Charlemagne, do you just read every third word or something?
I assumed you agreed with Dawkins’ opposing intelligent design. Do you or don’t you? But if you’d like to align yourself with a much better thinker, I’m all ears.
As it happens, I do agree. There’s a bit of a leap between this and assuming that I state Dawkins to be,
in his age, a ‘better’ (whatever that means) thinker than, for instance, Einstein. PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. If you can’t debate fairly, then don’t debate. But either way, stop misrepresenting what I say.
Now you’re just being petty because all these great thinkers disagree with you and you think they would agree with you if they were alive today and you could get their ear.
Petty? Why would I need to get petty? I’m just pointing out that these people didn’t JUST say the things you state they did. I’m also pointing out that in many cases, they didn’t have the benefit of scientific advancement that they have today - something that is pretty useful to a scientist, I would suggest. What’s petty about that?
You apparently belong to that rapidly expanding army of misguided souls who think that because a thought was held a hundred or two hundred years ago it cannot possibly still be true … especially if atheists say it is not true because they are deathly frightened by the prospect that it might be.
Not at all, there is much that was scientifically shown 200 years ago that till holds true today. I have no problem with that, although you clearly wish I did as your arguments are based purely on misrepresenting what I say and then attacking that straw man. Still, I haven’t seen you let the truth get in the way of a good snipe, so I don’t expect you to start now, despite my calling for fair play. I suspect the phrase is not in your vocabulary.
The question of improbability is between Chance and Design, not Chance and God.
God, design - there’s no evidence for either! Nor does specifying design instead of God remove the follow-up question - where did the designer come from?
The probability of design is something any atheist should be able to identify when he sees it, unless he is an atheist.
That, in a nutshell, demonstrates your ability to hold a rational thought.
And as to your belief that Einstein did not believe in God, you need to do a whole lot more reading. He did not believe in the Christian God, but he sure did believe in a designer God. You might begin with Max Jammer’s book, Einstein and Religion.
Why would I read what a third party has to say, when I can get it from the horse’s mouth:
*“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” - Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind.*This seems pretty emphatic to me.
Above all, please stop making false statements when you aren’t even read up on the subject. Don’t make up the truth as you go along. For a man to declare that he is not an atheist, you can’t then argue that he is.
You’re one to talk about honesty, I don’t believe I have typed a single sentence which you have not twisted and warped into a position where you feel you can attack it. You’re dishonest, which is the worst attribute one can have in a debate.
I am quoting him again, not to irritate you, but to share with people who just now may be entering the thread. Yet it cannot be said often enough that Einstein could see design in the universe, even if you can’t.
You claim to want to ‘share with people,’ yet you deliberately leave out the quotes of Einstein’s that do not support your view? In the context of your claim (that of sharing and enlightening the public to whom you are clearly playing), your are being dishonest, because not content with consistently misrepresenting me, you are also misrepresenting a man who you seem to have great admiration for. I do not understand your motives, but I strongly suspect that you are on this forum merely in a trolling capacity. For this reason I am not prepared to enter into any further debate with you.
Consider it a victory if that is how you measure your victories.
.