Immanuel Can wrote:...
But what precept of Atheism calls for Dawkins to evangelize? Why is an Atheist obligated to care what happens to anyone else, and especially those they regard as enemies? ...
I think you can look to the continuous attacks upon him by the evangelical loons of America since he first published his books 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' for the source of his behaviour.
I think he gives two stuffs about the fervent believers, he's talking to the rest who may have never heard the word. That and that he thinks teaching theist creationism as 'science' the stuff of nonsense.
Actually, I do. You can look back at the various conversations I've had on this forum, and see that many times I've gone over such evidence. ...
Such as?
But you will also see something else, if you track those conversations: that Atheists simply claim that any evidence is not evidence. And ultimately, there is actually nothing you can show to someone that will cause them to believe if they are just bound and determined not to regard any of it. ...
It's simple, show me your 'God' in the same way you can show me the tree in your back garden or your dog and I'll agree that this is very strong evidence that your tree, dog and 'God' exist.
There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)
Then go ahead and show me a 'God' that I can see with mine own eyes.
And I think, in general, Atheism is determined in the heart. It doesn't come from evidence. Even Dawkins himself says he came to his unfaith at the ripe old scientific age of 17. Now, just how well-informed about life, the universe and everything is the average 17-year old?
Old enough to know a fairy-story when they hear one.
If the theist is so convinced of their position and 'evidence' why do they not wait until children are adults before giving such an explanation to them? Allow them to decide for themselves rather than inculcating such a belief before the age of reason?
)
