Actually, evolution is by definition random chance...
I don't think you understand what evolution by natural SELECTION is.
Do you see the hypocrisy in this? You're doing exactly what you say you have "no qualms" with.
Also, atheists most certainly don't understand religion other than in an academic context. Religion is as much a mindset as it is believing what is written in [insert miraculous book here]; how can atheists possibly understand that dimension of religion when they don't believe in it? Dawkins' childish arguments illustrate his limited and superficial understanding of religion extremely clearly.
I'm not an atheist hater. I'm just saying that Dawkins' arguments are pretty weak, and if you accept his books as some sort of amazing revelation and the final "GOTCHA!" on religion, that's pretty sad.
You misunderstood the underlying point I was trying to make. The first scenario dealt with the borderline brainwashing or conditioning of children to believe religious dogma without questioning it = basing your life and decision making on those beliefs. In the other scenario, ucsdhopeful's post, the individual came to that conclusion/belief after independent, critical thought. There is a huge difference between the two.
As far as your Dawkins/atheist argument, that's like saying how could a psychiatrist understand the mindset of an insane person without being insane. You don't have to believe in something in order to understand it. Your argument is the weak one, not Dawkins'.
Funny, his classes were some of the clearest, most informative, and interesting classes from among my bio classes (and I was a bio major)...
And please don't give me the whole "if you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in gravity" shpiel. Need I explain the difference between proving a past occurrence and observing a natural phenomena? Environmental adaptation does not equal evolution of species.
How the hell are you a biology major when you don't understand something as simple as adaptation?
I think people can learn to separate personal beliefs and their professional work.
Some can, others not so much.
Your very first claim directly contradicts your statement in the following paragraph that religious traditions are constantly revising themselves. Do they acknowledge when they're wrong or don't they, and why is science afforded this luxury when is it laughable in a religion? Perhaps religion, too, is a work in progress. It's not just a fable regarding the rise of existence - which, in fact, is all that science really amounts to - but is also a living tradition, an evolving practice whereby people strive to commune themselves with their divine creator. Please demonstrate to me how evolution (of species and/or thought) is incompatible with the existence of God and I will give you a cookie.
That's not what I said. I said when science realizes it's wrong, it admits that it was wrong and acts to right itself. Then I said that The Catholic Church, specifically, has altered its stances on a number of issues based on scientific advancement, but it has never admitted that it was wrong (maybe the interpretation was wrong, a great cop out). It's laughable in religion because religion claims absolute truths while science doesn't. No, most religions don't claim to be works in progress. They are certain about who God is, what he wants, what will happen to you when you die, etc. I don't have to prove to you the incompatibility of a made up being to anything, that's the beauty of logic.
😀
But I also don't see any compelling evidence (presented in this thread, at least) to negate the idea that an omnipotent being created the cosmos. My point is that it JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE that multiple belief systems are defensible. No, not all these beliefs can be correct, but an incorrect belief can still be rationally held if it has not yet been proven to be incorrect.
To quote the glorious show The Boondocks, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Now, that premise is admittedly debatable, and the absence of evidence for God is my reason for being an atheist. But there are no scientific truths I can allude to in order to advance my position, i.e. invalidate the concept of God. The best atheistic arguments I can muster are all purely philosophical (problem of evil, e.g.).
You also don't see compelling evidence in this thread that negates the presence of a teapot that is flying around the Earth, so what's your point? It just might be the case that this shiny teapot is in geosynchronous orbit as we speak.
I love The Boondocks.
👍
