Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament

[Athene]

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Are you trying to reduce all of the work you've done here to God vs. Richard Dawkins? There are several reasons why that makes no sense, with the primary one being that Richard Dawkins is not the God of Atheism. 

Oh, and btw. Nature is a bitch. I get that.

[paulpablo]

I'm bored so I'll reply.

So we've rejected the God of the Old Testament for Dawkins' atheistic account of evolution, only to find out that many of the traits Dawkins marked as repugnant are ensconced in natural selection (except that now, as a new and even more unfortunate kind of Job, we have no one against whom to complain).

Natural selection isn't a character, isn't fictional, isn't a conscious being so therefore can't be jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, blood thirsty or a control freak or any of the other things mentioned about the god of the old testament.

The rest of the article is stupid and boring because it's repeating the same old bullshit that Christians invented morals, without Christianity no one has any sense of good or bad (bullshit) so no one should be annoyed about murderers or other criminals unless an invisible man says it is evil (bullshit).

The article says what would evolution look like if we tried to make a god out of it?  That's just some kind of primitive bullshit question, why make a god out of a scientific theory.  It's like saying we shouldn't believe in gravity because the god of gravity is deceptively attractive and can be deadly.

[Randy Carson]

OK, for the millionst time - I'm not a follower of any of the prominent atheists. But what do you expect this Wiker character's reply would look like, given that "Benjamin Wiker (born 1960) is a Roman Catholic ethicist."

So biased judges biased. There's no more to it than that.

Is there any chance you might actually interact with the argument instead of dismissing it because of who wrote it?

Unlikely.

[Randy Carson]

Wiker (an ethicist, not a scientist) is widely dismissed by truly intelligent people.  Some of his nuttier claims are that there is no evidence for natural selection, because Darwin was part of a conspiracy to undermine belief in God, and that natural selection is not compatible with natural law.  Having thus disposed of the messenger, I see no real reason to bother with the message.

Boru

And which fallacy is this a perfect example of, Boru?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Shooting the messenger, right? Quite possibly ad hominem as well. What do I win??

Boru

[Aoi Magi]

Atheism is NOT a worldview or anything like that, it doesn't dictate morality or almost anything we do in our daily lives. Why is it so hard to understand?

[abaris]

Is there any chance you might actually interact with the argument instead of dismissing it because of who wrote it?

Unlikely.

No, because the source is the message. What makes a catholic ehticist more credible than an atheist? That's what you fail to get. Bias on both sides of the issue.

[Minimalist]

You've really got a hardon for Prof Dawkins, haven't you Randy?

Or rather, as usual, someone else's hardon.

The fuckhead doesn't like anyone who is smarter than him....and his fucking church.

[Bad Wolf]

Randy, answer me this: would it hurt if for no reason, I approached you with a cleaver and cut off your hand?

[Randy Carson]

I'm bored so I'll reply.

So we've rejected the God of the Old Testament for Dawkins' atheistic account of evolution, only to find out that many of the traits Dawkins marked as repugnant are ensconced in natural selection (except that now, as a new and even more unfortunate kind of Job, we have no one against whom to complain).

Natural selection isn't a character, isn't fictional, isn't a conscious being so therefore can't be jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, blood thirsty or a control freak or any of the other things mentioned about the god of the old testament.

The rest of the article is stupid and boring because it's repeating the same old bullshit that Christians invented morals, without Christianity no one has any sense of good or bad (bullshit) so no one should be annoyed about murderers or other criminals unless an invisible man says it is evil (bullshit).

The article says what would evolution look like if we tried to make a god out of it?  That's just some kind of primitive bullshit question, why make a god out of a scientific theory.  It's like saying we shouldn't believe in gravity because the god of gravity is deceptively attractive and can be deadly.

Wiker's point is that natural selection is no less callously indifferent to the sufferings of the weak than is the "God of the OT" as He is commonly misrepresented by atheists.

So, after dismissing the existence of God, you're actually no better off than you were before.