NOTE: Hey, you Dutch guys! Can someone tell me why there's a surge of hits on this article from Holland (Netherlands?) Please? Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
Questioner: This is probably the most simplest [question] for you to answer, but, What if you are wrong?
Dawkins: What if I'm wrong? Well, I mean, anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Teapot.
Uhm, you happen to have been brought up, I presume, in the Christian Faith. You know what it's like not to believe in a particular faith because you are not a muslim; your're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happened to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you were brought up in India, you would be a Hindu. If you were brought up in Denmark in the time of the vikings, you would be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you would be beliving in Zeus. If you were brought up in Central Africa, you would be believing in the great JuJu Up the Mountain.
There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God, in which in the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me "what if I'm wrong?" What if you are wrong about the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea?
This is, unquestionably, the worst example of illogical thinking that I've come across lately. And even I have always thought of Dawkins as at least a logical thinker. But, having been asked the question, he answers with the standard answer always given by the establishment: But what about the flying Spaghetti Monster?
The problem with that type of dodge is that (leaving aside whether or not the belief is rational or not), absolutely no one on the face of the planet actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whereas millions of people DO believe that Jesus Christ exists. So the only reason anyone ever brings up the FSM is an attempt to trap someone with "AHA! But there's no evidence that God exists either".
Next, he goes on to broadbrush everyone in a manner that would be roundly criticised, and even ridiculed, in their circles, but it seems it perfectly OK to do when talking about "god".
Simply put, Dawkins is claiming that ALL Arabs are Muslims, and that ALL Eastern Indians are Hindu, and that ALL vikings were Wotaners, and that ALL ancient Greeks were Zeus worshippers, and that ALL Central Africans worship some "JuJu up the Mountain." This Black-n-White, broad-brushing is universally trounced as faulty logic by all athiest arguers, and with good cause: All Eastern Indians are most certainly NOT Hindu. All Arabs are NOT Muslims. All Jews are NOT Jewish (in the religious sense). All vikings did NOT worship Thor. All Classical Greeks did NOT worship Zeus... And on and on and on. And most certainly of all, and with all the evidence point squarely at it, all Americans are most certainly NOT Christians! In fact, in every one of those groups mentioned, there are ALL of the proscribed professors. There are Indian Christians. There are Indian Muslims. There are Indian Athiests. Same goes for all the other groups. This nonsense about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is just that: nonsense. The whole point of the argument is an attempt to draw out that person who says, "But there's not a shred of evidence for a FSM." Upon which, the ignorant Athiest is hoping upon hope to be able to jump in with "Ah! But there is no evidence for Jesus Christ either." This is silly. There really is not a shred of evidence for the former, but history quite clearly describes a man who went by the name of Jesus of Nazareth" - as surely as a man by the name of Herod, or Julius Ceasar. You may not believe what he claimed about himself, but it is ignorance of the highest order to suggest that he is purely a fiction. As I've written elsewhere, how many people can you admit talking about "Christians" without coming to suspect that there might be a "Christ" lurking about somewhere? Dawkins completely sidestepped the question, and ranted on about decidedly non-entities, as though that would suffice for an answer. The problem with these types of forums is that Dawkins gets as much time as he wants to rant on with his nonsense, and no one else get's to say, "Uhm... Hol' up, there, pardner...." That's why I believe there's no point in debating athiests. Not because I think that there's no answer, but because there's no forum in which to air it all out equitably. And.... someone please fill me in if I'm wrong about this, but isn't this talk about "the Great African JuJu" a really, nasty, racial slur? If Pat Robertson were to come on the air and bring up "the Great JuJu up the African Mountain", wouldn't EVERY media outlet in the world be calling him a racist?
