RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 6, 2021 at 3:28 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2021 at 3:29 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 6, 2021 at 11:33 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Are you dumb enough to think that a militant atheist, and one of the four horsemen, will present an unbiased account of evolutionary theory which, by the way, is completely irrelevant to the designer's existence....?
What a joke...
So now, those that find no evidence, or need, for a god to be involved in the evolutionary process, are the biased ones. Evolution is explained without the need of a deity anywhere in the process. You, and other theists, are the biased ones, trying to insert your god, where it is not needed, nor does it add any explanatory power.
Quote:And.. ever heard of guided evolution ?
You mean how humans reshaped wolves, into the myriad of breeds of dogs we now have, in around 6000 years? Yeah, it is a pretty well known process.
In nature, environmental and reproductive pressures do the 'guiding'. Still, no need for a god.
Quote:And I insist: Dawkins is a dumbass when it comes to the philosophy of religion. Many reviews of his books explicitly state that he doesn't understand traditional arguments for God's existence. Dawkins discusses, embarassingly, the BS question "who created God?" in some of his books.
So what? So lets say Dawkins does not argue against the philosophical arguments very well. There are many other atheist scholars that do argue against them, and provide very powerful rebuttals. Just because atheist A is week on one subject/argument, does not mean that atheism itself has been defeated on that subject.
And also, just because you think the "who created god?" is a BS question, does not mean it is. All we ever hear from theists in response to this question is, yet another unsupported assertion.
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.