(September 27, 2015 at 12:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I'm bored so I'll reply.
Quote: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.
