Logic vs Faith

Had a discussion with someone yesterday - he says the problem with Dawkins is he uses logic to attack faith, which is futile and pointless: they are two entirely different things which cannot be mixed. Logic is oil to the water of faith.

Surely, I said, Dawkins only uses logic against the logic used by those who wish to promote their faith. It's not like god-people just state vaguely they believe in this indescribable being for reasons which they cannot put into words.

What Dawkins does is use sound logic to expose the flawed logic used by people to aquire their faith in the first place.

Besides, one man's 'faith' is another man's 'insanity'.

This argument is not new, but let's say I believe I am Napoleon. Not just any Napoleon but the Napoleon. I have total faith that I am the great Corsican general, reincarnate.

Now, I want my faith to be respected. If you don't go along with my faith, I'm going to accuse you of blasphemy against my sacred person. No sniggering now.

My faith also says everyone must wear strawberry-flavoured underwear. If you don't wear it, you are a sinner in my eyes and the 13 minute old book which I use as a map to life says you must have your genitals scorched daily until you agree to wear strawberry-flavoured underwear.

I didn't say it, the prophet Noobleflaps said it. And if he said it, then... you know the rest.

OK, God-people, this is what your "faith" sounds like to the non-believer.

And we're supposed to respect your "faith" and keep quiet lest you are offended.

Just because people have spent the last 2000 years building fucking-great buildings at huge expense devoted to him doesn't make your prophet any more sensible than Noobleflaps.

But of course, to you, your prophet is very very sensible and not at all like Noobleflaps. And you have some mighty long-winded logic to explain why.

And this is where people like Dawkins come in.