Skip to comments.Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' (BARF!)
Posted on 11/24/2009 1:19:59 PM PST by USALiberty
Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.
"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.
There's no room for a God in the world as he sees it, and he believes atheists should be forceful in opposing religion. He acknowledges that it's an unpopular case to make, particularly in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
You’re the one putting stock in what Dawkins says.
Two quick comments:
Through out much of history, science and Christianity were not only compatible, they worked hand in hand. It was the scientists’ job to study and understand creation in a way that allowed humans to better understand God.
Second, I have never understood why an atheist passionately argues his point. Where does the meaning come from to spur such passion? If we are all just mutations and cease to exist when we die, then why care what anyone believes?
If this is true, then Dawkins cannot be a scientist. Physicists wouldn't even say that about General Relativity which they are considering a revision to in the wake of "Dark Matter."
Without God, there is no such thing as the “truth.”
I think it is an interesting story to know because this is the kind of influence that is predominant in the universities.
Dawkins malfunction is liberalism.
Dawkins and fundamental creationists, two sides of the same coin. They even agree that evolution is incompatible with religion.
A hint to the answer is at post #5.
“There’s no room for a God in the world as he sees it, and he believes atheists should be forceful in opposing religion. He acknowledges that it’s an unpopular case to make, particularly in the United States.”
Interesting how if you do a google search on “aids hospice” you’ll find a lot more put out by Christian organizations than you will by gay organizations.
If there’s an earthquake in Pakistan, the majority of the donations will come from Christian organizations like Samaritan’s Purse, not Muslim ones.
If you see who’s busiest trying to save girls from prostitution in India and other third world, it’s not NOW, once again be it’ll be the Christian.
He used the term militant atheism. Amazing. Does he not know the history of term? The League of Militant Atheists set the stage for the Holodomor.
Who the hell are you talking about??? Seems like every article some fool posts on FR about evolution and atheism is referencing Dawkins, Hitchens, or 2-3 other fools. And yet they sucker you in every goddamn time because you attribute whatever those handful of people are saying to be the beliefs of everyone who believes in evolution.
So 150 years ago, Charles Darwin a man who denied being an atheist, set in motion a vast conspiracy to do...something?
It seems like you’re doing your best to turn people against you. You’re saying it’s either my way or the highway, that there is no place for science with religion and there’s no way a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution. Even if you were right, that’s not how to convince others to come to your side.
Look, there is no god and species evolve. To the best of my knowledge that’s the truth. Dawkins is a jackass but no one has to listen to him and if you think he’s a threat to you somehow then that’s on you.
Then why are you even debating this? Surely you know that most people, in some form, use empirical evidence to form their opinions, even most Christians. Refusing to engage people on those terms will lead to failure most of the time.
From what I can tell so far, you’re telling people faith and the bible are enough. And you know as well as I that that argument simply isn’t going to work on people such as I who need more evidence. So your next step is to ridicule them and try to portray them as a threat to others which can only make people who agree with you outraged and people who disagree with you pissed. That may or may not be your intention but it’s clearly the result.
Either way, those who might be inclined to agree with your beliefs would be turned off by your methods, just as people are turned off by Dawkin’s. Winning a public debate is much like running a political campaign, running negative ads is rarely successful.
You want evidece? OK, here you go:
I’ve got plenty more if you want them!
And you actually believe all that??? At first I thought it was a parody site but then I saw that they took themselves seriously. Then again, so do the flat earthers.
I picked out the article on the Grand Canyon as an example to read and got a good laugh out of it. Created in a week! They said it was created with the help of lava floods and tectonic activity when even an amateur geologist can see it’s located no where near the edge of a tectonic plate or volcanic activity.
Site like that are just another reason you’re not going to get anywhere, all they do is convince people who already believe in that to keep doing so.