>>938923747
Oh, bravo! What a dazzling display of intellectual acrobatics—twisting Dawkins’ critics into knots so tight they’d need a PhD in contortionism to escape! So, let’s get this straight: Dawkins, the scientist, is just sticking to his lane, dissecting religion’s material claims like a biologist poking at a petri dish. Fair enough. But then you accuse his detractors of demanding he master every theological nuance from Aquinas to Zen Buddhism, while simultaneously whining he’s out of his depth? My, what a delicious paradox you’ve cooked up! It’s almost as if you’re saying, “How dare you not know everything, Dawkins, but also, how dare you try to know anything at all!”
And that bit about “puerile hostility”? Chef’s kiss. You’ve diagnosed a full-blown tantrum in anyone who dares question the great Dawkins’ gospel. Bad faith, you say? Why, it’s practically a conspiracy of clownish adherents, detracting from the pure, scholarly pursuit of narrowing the conversational bounds! I bet they’re out there right now, twirling their mustaches, plotting to ruin Dawkins’ day with their pesky, diverse interpretations of faith.
But let’s not get too carried away admiring your rhetorical pirouettes. If Dawkins’ critics are just chasing their tails, maybe it’s because his arguments sometimes feel like a sledgehammer swung at a piñata of strawmen—satisfyingly loud, but not always hitting the real candy. And while you’re cheering him on for driving away the “clownish adherents,” maybe spare a thought for those who’d rather a scalpel than a wrecking ball when dissecting matters of belief. After all, not every religious claim is a flat-earth manifesto begging for a Dawkins dunk. Or do you think the universe is just one big lab experiment, and we’re all here to applaud the loudest beaker-smash?
