[quote="The Dude"]Totally different argument[/quote]
Why can't you just flat say you find the argument Schmo offered to be egregiously poor? Do you see yourself as parents who can't break the illusion of a unified front?
Why can't you just flat say you find the argument Schmo offered to be egregiously poor? Do you see yourself as parents who can't break the illusion of a unified front?
Making baseless assertions is like a hobby for you, huh?
Oh, right... you're a Mormon. Occupational hazard. I see.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Why can't you just flat say you find the argument Schmo offered to be egregiously poor? Do you see yourself as parents who can't break the illusion of a unified front?
LOL
Schmo, your representation of evolution vs. God is greedy and I don't even think it represents Dawkins accurately. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, period.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Some Schmo wrote: Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.
That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.
That may be, but sophistication in God/No God arguments is IMHO overrated.
Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Why can't you just flat say you find the argument Schmo offered to be egregiously poor? Do you see yourself as parents who can't break the illusion of a unified front?
LOL
Schmo, your representation of evolution vs. God is greedy and I don't even think it represents Dawkins accurately. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, period.
Perhaps you're right; it actually may misrepresent Dawkins. That's why I suggested people actually read his book rather than rely on my synopsis while making an argument against what Dawkins said (nothing like forming an opinion based on hearsay, but then again, that's the entire basis for Mormon faith too, so I suppose it's hardly surprising it's appearing here.)
And the argument, again for those not inclined to pay attention, is not that evolution precludes the existence of god. That would be a strawman offered by those who think it's a bad argument. (Shocker!)
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Sethbag wrote:That may be, but sophistication in God/No God arguments is IMHO overrated.
Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.
I have just finished reading The God Delusion. It is really, really, really good. Everyone should read it. I must admit, I fell into the trap of relying on other people's opinions of Dawkins, even though those people were scientists themselves. Another reminder that you need to see something for yourself before judging it! I think you are exactly right, Seth, and that's the message Dawkins intends to send.
I finally watched the documentary yesterday. It was hilarious.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Why can't you just flat say you find the argument Schmo offered to be egregiously poor? Do you see yourself as parents who can't break the illusion of a unified front?
LOL
Schmo, your representation of evolution vs. God is greedy and I don't even think it represents Dawkins accurately. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God, period.
Dawkins acknowledges that evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a God.
But it doesn't need to. Without a need for a God to explain anything at all in the universe, and without some evidence that there actually is a God, then God joins the list of infinitely many other concepts and ideas which cannot be disproven, but for which there's no compelling reason to treat it as if they are in fact true.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Calculus Crusader wrote:That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.
That may be, but sophistication in God/No God arguments is IMHO overrated.
Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.
Theism's best argument: There's no possible way to disprove the existence of God.
Atheism's best argument: I'm not the one who needs to prove/disprove something.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond