Quote:
Originally Posted by chtulu
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Also, here are 4 points that I'm sure the faithful will enjoy huffing about.
1. Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
2. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" —the illusion of intelligent design— in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
3. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe.
4. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.
|
You're not fucking intelligent.
You're just DIRECTLY copy/pasting Wikipedia in an attempt to sound smart. You are essentially a brainless slob.
You're too dumb to take part in this debate/discussion so get the fuck out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
At the end of chapter 4, Why there almost certainly is no God, Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable."[20] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.
|