More Evolutionist Witlessness -- Imaginative Guesses Ordained As Science

Dawkins, like other evolutoinist thinkers, seems quite content to explain whatever he wants to explain in evolutionitic terms by whatever he able to dream up off the top of his head. So believe in God or gods becomes people's need to explain scary nature and somehow gods does the trick for them. That is enough to make Dawkins satisfied that he's arrived at something scientific it seems. No need to inquire whether that is in fact how the human mind works at all, which I strongly doubt. All he knows is that people believed in gods and it doesn't bother him to impos3e his own wild imaginings on them and call it science. That's all evolution is anyway, wild daydreams callsed fact. So whatever they want to explain they just imagine themselves into the situation and don't seem to think twoice about the inadeuqacy of their own modern minds to imagine themselves into another completely different cultural situationb or even into an animal's situation. Since there is no way to test their imaginary scenarios they get treated as scientific fact.

Even in Ebven in imagining our own time we get it wrong all the time, but imagining themselves into wholly different contexts is all it takes to make a fact out of a mental exercise? I think of something Jordan Peterson has talked about, how we would naturally expect that in the more liberal cultural and governmental systems where women's equality is strongly supported, that women would become more like men in their job preferences, but when this has been studied it turns out that no, women oddly enough don't fit the expectations, tin fact they grravitate MORE to traditional female roles even in jobpreferences, such as nursing over engineering and that sort of thing. Liberal expectations turn out to be wrong. So how is it imagining situations in the ancient past is just about ordained as Fact when there is no way to study it as this current situation is studied? Modern man's arrogance toward the peoples of ancient times.

Ande it most certainly is not Science. But then Evolution istself is not science, being founded on exactly the same sort of mental operations. Dream it up, call it fact. That's all there is to it.

Dawkins ignorantly attributes the ending of slavery in the west and the improvement of women's rights, to rationalistic thinking, though in fact both were brought aboutg my Christians. Certainly slavery was as the abolitionists in America and Wilberforce in particular in England were acting from their Christian principles. Dawkins thinks it's a matter of finding a verse here and there that can be used against slavery while there are others that suppo0rt slavery in the Bible, but the Christians who ended it rad the Bible as tending against slavery in its e3ntirety. As for women's rights, Jesus is known for his acceptance of women in a way none of th4e Jews of His day were, and that is the basis for mmost of the western equality movovements. The Bible accommodated the universal practice of slavery while ven in ancient Israel liberalizing laws for dealing with slaves and setting dates for them to be freed. You don't just forbid a universal practice that is a major part of the economy, that is a modern impositionj on the text. God is much wiser than that, He deals with people according to our weaknesses, and even in the New Testament Paul has to approach a slaveowner with careful appeals to his Christian belief to request theat he consider rfreeding a slave of his who is also a Christian. As for women's rights, it should be remembered that in the biblical context we learn that women were subjugated to men because of Eve's disobedience of God in e3atin gof the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Ever since the Fall women have been subje8ugated to men and you can see that in every culture up until very recently and certainly see it in Muslim countries still. It was the influence of Christ that brought women into the modern world with rights, Christ who pay id penalty for original sin and began the process of freeing us from the effects of the Fall.

More Atheist Evolutionist Witlessness

How do these guys get away with it, KI mean the atheists, Dawkins and the rest of them. Mostly they are misrepresenting the opposition but the opposition does nothing to answer them, at least not anywhere near sufficiently. I've heard some really senseless answers to Dawkins from people who talk about their religious feelings, their sense of the presents of God and so on, but you'd think they'd know that isn't going to fly. Dawkins is wrog when he answers back that members of other religious have the esame experiences, but the audience doesn't know that. Some young guy reporting on the Ham0Nye debate was super impressed by Nye's sceincey talk. He doesn't discuss the points Nye made, he's just impressed that he was talking science, or really sciency talk. So part of the problem with this area of disc ussion is that people really just don't know much. ,br>
Dawkins is always sying that faith is without evidence and of course I want to answer for Christianity but a big problem is that Dawkins lumps together all the "abrahamic" religions which is already ab gig bogus concept, and then includes all the other religions of the world. Answering for Christianity I'd say that the Bible is tons and tons of evidence. that is what it was written for, to be evidence, evidence of the existence of the Craetor God, of the nature and charater of the Creatioor God, of His plan of redemption. It explains all the issues and events Dawkins and others complain about but they don't take any of it seriously so how can that be dealt with? If they start out dismissing it all as ancient fables with no reality, then go on to assault it from a modern moralistic perspective, not even known ting that their own morality derives from Christianity, it is hard to know where to start to answer them.

Dawkins thinks the doctrine of Original Sin is morally represhenisible somehow. When I first encountered good biblical discussions of it I wI loved it, to me it explains why the world is in the bad shape it's in, why there is murder, war, criminal behavior of all kinds,. How does evolution explain that? Dawkins and Hitchens when he was alive both attack the atonement of Christ for sin as if that too were a horrific moral offense. Good grief I wouldn't have thought it possible. Jesus died in our place because the penalty for sin is death. If we die for our sins we got to hell, but the sinless Son of God can die for us and save us al.