Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales
A response to Peter Bowden’s “God, Atheism, and Human Needs”
Kelly O’Connor
Jan. 24, 2008
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.
Many people have either been raised without theistic belief or have abandoned theism and discovered even greater meaning and value for their lives. Peter Bowden assumes in his article “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” that proponents of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett must provide “deeper insight into ourselves, our needs as human beings, and ways to conduct our lives.” In essence, a replacement for, rather than the elimination of, religion. Life does seem much simpler when all of the answers are handed to you on a silver platter (or aged papyri), but it eliminates the worthwhile exercise of introspection and discovery that one must engage in to formulate their own self-concepts, needs, and morals.
This makes Bowden’s claim that atheists are “[avoiding] a fundamental quest of the human race” even more absurd. Figuring these things out for oneself is infinitely more important, and difficult, than accepting an ancient dogma in its stead. Perhaps the reason why so many are opposed to self-examination is because it is exactly as I described it—exercise. It can be excruciatingly difficult to step outside of yourself, examine your beliefs, and dissect that which lies beneath your exterior. If one has been inculcated with the notion that whatever resides in there is dirty, depraved, and evil, that urge to integrate your beliefs and behavior will be furiously resisted and likely satiated with religion.
Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it’s going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there is no grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Even if doing nothing more than pointing out the harm that has been done under the auspices of piety, the news will not be received with accolades from the religious. Compartmentalization and rationalization (as in the psychological phenomenon) are fundamental aspects of maintaining any faith-based belief in the face of contrary evidence. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as atheists to speak out against religion. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s presence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it.
Bowden points out that one of the charges frequently leveled against religion is its bellicosity. The reason that argument is so oft-used is because it is true. Religion has been the impetus for more violence than any other single reason throughout history. Was the acquisition of territory, resources, and power often a corroborating justification? Of course. Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanizes those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does. The adherents of a different religion are literally inferior to their opponents, and too often the drive to appropriate their land or wealth is intensified and rationalized by the division between the two groups. Evangelism has long been used as a cover for the usurpation of power from native inhabitants. After all, god would want to civilize the savages, now wouldn’t he? Certainly, religion is not the sole force, but it is definitely a contributing factor, and one that could be eliminated.
The two arguments that can be proposed to counter the case that the hazards of religion outweigh the benefits are the comfort and meaning it supposedly provides people and that religious groups may help less fortunate people. The latter is true, but only within certain confines. Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytize, and their aid may depend on your acceptance of their doctrine or willingness to attend church services. In the case of the catholic church in sub-Saharran Africa, it can actually be detrimental. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters may have similar prerequisites, although not all do.
Bowden asserts that “atheists are not into helping others in any organized way.” This is demonstrably false as there are more and more secular charities arising every day, but why would one expect there to be large charities funded by what essentially amounts to a non-group of people? Atheists are individuals with no churches and, until recently, little social networking. On an individual level, though, atheists are some of the world’s largest contributors to charities around the world. In fact, the number one philanthropist on Earth is an atheist. Ever hear of Bill Gates? How about Warren Buffet? That being said, I would encourage people to gather together and contribute in whatever way they are able, not to promote a group or a name, but to create a better world for every person. We are all united in the sense that we are humans sharing this planet, and that is infinitely more important than allegiances to imaginary dictators.
Bowden then comes full-circle back to the comfort/meaning/reason for living argument by claiming that we need a reason for being, that reason must be something “beyond the normalities of our daily lives”, and that religion provides it. First of all, I don’t know that making the claim that needing a reason for being is a fundamental attribute of human beings is entirely accurate, but it is plausible that most people desire that kind of affirmation.
This argument falls on its face in the next two steps, though. Why must this meaning be something greater than the daily activities in which we engage? Is life not made up of a series of days filled with these “normalities”? Normalities such as pursuing a career or education, caring for children, or just making it through this existence? What if there is no “greater purpose”? Will civilization suddenly vanish or will people adapt to being the agents in their lives instead of the pawns in a cosmic chess match? Furthermore, I will submit that religion only provides a façade of fulfilling either of the preceding “needs”.
Whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation making sense of a discordant existence or a spandrel of such processes, coming to terms with reality would only be the next step in our development. Holding on to the crutches that we once needed after the cast has been taken off is counter-productive, and as long as we do so, we will never run. Life can be frightening, bewildering, wonderful, and tedious. It can be mysterious, magical, and ordinary. It can be all of those things at once. Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.
- Atheist Volunteers
- http://www.earthward.org
- Atheists for Autism Research
- Online atheist community raised $3,555 in the last few weeks for a family in need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog Info: READERS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO PROMOTE THIS BLOG ON THEIR SITE FOR ONE YEAR. Give Kelly a year and she'll give you major media theism debunked!
Subscribe (free) to our onsite feed : http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/428/feed
Please support this project and make a widget to put Kelly's feed on your site.
This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. All articles may be reprinted in any major media publication or any blog. All articles will be submitted by Kelly or an assistant to the major media outlet that initially published the story as well as to the author of the original piece(when possible). Reprints are encouraged in blogs and must link to source. Reprints in media will be thanked in our book, so please alert us if you repost any story. Media outlets may shorten articles if necessary without removing context. Upon completion, a book and documentary will be made about the year (ending Oct. 31, 2008) and our plight to have dishonest argumentation countered with rational and factual answers in the press. If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views. At the end of the year the writings will be given some bulk, some supporting citations, and edits from a publisher to be compiled in a book. The book will include a documentary DVD shot from Sapient's vantage point as he works alongside Kelly, asking her questions about the project as it moves along.
Kelly loves me, I
Kelly loves me,
I love Kelly
Oh Kelly , .........
Quote:Making up answers
Quoted for truth. Brilliantly put, Kelly!
~Wordplayer
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." ~Groucho Marx
I resent your attempt
I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales. People don't believe in fairy tales. But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.
And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist. If I desire Christmas to come, this does not logically prove Christmas will not come. The wish fulfillment argument rests on a very basic logical fallacy.
Kelly claims to be a former Christian. I have one comment to that:
"Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
And they which fell among thorns are they, which when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares, and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection (Jesus Christ; Luke 8:12-14).
The most honest version of
The most honest version of Peter Bowden's argument was stated by someone named Plato almost 2400 years ago. He proposed that his Republic make its citizens believe in a religion that he called a "royal lie". And he made no excuses for his society's religion, arguing that it ought to be banned as full of bad examples like heroes lamenting and gods laughing.
The royal-lie theory of religion was also believed in by some other members of the Greco-Roman intelligentsia, like Polybius, Strabo, and Livy, and several centuries later, by Niccolo Machiavelli. Yes, him of his infamous guide to how to win in politics, The Prince. And half a century ago, the political philosopher Leo Strauss advocated much the same thing, admiring Plato's Republic.
However, most modern advocates of positions like this hide behind a posture of pseudo-agnosticism, claiming that if we cannot really know what is true in some objective sense, than we ought to believe in what may be expedient or convenient or pleasant in some way.
This is not to say that no sort of "royal lie" may be convenient to believe in, but if certain "royal lies" are, then it is best to be honest and up-front about it, rather than hide behind psuedo-agnostic posturing.
I even once knew someone who ended up inventing a religion for himself because he had been driven nuts by his fear of death -- he wanted to assure himself that his consciousness will continue beyond the death of his body. A rather woozy New-Agey one, it must be said, and one that he chose to be irrational about in order to maintain his sanity.
Incognitus wrote: I resent
I resent your attempt to put your god or any gods on a level other than that of fairy tales. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. These brightest minds you're thinking of were from a time where it was either dangerous to say otherwise, or just not a way people thought. They were deist at most simply because it was so commonly accepted that no matter what there was still a god. Nobody questioned it.
Yet desires and wishes are all christians seem to be able to come up with for proof of their gods. Thanks for saving me the effort of rebuttal.
Wow, I'm confused as how to respond to this one. Do I quote a line from Little Red Riding Hood, Three Little Pigs, 7 Dwarfs, or something else?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Incognitus wrote:
Yes, people have, in the form of belief systems that you reject.
Except that most people have not believed in the god of your religion, but in other gods -- gods that you have refused to worship. Pagan polytheisms had existed for millennia, as is abundantly documented in the Middle East, and hinted at elsewhere by archeological evidence.
And even among the Abrahamic religions, most people have believed in sects of it other than yours, like Islam or (I'm guessing) Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or mainline Protestant sects.
(Bible-pounding snipped...)
I'm sure that Kelly needs no introduction to whatever Bible quotes you may want to throw at her; do you have any better argument than quoting the Bible?
Another word on fairy
Another word on fairy tales. There is no evidence for fairy tales. We have direct evidence for God in history, science (cosmological argument, intelligent design, teleology, anthropic principle, etc), in history (the prophets, saints, fulfilled propecy, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God and Hid resurrection, etc). Evidence in logic, epistemology, metaphysics, the super natural in general, the meta-ethical foundations for morality, etc, etc, etc).
So fairly tales and God are on entirely different levels. We have a convergence of data making the existence of God highly probable (infact impossible for Him not to exist).
The only thing that's a fair tale here is atheism. There is very little support for it. Only about 5% of human beings today claim to believe in atheism.
And atheism believes in the ultimate fairy tale of all: that the universe popped out of absolutely nothing lol
Give me a break.
Type: Fairy tale* (not fair
Type: Fairy tale* (not fair tale)
I have been through every conceivable test and temptation known to man. I grant I back slid a few times but I always came back to Christ. In my BACKSLIDING I even experimented with other religions. But I have never, ever once in my entire life, believed in atheism. I could never believe in atheism. I never once doubted God's existence.
At least I don't say like Hindu's and New Ager's that atheists have their lower shakras out of sink and need kundalini energy, etc.
I say that atheists know God exists, but they are intentionally and consciouslly reisting Him. This is what Paul said in Romans 1 and 2.
Incognitus wrote: Another
Really? I've never seen any. The closest I've seen is heresay, misunderstandings of science, and outright lies. Your mention of intelligent design and "the super natural in general" just proves my point.
No, still on the same level. The only accurate and actual data we have shows no sign of anything supernatural.
Believe in atheism? Didn't think such a thing was possible. Here's some news for you: Atheism is NOT a belief system. It is a lack of belief.
Another strawman. That is a common outright lie spread by creationists. No atheists say the universe popped out of absolutely nothing. That's the christian point of view. Some invisible sugar daddy in the sky popped in to existance out of nowhere, then created the universe out of nothing, then created the earth and everything on it out of nothing.
No, give US a break.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Incognitus wrote: Type:
Yes, simple typo. It's not worth becoming a grammar nazi over something small like that.
I have never once in my life believed in atheism either, nor could I believe in atheism. As I said before - it's not a belief system, it's a lack of belief.
You just keep telling yourself that fairy tale if it helps you sleep at night. The thread may be saying mankind as a whole, but there's always going to be one or two exceptions to the rule.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Quote: I say that atheists
Have you ever thought about how truly insane this point of view is? You're suggesting that we know god exists, so we believe in him. If we believe in him, we also must believe in heaven and hell. If we believe in heaven and hell, we've consciously decided that we'd like to go to hell.
Do you have any concept of how fucked up insane someone would have to be to sign up for a trillion years of torture? Do you realize how fucking insulting this idea is to the 1.1 billion people on the planet who are not theists? You're suggesting that we are so fucked up in the head that we actually want to experience the worst pain imaginable for ever and ever.
Get a clue, dude. Think for two seconds before letting ideas out of your head.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
I liked the original post
I liked the original post Kelly, but the nut job that been posting on it has made this just a fabulously funny thread.
He's basically every hypothetically typical nut job christian rolled into one.
Nice Job. Bowden sounds
Nice Job. Bowden sounds extremely confused.
I will add that Daniel Dennett is not quite convinced that immediately eliminating religion would be a good thing for all believers. He differs with Dawkins on this issue, and he's clear about this in Breaking the Spell.
For some people who have been raised religiously, becoming an atheist can provide a wonderful feeling of liberation from fairy tales and so forth. But for other new atheists it can be a slow slog in order to find that feeling. Many feel a deep sense of loss, as though they had lost their best friend and confidant (i.e., God). We shouldn't dismiss these feelings so easily, even if they are based on false beliefs.
The atheist Jean-Paul Sartre also talked about these feeling of loss in some of his writing. For Sartre, the loss of God was a traumatic experience, not initially a liberating one.
So, yes, we should move beyond these fairy tales, but it might not be as easy for some us as it is for others to make this transition.
Charles Evolution
Prove to me that any of the
Prove to me that any of the stories in the Bible involing *magic* (anywhere from creating the universe in 6 days to a hippie walking on water) actually happened, and I will prove at least as well that Peter Pan was a real person who could fly. Taking a fairy tale seriously does not make it any more valid. It only makes more people angry when you call it by its proper description.
PS: Kelly, I love the article. It's one of your best so far IMO.
The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
- Thomas H. Huxley
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
- Abraham Lincoln
The Dawkins Delusion?:
The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister E. McGrath
That didn't come out
That didn't come out right. Read
"The Dawkins Delusion,: by McGrath
Incognitus wrote: I say
I MUST repeat myself over and over again , why do you assume that if you are incapable of seeing anything beyond your narrowminded view of reality , everyone else is like you .
Ok here i am again . I was an atheist for as long as i can remember , grandma took care of that (she WANTED me to believe , she WANTS me to belive , have faith in chrit and shit , but having the bible read to me and 10 min later beowulf and cinderella...oh well they were allways on the same level , except that the bible gave me headakes and sometimes nightmares) , and later on i became an antitheist
So what would you say if i told you I KNOW that you lie to everyone and yourself , you know there is no god but you are too weak to accept it so you keep taking your drugs(religion) . Ofcourse i cant make such a claim about you i have no clue what`s in your head
Incognitus wrote: I resent
That's the main distinction between the two: a comparison likely made to demonstrate this point.
It's equivocation to retroactively annex the provincial harvest and fertility deities, animist spirits, etc., in support of a specific deity to Judaism/Christianity/Islam. Even the OT texts differentiate. At best, you could argue for a belief in belief itself by this data, but it's not evidence for a specific religious claim.
Cheap appeal to authority fallacy. No mind, great or small, has been able to substantiate religious claims. With millennia to do so, and with the majority of the world's population subscribing to some form of religion (and so at least somewhat interested in vindication before non-adherents to their faith), their failure to produce anything of substance is a damning proportion of failure.
Which is why religious claims are intellectually bankrupt, being naked concepts in search of phenomenological reasons to suspect them in the first place. A total inversion of empiricism.
Yeah compassionate
Yeah compassionate Charles Evolution , the tough "transition" .... good points ,
.... But with loving Kelly and Sartre's help we are moving beyond destructive fairy tales.
Appeasing the religious is harmful to my pets , life could be better enjoyed by all ....
.... mabey the big question is , does any of this matter ? , hey it's all I know so YES
, ask a kid , give them what they need , FREEDOM ,
Yeah what is freedom ?
Freedom to die smiling .....
we are "condemed to be free" Sartre !?!?
, getting in over my head , out , latter
passing to google http://www.nimbinaustralia.com/zenwatt/condemnedtobefree.html
paste "I believe Sartre's whole purpose is to wake people from the dream of self-deception. Sartre gives people their freedom, releases them from the invisible strings that the theistic religions would have us believe connect us to an omnipotent puppeteer in the heavens. Nothing could be a more optimistic, practical philosophy of existence than showing people they are free at all times. That they no longer have 'unseen', 'unknown' forces controlling their lives "
~~~ Thanks , iamgod
Incognitus
Somebody really indoctrinated you really bad. I feel sorry for you. You'd rather wallow in myth than face reality.
What would be so frighting about there not being a god? Do you think we'd all barbaque kittens?
OK EVERYONE, we've been made, the jig is up. Lets stop pointing out the absurdity of disimbodied beings knocking up girls and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after 3 days.
Kelly, and everyone, lets be good atheists and get back to our roots of canibalism, throwing virgins in volcanos and our staple of lawlessness and pillaging, we wouldnt want to dissapoint our theist friend here.
Kelly, this stupid mask of challanging theists to question outragious claims isnt fooling this person. We must accept that Noah was real and handled poisonous cobras, and black widdows and dart frogs. We must accept that snakes do turn into wood, and that bears do maul children who call old men baldy.
We arnt fooling this one, lets get back to drooling and dragging our nuckles on the ground and give up questioning hocus pokus claims.
Kelly, face it, Thomas Jefferson died in dept and that was God getting even with him for equating his son's birth to Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter.
GOD GONNA GET US KELLY, REPENT REPENT!
If oil flowed like deity claims gas would cost 10 cents a gallon.
Whose the one utilizing logical fallacies?
Incognitus: I resent your attempt to even put God on the same level of fairy tales.
Luigi Novi: Resent it or not, both God and fairy tales have the same level of empirical support for them.
Incognitus: People don't believe in fairy tales.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, this is untrue, as Arthur Conan Doyle actually gave credence to the existence of fairies. In the second place, whether people believe in one and not the other has no bearing on whether it is an appropriate metaphor for theism, since it is the aspect in which they are similar that is emphasized when using it. Since both fairy tales and God have the same amount of scientific support for them, and since that is the aspect of both that was being emphasized, Kelly's use of the term was appropriate, vis a vis the viewpoint from which her essay is written.
Incognitus: But most humans have always believed in God -- even the brightest minds in history.
Luigi Novi: This does not mean that he exists.
Incognitus: And the disire or wish for something, does not logically prove that the object of that wish does not exist.
Luigi Novi: Who here said otherwise? Where in Kelly's essay is this idea indicated? This a twisting of the actual reasoning that theists use or imply, which is that the mere fact that they desire his existence means that he does exist, which is the real fallacy, since the desire or wish for something does not logically prove that the object of that wish does exist.
By arguing that it does not prove that it doesn't exist, you are disagreeing with something that no one ever said or implied.
Myths
If humans do not need to believe in myths, then why do people beleive in Evolution?
CalvinandHodge wrote: If
Woh ho ho! you sure got us there. Shut down the site boys!
Believing in something due to evidence is a bit different than believing in something due to "faith". Additionally, if I was shown a good reason NOT to believe in evolution, I wouldn't believe in it anymore. That's the wonderful thing about being open to new ideas, and open to being wrong.
Beliving in myths and fairy tales doesn't allow for being wrong, because you are basing it on nothing to begin with.
Hey, Calvin, Can you give
Hey, Calvin,
Can you give us a brief explanation of how genetic recombination and mutation differ?
Also, could you give us a paragraph or two explaining how inheritable information is made into a functional gene product?
For that matter, do you know what a functional gene product is?
Where did you hear that evolution is not true? From someone who studied it in college? Or from someone who studied theology?
Calvin, after you admit to us that you don't know the first thing about evolution, would you explain, kindly, how you have the nerve to condemn something that has literally hundreds of thousands of volumes of new, corroborated, independently verified data, just in the last decade? When you don't know jack shit about it?
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
CalvinandHodge wrote: If
Uhh, it might have something to do with the fact that evolution isn't a myth?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Prove what?
Hi:
I think that I do not need to "prove evolution" but that all I need to show is that it is a fairytale.
Science, and I believe that all here would agree with me, requires observation and not speculation. Science deals with facts and not speculation on those facts.
When we talk about Evolution are we talking about Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism? If we are talking about Darwinism, then you will have to explain to me which scientist actually observed a single-celled organism becoming a fish or a plant "billions of years ago"? If you cannot provide adequate facts (not speculation) then you have composed a "fairytale" and not the truth.
Does Neo-Darwinism answer the problems of Darwinism? Not in the slightest. It is more hocus-pocus than anything else. "The earth is traveling along over millions of years, and then, without explanation, bingo! all life changes." By what? Magic? Witchcraft?
So, until you tell me which "Darwinism" I am supposed to answer I cannot give you more detail.
Many scientists have turned to "Theistic evolution" for the answers to their problems. However, I fail to see how this helps atheism - since these scientists argue that even the evidence of Evolution proves the existence of God.
Many other scientists have devised "Intelligent Design." Seeing the intracacies in their respective scientific disciplines they have concluded that it is impossible for a "random mutation" process to create all of this complexity. It is natural and reasonable for anyone to see complexity in a system to infer a Designer.
You don't really believe that your computer, or car, was designed and built by a random process do you?
Mathematics has proven the theory of evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) false. Even given billions of years it is impossible to account for the composition of the DNA sequences for the most basic single-celled organism. Mathematics is the bedrock of all the sciences.
Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism) is the only scientific theory that does not need to factually prove its conclusions. It cannot. There was no objective observer living "billions of years ago" in order to verify the "millions of years" of supposed evolutionary processes.
Evolutionists can show the "facts" of what is called micro-evolution, and I will not deny it. Micro-evolution is proven in the Christian Bible (Genesis 30:41ff). Change within a species is an indisputable fact. What Evolutionists have to show is change between species. That is, a single-celled organism (one "species"
becoming a jellyfish (another species), a jellyfish (one species) turning into a fish (another species), a fish into a lizard, etc That is the fairytale of Evolution (Darwinism or neo-Darwinism).
Crossing a poodle with a German Shepherd creates a "Dog" - it does not create a new and different kind of "species." All of your supposed evidence confirms micro-evolution and not macro-evolution.
The smokescreen of the evolutionist argument is that they will pull out all of the verified scientific data for micro-evolution, and then claim that macro-evolution is proved.
Next to last, I will pull the provrebial rug out from under you: Prove, on purely naturalistic grounds, without presupposing any "god" or "law" or "design" what evolutionary process or genetic mutation which has proved to increase the information in a genome?
Finally, The arguments of Richard Dawkins are so transparent that only one who is fanatical concerning evolution will not see them as such. For example, In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins argues by creating a computer program that simulates a simple design becoming complex over many turns. His argument falls flat on its face when you consider that it took an intelligent man - like Dawkins - to design and create the computer program to begin with! Is Dawkins claiming that he is blind, ignorant, and dumb, and out of this ignorance he was able to design and construct a computer program that can simulate design. Would any ratioinal person without a bias consider such an argument reasonable?
Prove what?
[mod edit: double post]
Your ignorane is
Your ignorane is astounding. I just don't have the time to reply to this right now and I'm sure someone else will...but seriously...it is clear that you don't know a damn thing about these things. It simply amazes me that people can show so much confidence without knowing a damn thing. It really shouldn't surprise me, that's really what religion is. But still...wow...pick up a fucking book if you want to have a serious conversation / debate and read what evolution is.
Riiiiiiight
When Darwinism is shown in its true and correct light it becomes obvious to everybody how flawed it truly is.
Darwin:
"As man can produce, and certainly has produced, a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection (Darwin is referring to "micro-evolution"
what may not natural selection effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters. Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends ... It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect in our view into long past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formally were (macro-evolution)."
From: Origin of Species chapter 4, in my copy, pgs. 110-113 parenthesis mine.
This argument used by Darwin back in the 1800's is still the main argument of Evolutionists today.
I am confident because I can produce a hundred similar quotations from evolutionists along the same line. You, sir, are trying to shout the truth down with your bad manners.
Creationist Challenge: Read
Creationist Challenge: Read the damn book.