(February 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm)naimless Wrote:(February 14, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: Predetermination.
I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.
(February 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm)justin Wrote: Nothing for his religious belief because the evidence point otherwise. He realised their was a truth and his religion distorted that. He is motivated by truth not nothing.
If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.
He was the professor of public understanding of science at oxford. He is well known for his work in evolution and zoology as well. He does focus on evolution very much. Genetics also. Alot of these problems arise from creationist and religious distorting or attack these fields of study. He spoke out against religion because of it's corruptness. He defends atheism because of the fucked up things religion has done and it's irrational beliefs that stunt our progress in science, culture, morals, laws, and education to name a few. And saying if he was focused on the truth he would've just focus on the work well why is that? He stands against the lie and stone age myths that religion spreads and uses to harm and control things and people so how does him standing for atheism contradict him being motivated by truth?
