(October 17, 2011 at 3:02 pm)John Jones Wrote: Dawkins doesn't like religious nuts. Who does. So why is he one himself?
Is it because he spent too long in Church when he was little? Here's why Dawkins was, is, and always will be, a religious nut:
Dawkins believes that life, in its essence, is flawed or selfiish.
Just like the Church.
The Church believes that life, in its essence, is flawed or originally sinful. Strike one.
Dawkins believes that genes survive.
Just like the Church.
The Church believes that people survive. Dawkins calls it copying, the Church calls it reincarnation. But nothing survives death. Strike two.
Dawkins believes in survival of the fittest or favoured forms.
Just like the Church.
The Church believes in the lineage of the prophets or favoured forms. Strike three.
Dawkins believes that evolved structures are designoids or forms.
Just like the Church.
The Church believes that God's designs are forms. Strike four.
Dawkins believes that without Dawkinian altruistic intervention we are blind machines.
Just like the Church.
The Church believes that without Jesus' altruistic intervention we are blind machines. Strike five.
Richard Dawkins can be seen on display, pickled in a Church specimen bottle, where he slowly ferments, bubbles, blackens, and decays. Strike six...
This is a purposeful example of flawed logic...right?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
