Good Day to All,I apologize for not having posted or commented in a very long time, but I have been working on a rather large project that has been occupying the majority of my personal time (see below). I also apologize that this comment is off topic to the specific subject under discussion, but as it is related to the blog as a whole, I thought it generally appropriate to post. In celebration of the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species as well as the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin himself—and just in time for Darwin Day—I would like to invite all readers of this excellent blog to read The Evolutionary Wager: How the Ideas of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and Evolution Itself Negate Atheism and Point to Christianity at www.theevolutionarywager.blogspot.com.Any comments, reviews or e-mails are greatly appreciated.Thank you.RD Miksa
If you have written 30,000 words already, would it kill you to write a 200-word abstract?
brevitiy fellas, RDM AND Mariano.
Hmmm... I skimmed "The Evolutionary Wager" and it seems to be a version of Pascal's Wager, with a little bit of twisted Selfish Gene thrown in: "be a Christian, because our Heaven is unbeatable, our Hell really bad, and you'll be happier and get more of your genes into the next generation to boot! (theists have higher birth rates than atheists)"I'll wait for the abstract, too, but I won't hold my breath. "Getting more of your genes into the next generation" is an imperative of genes themselves,and not necessarily an imperative of enlightened human beings (what else is birth control for?).Having more and more kids is perhaps the single biggest problem for developing a sustainable Earth: there are simply too many people, and this problem exacerbates all the other problems we have: war, dwindling resources, pollution, global warming...Not to mention the fact that we're trying to get at the truth here, not just voting on what we would like to have in the way of an afterlife.
Thanks for the synopsis, zilch. I read the first few paragraphs, and spotted a couple of misrepresentations of Dawkins and what evolutionary psychology says about morality. At that I figured, what's in it for me, to go to all the trouble of finding all the flaws in what appears to be an extremely long-winded piece of standard Christian apologia?
As is with children, so too with atheists: They don't want to read.
Anything to add besides brainless ad-homs, kh123? I guess the fact that atheists don't like to read explains the fact that a lot of the scientists who write all those scientific journals, books, etc also happen to be atheists?I guess that also explains why athiests themselves write, and read books about religion?
Let me rephrase that statement: As is with the criminally insane, sociopaths, politicians, and spoiled children... so too with internet atheists: They refuse to learn.There, that's better. Thanks for the suggestion.
science is a natural knowledge ,it is not a machine or super-natural entity that can explains all the answers quickly.it has the limitations as it is a knowledge gained by humans.can you explain all the mysteries of earth and universe? then explain me ! ask god,read your holy book or ask your father.humans can explain the things that he has gained till now.science is learning,its no full stop.several new discoveries will be made in the future.you can't blame science ,for the past.stay in the present.atheists are free thinkers,they are explorer not followers.
You have failed to interact with the post and so I have nothing more to say except that atheists are no free thinkers since they restrict their thoughts to what people tell them about reality, they stare into a little materialistic corner of the universe and pretend that there is nothing more.aDios,Mariano