Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Both of Dawkins ideas are bullshit.

They all boil down to "who designed the designer".

Which leads to an infinite regress and thus fails.

---

---

You need to graduate from Dawkins are read smarter atheists. Nobody takes him seriously in universities anymore.

And I should just take your word for it why?

BTW, invisible unicorns who are also omnipotent and can create the universe? So you're a theist now?

Nope. Don't actually believe it. Also didn't say they were omnipotent or could create the universe, just that they are undetectable and they make it rain. It is their magic that lets water evaporate. Prove otherwise. Or is this one of those 'so unlikely we shouldn't even consider it' things? (yeah, it is, even though a flying invisible magical unicorn is less extraordinary than a god)

I'm not sure that video proves what you think it does. Sagan nowhere says that an infinite regress is possible. In fact, we know that an actual infinite regress is impossible thanks to Hilbert's Hotel.




In other words, the position is that infinities are only possible as ideas, or mathematical constructs. Actual infinities cannot exist because they entail logical contradictions.

About Dawkins, don't take my word for it. Take Quentin Smith's word for it. Or Michael Ruse. Two eminently intelligent, respectable and deep thinkers who think Dawkins' arguments are insufficient to grapple with the most fundamental objections. Take the reviews of Dawkins' own books that point out the intellectual failures in his arguments.

About your unicorn, I suppose I have to ask if we have any reason to believe your claims. We have no metaphysical or logical reasons compelling us to do so.

On the other hand, there are plenty of compelling reasons to consider the idea of a transcendent mind, and therefore, a deistic position.