Without God we would have no 9/11, no crusades, no witch burnings.
Without atheism we would have no Stalinist crimes, no canibalism in China in the sixties, no Pol Pot crimes, no Kmer Rouge crimes.
Does this argumentation work ?
The problem of causality is raised here and not dealt with properly.
R. Dawkins and his polemic against God
-
Piltdownbrain
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:54 am
Re: R. Dawkins and his polemic against God
Negative hypotheticals incite positive speculations, which are irrelevent to every possibility. The argumentation is a fail.duszek wrote:Without God we would have no 9/11, no crusades, no witch burnings.
Without atheism we would have no Stalinist crimes, no canibalism in China in the sixties, no Pol Pot crimes, no Kmer Rouge crimes.
Does this argumentation work ?
The problem of causality is raised here and not dealt with properly.
Re: R. Dawkins and his polemic against God
EVERY possibility ?
Perhaps you are right.
But on the other hand we have to speculate all the time, making insufficient predictions about future, and basing them on our experiences in the past, which are perhaps not even interpreted and not grasped accuarately.
Married couples do it all the time. They blame each other: if you had not .... this terrible disaster would not have happened.
Perhaps you are right.
But on the other hand we have to speculate all the time, making insufficient predictions about future, and basing them on our experiences in the past, which are perhaps not even interpreted and not grasped accuarately.
Married couples do it all the time. They blame each other: if you had not .... this terrible disaster would not have happened.