Richard Dawkins. Atheist extraordinaire. If those arguements weren't fallible enough for you, I offer you, dear Reader, 'The Improbability of God".
Now, my questions to you, Mr Dawkins are this: How do you feel about being an evolutionary blip? Show me the point in which humans evolved from apes. You can't find the missing link? Hmm.
Here is my issue with Mr. Dawkins. It's all fine and dandy to go around spouting out one's view, even his... but it seems as though, in his effort to falsify religion, he has developed his own. It is unclear to me whether it is the concept of a God he has a problem with, or whether it is the religion he has a problem with. In both cases, his facts are flawed. Darwin did not set out to disprove God, in fact, he hoped his research in evolutionary theory (which Darwin also admitted was just theory), would help with the division between science and religion. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Heraclius, Averroes, (the list goes on) all believed in a God-like being. They felt a higher presence, they knew that the universe was governed by...something.
Dawkins would say that they are philosophers, and he is a scientist and therefore those are irrelevant to his message.
But consider this. Parmenides talked about being and unbeing. Being is. Unbeing is not. If atheism were true, that there is no God, and we've all been led to believe something that is false, how is it that the notion of God would still exist. The feeling of a universe governed by ...something. Can this be replaced by scientific explaination? I'm skeptical to say it can be. If unbeing is not, the notion of God would not exist. By suggesting there is no God, Atheism has proven that here is one. God would be unbeing, and therefore the entire idea of him would not exist.
And this is just one of the many arguements that has come out Mr. Richard Dawkins' work. In the spirit of controversy, I thought I would add this.
Word of the Day: philanthropist
Quote of the Day: "I am very disappointed in you." John Locke (LOST)