Dawkins controversial again.

MrPudding

Czarcasm wrote: »

I wonder what Dawkins would have to say on twitter about this -


Birth of first baby screened for Cystic Fibrosis a ‘milestone’

Why don't you ask him?

MrP

Czarcasm

MrPudding wrote: »

Why don't you ask him?

MrP

I would, but -

1. Twitter isn't the place to have that discussion (notwithstanding the fact that I'm not on it).

2. It wouldn't be his personal opinion based on his morality I'd be interested in, it would be his professional opinion based on the ethics of affording IVF treatment to people who are known to have a terminal illness, in order to help them conceive.

It's a brave new world in the field of fertility and I think Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist would have an opinion on it.

It wouldn't be to put him on the spot. If I wanted to do that I could join twitter in less than five minutes and bait him on it, and we both know Dawkins wouldn't be able to resist the opportunity to put his foot in his mouth.

As much as I disagree with the man's personal opinions, professionally I would have more respect both for him, and for myself, than to play out the discussion on the social media stage.

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's a brave new world in the field of fertility and I think Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist would have an opinion on it.

It's a brave new world for Ireland, but hardly news to Dawkins. PGD has been happening in the UK for many years. Link to HFEA regulator in UK.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a brave new world for Ireland, but hardly news to Dawkins. PGD has been happening in the UK for many years. Link to HFEA regulator in UK.

Downs syndrome and abortion were hardly news to anyone either, let alone Dawkins.

Hotblack Desiato

Sorry meant to get back to you on this before now.

MrPudding wrote: »

Only a man can commit rape.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.html

The person having the penis inserted into their body is the person that must give consent.

Surely both should consent.

There may be some sexual acts committed by a woman against a man against his consent, but it will not be rape.

There are instances of women forcing men into sexual intercourse. Doubtful that would meet the Irish legal definition of rape, but why shouldn't it? Also interesting that section 4 includes penetration of the vagina by an object, but not the anus, why is that.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

It wouldn't be his personal opinion based on his morality I'd be interested in, it would be his professional opinion based on the ethics of affording IVF treatment to people who are known to have a terminal illness, in order to help them conceive.

It doesn't say in the article whether either parent actually has CF, they could just both be carriers.

Czarcasm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It doesn't say in the article whether either parent actually has CF, they could just both be carriers.

They were interviewed on TV3 this morning and I only caught the end of the interview. The child's father definitely had CF as he had the classic 'clubbed fingernails', a symptom of the disease.

The reason I mentioned it wasn't so much in relation to PGD itself, but to the ethics of that scenario as I mentioned earlier in the thread that I have a brother with CF and he has mentioned that he would like to have children some day -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here's where ethics gets hinky -

Should IVF be offered to people who have a genetic disorder, or is it a breach of their Human Rights to deny them the procedure if they can afford to pay for it? If a person without a genetic disorder is able to avail of IVF, then why not a person with a genetic disorder?

People with Cystic Fibrosis for example?

I don't expect you to answer that question, it's just one of those things to mull over. In the interests of disclosure though, my brother has Cystic Fibrosis and he would give anything to have children. He just hasn't met the right girl yet, but he lives a full life otherwise, travelling the world entering archery competitions when he's not at home lecturing at third level. He's in his 30's now and his life expectancy is unknown, as he's pretty much baffled doctors so far. My other brother wasn't quite so fortunate, but in the 19 years he did live, I mean he REALLY lived, packing in a life full of adventure and his diary right up until his death was full of upcoming appointments for the year ahead.

To say that either of them has unduly suffered though, even on balance between what they achieved and what they suffered to achieve it... I couldn't possibly quantify it, but I know their quality of life wasn't so impeded by their condition that they weren't or aren't happy. The sum of all happiness does indeed by far and above outweigh the sum of their suffering as far as they are concerned, and the legacy they have left and will leave behind them through them having lived their lives is still very much in evidence today, and will be for some time to come.

I would say the balance tips pretty heavily in terms of adding to the sum of all happiness on that score.

Which is why I would be interested in Dawkins professional opinion on the ethics of IVF being offered to assist people with terminal illnesses in conceiving, from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and nothing more.

I think it's an interesting discussion that could be had, but perhaps when I think more about it, a discussion that may be better suited to the Humanities forum than A&A.

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

Which is why I would be interested in Dawkins professional opinion on the ethics of IVF being offered to assist people with terminal illnesses in conceiving, from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and nothing more.

His role as an evolutionary biologist is about as relevant to his views on the ethics of IVF as my role as a science fiction reader.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sorry meant to get back to you on this before now.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.html

My apologies, the Irish definition is slightly different than the UK version. It is still not great either.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Surely both should consent.

One would think. Cases where neither party consents are rare. I think, in general one of the parties wants to have sex, the issue being where the other party does not.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There are instances of women forcing men into sexual intercourse. Doubtful that would meet the Irish legal definition of rape, but why shouldn't it?

It would not meet meet the Irish definition, nor would it meet the UK definition. Personally I agree with you, it should be rape, it is simply that under the current wording of the legislation it isn't.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also interesting that section 4 includes penetration of the vagina by an object, but not the anus, why is that.

Yeah, it is odd. It effectively means that a man cannot be raped by a woman. A man can be raped by another man, but only if the penis is used.

In the UK definition, rape can only be committed by a man as it must be committed with a penis, but it is defined a penetration of the anus, mouth or vagina, so male victims are also covered. There are also other offences relating to penetration by objects, these cover penetration of the vagina or anus by either a male or a female.

I do understand that some people use the term rape in a slightly different way, but it is wrong. This is similar to creationists coming in here and telling us 'evolution is just a theory' or an anti-choicer calling abortion the 'murder of a child' they are using words in an incorrect way. This is just the same, using the correct meaning of the word a man cannot be raped by a woman. I know a woman can have sex with a man without his consent, and I personally think it should be rape, but it isn't.

MrP

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

His role as an evolutionary biologist is about as relevant to his views on the ethics of IVF as my role as a science fiction reader.

You're still not getting where I'm coming from -

Basically, IVF being offered to people with terminal genetic disorders is like re-writing the book on human evolution so to speak. It's eliminating disorders and diseases among the population on a very small scale at the moment, but as and when it becomes a more affordable and available option, and science pushes the ethical envelope even further...

There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

That's the kind of ethics I'm talking about, as opposed to any 'increasing the sum of all happiness' nonsense. That, to me at least, is a futile standard of measurement as given the fact it's unquantifiable, it's inherently unscientific.



EDIT: A bit of a philosoraptor meme here, but -

If Dawkins argument is inherently unscientific, doesn't that mean his reasoning is irrational?

Now there's a question! :pac:

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.

And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.

There's a book I'd love you to read if you ever get the opportunity (perhaps it could be ordered through your local library) -

The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease (Hardcover)

Just one of the reviews that gives you an idea of what the book discusses and why I highlighted your ending sentence there -

The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease provides a history of diseases which have been connected with racial makeup, sparking ethnic controversies in their discussion and analysis. The authors draw links between biology and social issues, examining underlying influences on research and perspective of modern medicine and how Americans ultimately come to embrace or reject projected breakthroughs. From therapy as social justice to media headlines and changing social perspectives, THE TROUBLED DREAM OF GENETIC MEDICINE is a powerful testimony to the power of prejudice even in the field of medical research.

This is why I'm saying that ethics goes beyond our own personal morality and why we need to do a proper cost/benefit analysis as to how our short term choices can have long term consequences. Dawkins 'sum of all happiness' argument appeals to popular social justice, but scientifically speaking it's about as useful in the decision making process as a chocolate teapot.

And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.

This whole argument started off with Dawkins applying his personal morals to evolution, and for a scientist to personalise evolution by applying terms like "cruel" or "evil", that's implying the existence of a benevolent creator, but not an existential one - the benevolent creator in this case is human beings themselves, by taking control over evolution from nature, and applying our own standards to it, as you say - ensuring the unhealthy child is never born, but then risking allowing prevailing social mores will dictate the direction of evolution, and since we're not all evolutionary biologists, to have evolutionary biologists take their directions from society seems, in my opinion at least, to be unscientific, irrational, and indeed - unethical.

This is why IMO scientists should never try to be popular, but they should instead stick to investigating the facts. Introducing their own personal biases makes for bad science, and even worse is when they take their lead from popular opinion in society.

MrPudding

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.

And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.

I think it is an interesting point Czarcasm raises. There may well be a chance of a child being born with CF anyway, but I think (he can correct me if I am wrong) the point he is trying to make is that we are now in a position where people that a few short years ago could not have passed their genes onto future generations now can...

I think this is actually very interesting. As the technology advances we will have the ability for people that could not otherwise have children likely to survive long enough to reproduce being able to reproduce.

Also, the idea of disease be effectively wiped and our immune systems riding down could make the plot for a really crap straight to sci-fi channel movie where the melting icecaps release a prehistoric virus that threatens to wipe out mankind. Awesome.

MrP

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

prevailing social mores will dictate the direction of evolution, and since we're not all evolutionary biologists, to have evolutionary biologists take their directions from society seems, in my opinion at least, to be unscientific, irrational, and indeed - unethical.

But this is the whole point - an evolutionary biologist might be able to say "If you do x to genes, then Y", and fair enough.

As soon as he says "You must not do X to genes, because Y, and Y is immoral" he is no longer speaking as an evolutionary biologist, and his opinion on the ethics is no more valid than mine.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is the whole point - an evolutionary biologist might be able to say "If you do x to genes, then Y", and fair enough.

As soon as he says "You must not do X to genes, because Y, and Y is immoral" he is no longer speaking as an evolutionary biologist, and his opinion on the ethics is no more valid than mine.

But... that's exactly why I said I would be interested in his professional opinion as an evolutionary biologist, and not his personal opinion. I have no interest at all in his personal opinion on the matter.

I do hope though an evolutionary biologist would be able to provide more insight than just "do X, Y is the result", but I understand what you meant. I would hope an evolutionary biologists' thinking would be more flexible.

magicbastarder

Czarcasm wrote: »

But... that's exactly why I said I would be interested in his professional opinion as an evolutionary biologist

you were interested in his professional opinion on the ethics - and that's the point; his professional opinion would probably be 'ethics does not enter the evolutionary debate'.

unless i've misuderstood your point; just skimming the thread at the moment.

Czarcasm

magicbastarder wrote: »

you were interested in his professional opinion on the ethics - and that's the point; his professional opinion would probably be 'ethics does not enter the evolutionary debate'.

unless i've misuderstood your point; just skimming the thread at the moment.

Not only have you misunderstood my point, but you've also misrepresented Dawkins views on the ethics of evolution -

Evolutionary ethics is a term referring equally to a form of descriptive ethics or normative ethics.

Descriptive evolutionary ethics consists of biological approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, or ethology with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences or choices and their origins.

On the other hand, normative evolutionary ethics may represent a more independent attempt to use evolution, alone or partially, to justify an ethical system. This project has not, according to one view, been especially successful; for example, Richard Dawkins describes how we must rise above our selfish genes to behave morally (that is, evolution has endowed us with various instincts, but we need some other moral system to decide which ones to empower or control). Dawkins has since expressed interest in what Sam Harris calls a science of morality, which starts with the assumption that "morality" refers to "facts about the flourishing of conscious creatures".

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

recedite

That wiki quote does not represent the views of Dawkins. It just namedrops him, trying to look good.

Re this;

Czarcasm wrote: »

..and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

That's the kind of ethics I'm talking about, as opposed to any 'increasing the sum of all happiness' nonsense. That, to me at least, is a futile standard of measurement as given the fact it's unquantifiable, it's inherently unscientific.

If human genetic engineering was occurring, then surely it would easily be possible to reverse these unwanted problems as soon as they were discovered?
Anyway GM is not in itself ethics. We may decide to restrict GM based on fear of the unknown, or on ethics. Ethics is not an empirical science, it is more philosophy.
Whether or not ethics,philosophy, and science are the product of evolutionary biology is not really the point. Yes, they all have their origins in our will to survive, our constant striving to be more successful. Which drive is itself also evolutionary.

The kind of ethics that Dawkins and Harris refer to as "increasing the sum of all happiness" is a bit different to basic "selfish gene co-operative behaviour" in that it takes account of the happiness of all sentient beings, not just one genetic line, or one tribe, or one nation, or one species.

swampgas

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

It's a very interesting issue. I also wonder if a genetic divergence could evolve between wealthy developed countries and developing countries as a result? Perhaps wealthy, technologically advanced countries would routinely start "tweaking" their offspring to make them smarter, while poorer countries would not be able to afford it and would gradually fall behind their genetically more advanced neighbours. (Assuming global warming doesn't knock us all back into the stone age first.)

nozzferrahhtoo

swampgas wrote: »

Perhaps wealthy, technologically advanced countries would routinely start "tweaking" their offspring to make them smarter, while poorer countries would not be able to afford it and would gradually fall behind their genetically more advanced neighbours.

And an extension to that question would be.... in such a case when we are manually tweaking our codes and hence preventing natural mutations and the like..... when a genuinely useful new mutation arises (say for example a certain immunity) in these poorer lesser developed countries.... will we start farming them for their DNA?

I guess, to use the words in the posts above, we have been "re-writing the book on human evolution" for a long time already.

There is a suggestion above that "As the technology advances we will have the ability for people that could not otherwise have children likely to survive long enough to reproduce being able to reproduce." and we have been doing that for a long time already.

From the moment we put glasses on a nearly blind man, or found an injection to treat diabetes, or made medical advances enough to allow the likes of Stephen Hawking to reproduce.

I guess there is no "will have" here really therefore, if we are to be pedantic. It has been ongoing for quite some time.

smacl

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

Yes indeed, it is analogous to a greedy algorithm which always favours a locally optimal solution without considering the long term goal. If the goal is survivability, survivability for the individual can come into conflict with survivability of the species. For example, there are studies that show cystic fibrosis may help prevent TB. Thus it seems plausible that by eliminating certain genetics traits that are massively undesirable at a personal level in most modern Western contexts, we could be leaving ourselves more exposed as a species to something such as a pandemic.

swampgas

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed, it is analogous to a greedy algorithm which always favours a locally optimal solution without considering the long term goal. If the goal is survivability, survivability for the individual can come into conflict with survivability of the species. For example, there are studies that show cystic fibrosis may help prevent TB. Thus it seems plausible that by eliminating certain genetics traits that are massively undesirable at a personal level in most modern Western contexts, we could be leaving ourselves more exposed as a species to something such as a pandemic.

Interesting point, it's a bit like sickle cell being an adaptation that offers resistance to malaria. However from an evolutionary point of view, there isn't much pressure on us right now. Considering that there are over 6 billion humans, a massive epidemic that wiped out 90% of humanity wouldn't really make much difference in the long run - there would be enough survivors to carry on and re-populate. Although civilisation as we know though would be destroyed for quite a long time, I would think.

magicbastarder

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

pH

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

Seems like another "journalist" primed by myers, benson et al to destroy Dawkins.

Remember folks these people think they should be running woldatheism, after Dawkins they have their pitchforks primed for Harris, Shermer and Grothe. When they're dealt with they will work their way through the women who have offended them and aren't the right sort of atheist - such as Paula Kirby, Harriet Hall and Hirsi Ali.

This whole "schism" has put a serious dent in my faith in humanity - seriously the "atheist community" has to have a single "correct" view on abortion, rape, race etc and anyone who doesn't align with party thinking is hounded by dozens of blogs and lazy journalists in an attempt to remove them from the movement? So the movement can be pure of thought and of a single mind maybe? That's what people want from an atheist community is it?

Czarcasm

Dawkins doesn't need anyone "out to destroy him", he's doing a bang up job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all by himself.

He shouldn't need defending either, and he hardly has any right to complain when he has long espoused the opinion that no idea should be immune from examination and criticism. As atheism becomes more popular, people are going to examine the idea more closely, and it's as open to criticism as any other idea.

By Dawkins own standards, he has always encouraged people to think for themselves, and when they do, and when Richard's own ideas are examined more closely, he seems to throw his toys out of the pram instead of having the courage to debate, discuss and defend his passive aggressive wittering on twitter.

If this nonsensical media circus is all it takes to "put a dent in your faith in humanity", I think it's fairly easy to say you can't have had much faith in humanity in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

I became an atheist on my own, but it was Richard Dawkins who strengthened and confirmed my decision.

This Adam Lee person apparently imagines that people decide not to believe in any gods. How would that work?

Today, I have decided that I don't believe in the law of gravity.

magicbastarder

i don't see any issue in calling it a decision.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see any issue in calling it a decision.

So you'd be able to decide not to be an atheist, to believe in a god, as an act of will? Not me. I believe what I believe based on my experiences. I have no choice in the matter.

New experiences can change my beliefs, and I might decide to learn more about an issue in the hopes of changing my beliefs (giving someone I dilsike aonther chance, say), but I can't decide that I believe something which I do not believe.

magicbastarder

call it an unconscious decision so.

anyway, some more reaction to dawkins mansplaining to women about rape:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2014/09/i-was-raped-when-i-was-drunk-i-was-14-do-you-believe-me-richard-dawkins

magicbastarder

and dawkins's reaction:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/512987453352067073

Czarcasm

magicbastarder wrote: »

and dawkins's reaction:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/512987453352067073

It's always everyone else's fault... :pac:

Nodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

A+ again.

*shudder

nagirrac

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This Adam Lee person apparently imagines that people decide not to believe in any gods. How would that work?

By considering the various God concepts proposed by man and rejecting them, which effectively is what people raised in a religious environment do when they reject their religion. Dawkins himself was raised as a Christian, and obviously decided to reject it.

On a superficial level the God Delusion does a good job debunking religious beliefs and human concepts of God, until you realize that religious experience is something Dawkins does not participate in, so his views are analogous to someone who hates football lecturing those who enjoy watching it.

I agree with your comment on experience. Religion is something to be experienced, otherwise it is a meaningless abstraction.

Zubeneschamali

nagirrac wrote: »

By considering the various God concepts proposed by man and rejecting them, which effectively is what people raised in a religious environment do when they reject their religion.

Well, sure, that's how I ended up an atheist. But it wasn't a decision. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I honestly don't understand how it can be said that anyone has a choice about what to believe.

It's like choosing what you see when you look at your breakfast: I've decided to see eggs Benedict! Nope, it's still porridge.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure, that's how I ended up an atheist. But it wasn't a decision. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I honestly don't understand how it can be said that anyone has a choice about what to believe.

Isn't the whole argument for Atheism that people can choose to believe in what they believe, and if they can choose to believe, then they can also choose whether or not to continue with that belief when they are presented with evidence which causes them to question their beliefs?

It's like choosing what you see when you look at your breakfast: I've decided to see eggs Benedict! Nope, it's still porridge.

It's only porridge because someone else told you that's what they call it, and you chose to believe them. Individual perception can be a curious concept. If you grew up all your life knowing that gloopy goo in a bowl was called eggs benedict, and someone told you it was porridge and presented you with the properties of porridge, you'd still be somewhat resistant to the idea, because it contradicts your beliefs!

Imagine if I told you that gloopy goo was corn flakes, and everyone calls it corn flakes, and you'd only ever known it as porridge...

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

Isn't the whole argument for Atheism that people can choose to believe in what they believe, and if they can choose to believe, then they can also choose whether or not to continue with that belief when they are presented with evidence which causes them to question their beliefs?

No. The whole argument for atheism is that the evidence and arguments, properly presented and considered, show that gods do not, in fact, exist.

Having looked at the evidence and considered the arguments, I have absolutely no choice in what I believe. I could no more decide to believe in God by an effort of will than I could decide to believe in Superman.

Czarcasm

Aaargh! I'm gonna have to give you this one Z, I had a lengthy reply written out, and the damn placement of the "Clear Text" link just above the text box on the touch site denied me my right of reply! :pac:

It's a sign I tells ya, a sign! Curses!

Valmont

Dawkins now just telling random strangers why he hates them

Czarcasm

Valmont wrote: »

Dawkins now just telling random strangers why he hates them

From the same site (ironically enough) -


Internet argument won by making things up

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

On a superficial level the God Delusion does a good job debunking religious beliefs and human concepts of God, until you realize that religious experience is something Dawkins does not participate in, so his views are analogous to someone who hates football lecturing those who enjoy watching it.

Terrible analogy there. The difference being we have strong reason to think football and footballers exist. Which instantly makes your analogy to god belief a fail.

A better analogy would be to people who enjoy watching the Indian Rope Trick. A trick many claim to have seen and enjoyed, but for which we have ZERO reason to think was ever performed.