Welcome to Gaia! ::

That coin analogy is way off.

I think you're misunderstanding what quantum theory actually states. It describes the very nature of matter. A photon, for example, actually DOES exist in all its possible states, until observed. There's an experiment (saw a lecture about it on youtube, can't remember the name) that, using some prisms, shows that a photon actually goes in 2 directions at the same time.
Similar is the widely known double slit experiment, which show the wave nature of particles.

I could say I have dancing lung fairies living in my a**s that you can't see because they are made up of super-natural anti-matter like Cthulhu but that doesn't make it true.
Seriously, your god can't do everything. If he exists, he can be proven. If he doesn't exist, limitless stories can be made to fooling people he does exist. It's that simple. It's like telling a child Santa exist and he has no way of finding out he doesn't exist.

Dawkins is good at what his specialized field is: evolutionary biology. He makes a fool of himself when attempting to discuss religion. Like most of the "new atheists," he oversimplifies the subject of religion, which quite frankly as a scientist, he should KNOW better than to do.

He discusses certain aspects of religion well, but not all of them. He is not a scholar of religious studies, and while I understand his frustration with the small segment of certain religious groups that naysays evolutionary theory and opposes science, it hardly describes all religious groups. I have looked at some of his books on the subject, and like pretty much all the books I've looked at by the "new atheists" it does oversimplify religion because it targets Abrahamic faiths and ignores everything else (often, also, cherry picking the worst extremes of the Abrahamic faiths and ignoring the moderates); it overgeneralizes. As a scientist he should know better.

If you don't think religion is complicated, no offense, but you haven't studied it enough. I used to think it was simple too. Then I actually started studying it. I suppose from a certain point of view you could call it "simple" but it's a little too easy to poke holes in some of the arguments made by the "new atheists" because they overgeneralize. sweatdrop

I think dawkins is a monster. He takes the momentum in the LGBT rights movement and uses it to fuel religious intolerance. I haven't read this so called "genius" book of his yet, but all the arguments I have heard from him have been "I'm right and you're wrong so shut up and get over it" ridiculous rantings. He seems like every other preacher hell bent on conversion and stamping out religion in our society. His bullshit argument about conditioning makes me twitch. I am a sterile male to female transsexual who worships fertility gods, how the hell is that conditioned into me? Atheism is perfectly valid I have no proof for my beliefs but so far I'm still convinced that "new atheism" is just the old atheism with more open intolerance towards other religions. I hate him so much and I'm scared to let myself give into it and direct my hatred at atheists in general and become exactly the kind of monster he is.

Not to mention the fact that he acts like self claimed prophet with the right given to him by gods he is sure do not exist, to stamp out religion everywhere in our society because clearly religion is always evil without exception. Atheists are valid, but they don't get empirical proprietary rights to intelligence, science, deduction or reason, dawkins is going to have to learn to share if ever wants to stop being an a*****e.