He did it again. Last year, Dawkins gave us a Christmas present – he made it clear that his posturing about being committed to the evidence was all an illusion. I documented that defining moment here and during the subsequent year, not one atheist was able to dispute my observations.
This year, Dawkins has a new present for us. He has made it clear that nothing could count as evidence for the existence of God. He has shown himself as a closed-minded, dogmatic atheist. You can see the demonstration for yourself in the video below. It starts at 12:30 and goes to 15:30.
This is a video clip that should be shown in churches everywhere. Dawkins, with agreement from Boghossian, has just admitted that if God Himself were to appear to Dawkins, complete with mind-boggling displays of miraculous power, all during the second coming of Christ, he would NOT consider that evidence for God’s existence. Well, if an empirical demonstration of God and miracles would not count as evidence for God’s existence, then nothing will. And that is essentially what he confesses at the end of the clip.
This is a clear-cut demonstration of the power of the closed-mind and illustrates that more and more atheist discussions about “evidence” are rooted in trickery and dishonesty. If you believe nothing can count as evidence for the existence of God, it is dishonest to pretend that you don’t believe because of a lack of evidence. It is dishonest to pretend you would change your mind if only someone could come up with the evidence.
Last year Dawkins, the most popular atheist out there, made it clear he was willing to believe, and wanted others to believe, without evidence. His commitment to evidence is a charade.
This year Dawkins, the leader of the atheist movement, has made it clear his atheism has nothing to do with any supposed “lack of evidence.” In his mind, he can’t think of a single thing that could ever count as evidence for God’s existence. His atheism has become absolute dogma.
Shadow To Light 
Lk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Indeed, Richard, you have always paid lip service to that view. I’ll quote you on that. And a Merry Christmas to you as well.
You know, this reminds me of the Jerry Coyne – PZ Myers dustup. Where Coyne, for ages, wouldn’t shut up about how the true mark of a rational mind was the ability to name evidence that would force them to change their beliefs, and how atheists were always able to say what would change their mind.
Then PZ Myers said nothing would change his mind. Coyne had a few ‘Are you serious?’ moments – and then all at once the need to state what would change your mind became optional with regards to rationality.
So here’s Boghossian. Keep in mind, Bog used to make it a standard that, if a theist could not say what would change their mind about belief in God, he wouldn’t debate them because hey – that just shows you’re not rational or intellectually serious. His book was written in part talking about how faith makes people immune to changing their minds, and the dangers of certainty. And then Dawkins does this.
I think we’re about to see that certainty isn’t so bad after all from Bog’s point of view.
Dawkins @15:11: “Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.”
Indeed, Richard, you have always paid lip service to that view. I’ll quote you on that.
Yes, Dawkins, being surrounded by fans, has a rare moment of honesty and admits it has all been just lip service.
So here’s Boghossian. Keep in mind, Bog used to make it a standard that, if a theist could not say what would change their mind about belief in God, he wouldn’t debate them because hey – that just shows you’re not rational or intellectually serious. His book was written in part talking about how faith makes people immune to changing their minds, and the dangers of certainty. And then Dawkins does this.
Yep.
Note that Boghossian makes NO effort to challenge him on this and instead, clearly comes across as someone who is in complete agreement. What this means is that Boghossian’s book is built on yet another erroneous definition. Here is how he defines “atheist”:
“‘Atheist,’ as I use the term, means, “There’s insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe.”
It doesn’t matter what you show Dawkins or Boghossian – their closed minds would deny it was evidence. The definition is not honest.
BTW, if anyone out there types up a transcript of that exchange, let me know so I can link to it.
Hi ChazIng,
Lk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Imagine that. That ol’ Bronze Age book has Dawkins number.