I came across a recent entry on CADRE Comments, the official blog of the "Christian Cadre," titled: New Atheists Say the Silliest Things, written by Cadre contributor BK. I'd say something about BK's insistence on referring to outspoken atheists as "new atheists," but that's the least of his transgressions. BK shares this video featuring an interview with Richard Dawkins - a video BK says "isn't worth the time" to watch:
BK summarizes the video by explaining that "[t]he roughly ten minute interview goes on with Richard Dawkins largely freely making his already well-publicized musings about the nature of reality and his spurious claims that Christianity is a fiction."
spu·ri·ous / ˈspyoo r-ee-uh s / Adjective
1. Not being what it purports to be; false or fake: "spurious claims".
2. (of a line of reasoning) Apparently but not actually valid: "this spurious reasoning results in nonsense".
Why would BK post a video he thinks isn't worth watching? He explains: "Dawkins makes a rather revealing statement given his deeply held (alleged) conviction that there is no God."
al·leged / ə-ˈlejd, -ˈle-jəd / Adjective
1: asserted to be true or to exist: "an alleged miracle"
2: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called: "bought an alleged antique vase"
3: accused but not proven or convicted: "an alleged burglar"
What is this revealing statement? BK continues:
"The interviewer asks Dawkins what gets him through the night. Dawkins replies that what gets him through the night is the same thing that gets most people through the night -- the love of friends, family, children, science, etc. But then the friendly interviewer asks a rather innocuous question...
Interviewer: And you're comfortable with that?
Dawkins -- the man who has dedicated his life to the proposition that there is no God and that we are simply accidents of time, chance and nature -- says something so totally at odds with this position that it would be...well, silly, if it weren't so revealing."
This sounds serious. What did Dawkins say that utterly betrays his "alleged" atheism? What did "the New Atheist mouthpiece" say that revealed his repressed belief in GOD? BK enlightens us:
"Dawkins: I am comfortable with that, but even if I wasn't it wouldn't change what I believe because I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable.
Really? We haven't been put here here (sic) to be comfortable? Under Dawkins' stated position we haven't been put here for anything. But Dawkins -- a man who has done as much as any person in history to buy into the idea that there is no God -- cannot remove the God consciousness from his thought and speech. Despite preaching regularly his gospel of the good news that there is no god to whom to answer, Dawkins cannot escape speaking in the language that acknowledges what the heavens declare: God exists and He put us here."
So... Dawkins says, "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable."
[Pause for dramatic effect]
...
...
...
...
...
THIS is the revealing statement Dawkins made? THIS is the damning evidence that Dawkins simply can't escape the obvious truth that "God exists and He put us here"? Really?
So, if I say "Oh my god!" I'm really revealing my "god consciousness" that deep down, I really know there's a god? If I say "bless you" after someone sneezes, am I really showing that I have repressed the truth of god, and in reality I wish for god to bestow special favor or benefit upon the party responsible for sneezing?
If I stub my toe on the coffee table and yell "God damn!" is that evidence that I truly believe in divine judgment - and I want that inconveniently placed piece of furniture to burn in hell for eternity?
Yeah. Or maybe Dawkins just uses figures of speech and common colloquialisms like the rest of us.
Stating "I don't believe we were put here to be comfortable" doesn't imply that Dawkins actually thinks we've been "put here" at all. Why should I even have to say this? Dawkins uttered a profound statement - one that a lot of folks don't quite get yet - and BK ignores the wisdom in a vacuous attempt to provide evidence that his god is real. What's more, he displays an arrogance and flippantness reminiscent of J.P. Holding (which is no surprise. Holding is a CADRE member, after all).
That's why I decided to respond in kind. I can be flippant too, and I have reason on my side. BK has absolutely no evidence for Dawkins' alleged repression of his god consciousness, so he must resort to sophistry to make his spurious idea appear right. It doesn't get much sillier than that.
Apparently, BK really enjoys grasping at straws. Well here you go, man. Knock yourself out...
