The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[joe1776]

No, it isn't the downfall of atheism.

Every belief system has its loud, arrogant extremists. There's no reason to think that atheism should be an exception. It's this group that earns the group's negative stereotype "arrogant atheist."

This group has the same arrogant personality profile as the "sanctimonious Christian" only with different beliefs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature." Well, let's see if we can draw some parallels with religion.

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.

Religion, on the other hand, does not depend on any rationality at all, but solely the "revelation of the divine" as pronounced by some few very human beings who claim for themselves access to such devine knowledge which, for reasons unstated, are unavailable to the rest of us.

(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;

Religion, on the other hand, very often simply assumes "super-sensible beings and realities" without the tiniest shred of evidence. Evidence, in almost every other sphere of inquiry, is considered generally a good thing, but not so much for deciding what the "ultimate reality" is, which is hardly a rational stance. (It would be hard to find the religious person who would believe that a murderer should go free if he produced a book of unknown provenance that proclaimed him innocent, I think.)

(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;

A short study of history would seem to show a certain militant stance from much of religion around the world. Wars of religion have certainly done much damage. And to a degree, we would say that excising bits of children's bodies (circumcision), insistence on certain hair cuts (tonsure), or the wearing of special clothing to denote one''s belonging to this belief or that can be seen as quite pathological.

(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;

Try reading any Christian or Islamic apologist, and see if there is not a strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expression -- and especially indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans. I refer you especially to William Lane Craig and Dr. Hatem al-Haj.

But let me also point out that atheists can usually point to real-world evidence for the claims that they make, while the religious must of necessity point to nothing other than "revelation of the divine" as mentioned in point 1. Revelation, of course, by self-proclaimed possessors of sacred knowledge.

(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability, falsifiability; quantifiability;

This is a false claim. Atheists are generally well-aware that science cannot answer any and all human questions. But rather than hold to a lot of ancient, arcane "knowledge," we assume that questions unanswerable by science can be answered by acceptance of the dignity of each individual human being, and individual liberty consonant with social and planetary responsibility.

(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship between religion/faith and reason;

But faith IS inherently an enemy of reason when it makes claims that are simply untrue. It is evident in the claims of "answered prayers" (which number in the dozens, while prayers themselves number in the hundreds of billions) that religions are trying to make the claims that prayers are answered -- when the evidence makes it abundantly clear that they are not, that there is no help coming to save us from ourselves.

(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;

Yet, it would appear that this is happening. The percentage of religious adherents around the world compared to the general population has been in steady decline for a long time. In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the relevant scriptures;

Is reading scripture literally so much worse than reading it "creatively," so as to get it to say what you wish it to say? Can we say that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, for example -- which resulted in so much misery and death throughout Europe, and was caused by differences of "opinion" on what the words in scripture acutally meant -- was a good thing?

(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.

And this insistence is, in essence quite true -- but it is limited by an inherent tribalism. But this tribalism is evident even in most religious scripture which generally insists on dividing the world into "us" and "them," and declaring "them" to be enemies. The Bible is rife with that, as is the Qur'an. The non-religious person would no more think of excommunicating or burning to death another person because they hold a contrary belief, and yet religions have in general been quite keen on that sort of thing. In fact, it would seem sometimes that religion is capable of suppressing that "innate and reliable moral sense of intuition" that we do possess. Think of all those altars in Central and South America where living humans had their hearts torn from the bodies in full view of the approving faithful.

(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);

And just what is "progressive revelation," and how is it know to be properly sourced to the divine, rather than to imagination of an individual? It is not known, is the correct answer, merely assumed to be true. I put it to you that if God is eternal and unchanging, as the vast majority of religious believe, then "progressive revelation" simply doesn't follow. Rules of dress, ritual, alimentation and so forth don't change unless either God or humans change. Pork and shrimp are either good eats or they're not, and hiding women behind yards of cloth is either proper or not -- unless such things are merely human preferences, here one day, gone the next.

(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a whole;

What does your own religion (Baha'i) say about homosexuality? What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? What does Islam say about homosexuality. And yet, what is KNOWN (as opposed to BELIEVED) is that homosexuality is a completely naturally occurring orientation, as unalterable (without drastic measures) as height. But because people a long time ago didn't know that, people of today are enjoined to ignore it, for no other reason than religion. And that is, to put it mildly, anti-social.

(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Religion is hardly "freedom." The very name itself implies "binding oneself" (religare). And in any case, religion is most often inculcated into young, impressionable minds before the age of reason and rational choice. Have the newborn baby of a Christian woman adopted into a Muslim family, or the Muslim child adopted by a Southern Baptist family, and I guarantee you they will grow up into their adopted faith, not their birth faith, while all of their physical characteristics will reflect their birth, not their adoption.

 

[Colt]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

The so-called "new Atheism" or "Secular Totalitarianism" is just a more devout and intolerant version of the old Atheist movement/religion. But circumstances can change quickly, ask Saul! It's always darkest just before the dawn. There have been things in the works in the celestial world in anticipation of the next epoch of history.

 

[Nimos]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

In regards to the headline question "Is it humanities downfall?"

I don't really see how it could be? Religions give a lot of people comfort and meaning in their lives and a lot of them are moderate believers, that can make science and religion work together. As for Richard Dawkins, which I have watched a lot of debates with, he is very open about being against religious teachings, but I don't think he is against all of it, he is primarily focusing on religious extremists from the angle of education and humanism.

Meaning that certain religious views, which push the ideas that for instance the Earth is around 6000-10000 year old. That creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolution etc.

I don't think that he cares to much about peoples personal beliefs as long as they don't impact human lives.

Teaching young children that if they don't behave in a certain way, that they will go to hell for an eternity and burn and suffer, I do agree with him, is on the border of child abuse. Children are extremely acceptable for things they are told, especially by their parents and telling them these things, which in no way have been verified as being true, is to terrorize children.

Pushing for knowledge that can be verified and explained and teaching people this is not a negative thing, but is something that should be encourage. Science in the last many years is what have heighten our well being the most, from everything to better living conditions, better healthcare, the ability to feed ourselves, to learn about our planet, about the Universe etc.
Humanity as we know faces a lot of issues, whether its climate change, hunger, wars, pandemics and what else might hit us in the future. And so far, science and knowledge is essentially our only solution to these problems and even that might not be enough.

We can't live in a world and expect things to work out, if people simply believe whatever they want to because it feels right. We can't overcome Covid or climate change by praying to God or by thinking that he will protect us. That is the path of ignorance, there is no verified data that this would work or ever have worked. And if that is the case, we have to rely on ourselves and we can't do that, if around half the people just believe whatever they want to and have no respect for the knowledge and discoveries that are made.

Religions have had so many years to provide evidence for the divine, to demonstrate that divine intervention is true and can solve things. Yet, they have nothing to show for it. Nothing to rely on that can solve the issues we face.

So on one side we have people like Richard Dawkins and the others you mentioned, that pushes for secularism as the best way forward, that we have to focus on knowledge based on critical thinking and rationality, because it has demonstrated that it works. And on the other side, you have religious people that feel stepped on and violated, because their religions are not seen as part of the solution.

This is not ultimately about religion itself, its about how we approach things and issues we face. If the varies religions can get the God they believe in to help, these "new" atheists wouldn't care, but again, none of the religions have even remotely been able to demonstrate or been able to get help from their God(s).

So to get back to the question of the headline.. "Is it humanities downfall?" the answer to me is no. It might in fact be our only option. We have no other ways of dealing with issue than approach them with the knowledge we have and which can be demonstrated to work.

We can't keep refusing knowledge that contradict religious beliefs, and if they do, the religious people are perfectly free to demonstrate that they are correct.

Just a fun video of Richard Dawkins getting love letters from religious people:

 

[Colt]

The positive aspect of religion across all cultures functions to preserve spiritual values. Atheism is a negative force that doesn't preserve anything. Armchair critics on the road of life!

 

[Sheldon]

I found this interesting.

"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:

(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."

Spoiler: Source

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2oB623Tqdht2YN3zoQRQ6K

Edit - A Link that is not a PDF The New Atheism

This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?

How do you see it?

Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.

Regards Tony

You could of course disavow them all with a shred of objective evidence for any deity, sadly there appears to be none.

I'm not sure I view striving to be rational, and less superstitious, is quite the world ending catastrophe your hyperbole suggests anyway. What is it about people not holding theistic belief, and saying so, that scares you so much? I mean I assume you believe a deity can defend itself against the reason of an evolved ape after all.

 

[Sheldon]

The positive aspect of religion across all cultures functions to preserve spiritual values. Atheism is a negative force that doesn't preserve anything. Armchair critics on the road of life!

Oh dear, did you watch the video above, plenty of examples of the positive aspect of religions in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Way to go, that is the spirit.

Regards Tony

Ya know....sometimes being militant is appropriate.
When a court requires me to swear to God to tell the
truth, I refuse. So far, they'll allow a secular oath.
But they put me in the position of making all aware
that I'm not a Christian.
So when believers back off on imposing their faith
on others, perhaps they won't be so annoyed with
our being militant about their sky fairies.

 

[Colt]

Oh dear, did you watch the video above, plenty of examples of the positive aspect of religions in it.

Dawkins provokes emotional responses and then whines about it.

Weve watched the values of plenty of Godless atheist dictators around the world.

 

[Sheldon]

I had the pleasure to personally attend the talks of Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. I disagree with many things they have said, but I find their work stimulating rather than threatening.

Indeed, I find it hard to believe anyone could be so blindly paranoid as to find Professor Dawkins threatening.

 

[PureX]

But is it an accurate critique of that movement with respect to points (3), (11) and (12)?

That's what I wish to know, the author of the OP doesn't seem to know.

As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. Many of the points listed are evident in many of the posts here on RF. But not all. And not from all atheists. So do ALL of them have to be present all the time for us to recognize the validity of the observations being made? That would be an absurdly extreme requirement ... that will inevitably be demanded by some, here.

 

[Sheldon]

Dawkins provokes emotional responses and then whines about it.

Weve watched the values of plenty of Godless atheist dictators around the world.

Watch the video, he was not whining, and people are responsible for their own actions, to excuse them in this way is pathetic. Dictators tend to violate human rights, and atheism is not a requirement or a motivator obviously. I am an atheist, and I have harmed no one, nor would I. Totalitarianism is something I am opposed to, regardless of whether the dictator believes in deities or not, and there have been plenty of barbaric theistic dictators to prove the point.

 

[Nimos]

Dawkins provokes emotional responses and then whines about it.

Weve watched the values of plenty of Godless atheist dictators around the world.

I don't think he especially whines about it, but is more to show how people react to him, obviously this is no different than what other people will experience which have views that greatly differ from others. It was more because I think it is a rather fun video.

Atheists in power in the countries you refer to, I think you will find a difficult time to argue is motivated by atheism, rather than power or control itself. If atheism were the motivation, I would expect to see atheists in these countries having a way better time than those of religious beliefs, yet I think you will find it hard to show that it were in fact the case and that not everyone were treated poorly. Religions can be seen as a threat to a government and especially a dictator as it can motivate people against them. So most likely atheism is not what is important, but simply to get rid of any potential threat. Equally religion can be used to support a given position as it has also been seen throughout history.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Atheist cause"
That you came up with such a weird concept
probably says volumes.

You can find it here:

Just as I suspected, a religious perspective about atheism. Of course it's going to be objective and honest.

As I read the list it was obvious this was not a genuine representation of what atheism means. I could tell it wasn't written or advocated for by actual atheists.

So, this is misinformation and fraud. Why did Tony post it?

1. Dawkins and crew are yesterday's news, they're passé.
2. I could find a lot to criticize between the four of them, they're human, but that list isn't about them.
3. That list is about the frailty of religious beliefs and of course atheists are to blame for that.
4. There is no New Atheist movement and there never was, it was about a few guys selling books.
5. Cry me a river.

Oh dear, Tony, you struggle with atheism don't you.

I've not got time now but ... New Atheism was a term given by theists to describe the likes of Harris, Hitchens, etc and is not a term used by Atheists.
There are no leaders of Atheism, just some who can best express our thoughts.

I'll come back with more when I have time.

You could of course disavow them all with a shred of objective evidence for any deity, sadly there appears to be none.

I'm not sure I view striving to be rational, and less superstitious, is quite the world ending catastrophe your hyperbole suggests anyway. What is it about people not holding theistic belief, and saying so, that scares you so much? I mean I assume you believe a deity can defend itself against the reason of an evolved ape after all.

Okay, all of you.

Let me show you all the core belief system of some non-religious believers with an example:

This is all meaningless. I have evidence my computer is real. No evidence any Gods are real.

This has nothing to do with joelr in particular. It has to do with how some people use evidence/truth, rationality and real(ism)
The problem is that "this is all meaningless" is without evidence/truth, rationality and it is not real.

Then moment you realize that all non-religious people only have in common that they are non-religious and you start to check for different worldviews, you notice this one:
They as some non-religious people will with different variants claim in effect the same: Evidence/truth, rationality and realism. And when you then check what they say as such, they will make some claims, which are without those.

That is the game. They are like some religious people capable of it seems to believe that some of their beliefs are in effect objective, when they are in effect subjective. That is all.
They are it seems no different in that they believe something subjective is with evidence/truth, rationality and realism like some religious people do it.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it isn't the downfall of atheism.

Every belief system has its loud, arrogant extremists. There's no reason to think that atheism should be an exception. It's this group that earns the group's negative stereotype "arrogant atheist."

This group has the same arrogant personality profile as the "sanctimonious Christian" only with different beliefs.

Rather like this ;-)

 

[PureX]

An asside, Dawkins is not an atheist but by his own words."I can not be sure that God does not exist." Is more an agnostic.

People lie all the time ... even to themselves. Especially when they've managed to make a Lot of money doing it.

 

[ChristineM]

People lie all the time ... even to themselves. Especially when they've managed to make a Lot of money doing it.

Ask any preacher.
But... Are you accusing Dawkins of lying? I would love to see your evidence of such a claim.

 

[PureX]

Ask any preacher.
But... Are you accusing Dawkins of lying? I would love to see your evidence of such a claim.

He lies about being agnostic when he presumes that if gods existed, he would/could find and recognize the evidence of it. He also lies when he presumes gods don't exist because he has found no such evidence. Both presumptions require that he have knowledge of the gods (what is and isn't god evidence), even as he caims to be agnostic.

 

[ChristineM]

He lies about being agnostic when he presumes that if gods existed, he would/could find and recognize the evidence of it. He also lies when he presumes gods don't exist because he has found no such evidence. Both presumptions require that he have knowledge of the gods (what is and isn't god evidence), even as he caims to be agnostic.

Bollocks (as usual). He said "i cannot be certain" so get over yourself

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ask any preacher.
But... Are you accusing Dawkins of lying? I would love to see your evidence of such a claim.

Richard Dawkins Quotes (Author of The God Delusion)

No, he is using an appeal to emotion like some preachers do.
“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”
Richard Dawkins Quotes (Author of The God Delusion)

That one is in some cases the fallacy of the false dilemma or rather that some times 2 points are both oversimplification and both are thuse neither true nor false, but too simple as he notes.
"“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

This one is in effect a lie for all the meanings of faith, as there are no evidence for all of the world. In effect we all use faith. Some that e.g. God is fair and others that the universe is fair.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

This is an appeal to emotion. Further real is a culture word no different than God, in that both are abstracts, cognitive and not concrete. There is no evidence for God and no evidence for a real world. So in a sense he is lying as for the belief in a real world.
“There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality”

He is a good scientist, but he struggles with some accepts of philosophy in the end.