have no intellectual background in terms of critical thinking, and in one video immediately used the term, "religion", as a strawman. Nobody had mentioned the word, but he immediately got it in there.

The term is used in a facile, indolent, flippant, binary, generalised way, by many atheists. I shall explain each.

1. Facile, it presents a simple picture without seeing any nuance, by being presented as a purely negative word that has nothing of value when weighed next to "science", which is another word used in the positive. (a nice neat bit of propaganda, where you can exalt your own group and vilify the other group by making out one word is qualified and the other one disqualified but how "scientifically objective" is someone like a new atheist, REALLY? Not very!)

2. Indolent, and 3, flippant. It is a LAZY term, that generalises, and is flippant because it ignores doing a proper investigation of the matter. It is just used as a broad brush to tar people with and make them seem unsophisticated and gullible. 

4. Binary. The concept of presenting a false disjunction/dichotomy, of, "you're either scientific and rational or a wishful thinking religionist".

5. A generalisation, because "religion" is actually such a very BROAD term. You can be an atheist that believes crystals can heal or a Christian, and both would count as, "religious".

Dawkins doesn't have to deal with the specific claims of Christians or the bible, or God, if he lumps it all in as, "religion" then paints religion as totally negative and worthless.

In fact if the trilobyte's eye was designed by God or even if you believe God used evolution to evolve it, whatever the case God would have existed before, "religion" since there were no people there when God designed it. So God cannot be put into the "religion" category unless the atheist first assumes his conclusion that God is an invention of religion. (circular reasoning)The atheist does not have knowledge God doesn't exist, so it is one of the premises of their argument that God stemmed from religion rather than the other way around. An UNPROVEN premise they wish you to believe proven simply because they are sure it is true. (intellectual arrogance)

Until you start to see these errors in such people, until you start to see you are being a SUCKER by being suckered into the halo-effect of listening to people like this, I am afraid you will stay in the trap of being lied to. 

People like Dawkins are really only smart at tricking people into thinking their subjective worldview is objective reality. He is half-smart, and he can dupe the unsmart, what you must do is be cleverer than people like him by seeing through his rhetorical tricks. 

Why A High Percentage Of Scientists Accept Evolution

 The reasons put forward by evolutionists as to why, "99% of scientists accept evolution", are the reasons that as a theory it is real solid, and that the evidence is all there, and that is why there is such a statistic.

The real reasons behind the statistic are NOT those reasons. 

There are two reasons why most of the scientific community accept macro-evolution, and perhaps a third one.

1. People that enter science, by definition accept the tenets of science, and one major tenet of science is that methodologically natural answers are the only acceptable kinds of answers science can produce. This means they are PREDISPOSED to accept evolution. (primed to, like a vegetarian is primed to only accept vegetarian meals).

2. Because they only accept naturalistic answers, causes, and see any others as non-scientific, they dismiss the alternative argument to evolution, (design), because they categorise it as religion, and to their minds, "science doesn't do religion". Which again primes them to not properly evaluate the design/creation argument, but rather to dismiss it.

And the final reason is that the small facts of evolution theory make it seem as though macro-scale evolution are true. To their minds if micro-evolution is true then so is macro-evolution. But in fact micro-scale changes don't prove macro-evolution but they don't critique it to the level that would allow them to see this, because again, they accept what science says so why would they look that deep into it.

CONCLUSION; This is a prime example of how popular arguments used by atheists, are actually of very little worth when you properly analyse them. This particular popular bit of propaganda to support evolution, is almost tautologically useless in that it is almost definitional that scientists will accept what science says. (Weak, proves nothing.)