Life, As Outlined By The Bishop Of Atheism

[Khandro]

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins.

[douglas9401]

Seems fair enough.

[ToraToraTora]

alleluia!

[drmorgans]

Would the world seem better if there was the possibility of life beyond death and some reason for being?

[Zacs-Master]

We are all made of stars.

[drmorgans]

Wish I'd seen Moby.

[Zacs-Master]

Dick, or the band?

[douglas9401]

Either way, a whale of a time.

[drmorgans]

The musician, I reckon the whale is long gone.

[Khandro]

Having failed in biology, he now turns to metaphysics!

It there is no evil & no good, he obviously hasn't been following the war in Ukraine.

[Radagast]

How has he failed in biology?

[Khandro]

Radagast, //How has he failed in biology?//

Despite the fact that there is near universal agreement that life did not first come about merely by chance, Dawkins believes it was quote, "a happy accident", that somehow a few chemicals managed to amalgamate in the sunlight & form a self-replicating molecule from which all life on earth sprang.

Perhaps you believe him?

[naomi24]

What’s your counter-argument, khandro?

[Atheist]

Khandro, you really should read some of Dawkins's books.

Do you think that the beautiful shape and patterns of a snowflake are the result of a designer, or the simple playing-out of physical forces?

Is the familiar bell-curve, which appears so much in statistical stuff, made by a designer who has a taste for symmetry?

Is the sudden death of a child due to chance events or illness the result of a designer, or is it just an accident?

[Atheist]

Khandro. Do you know the broad view of natural selection leading to gradual changes to populations? If you understand how that stuff is supposed to work, do you accept it as a realistic theorem? If not, can you explain why it doesn't work?

[Radagast]

The origin of life on this planet is currently unsolved. Atoms and molecules obey the laws of physics and chemistry. This is not chance and I reckon Dawkins would agree.

There's evidence of life going back 3.8 billion years. The Earth is thought to be 4.5 billion years old. If life is a rare occurrence, say something that happens once in a million years, give it 700 million years and it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.

[Atheist]

Khandro; tiny fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures and pressures and air movements can lead to hurricanes and tornadoes which grow from small natural forces to become big events with impressive forms and consequences. They don't need a designer.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // Despite the fact that there is near universal agreement that life did not first come about merely by chance ... //

Do you have any evidence to back up that sweeping, and manifestly incorrect, observation?

[Khandro]

Atheist /Do you know the broad view of natural selection leading to gradual changes to populations?/

Of course I do, evolution isn't in question, it's the origin of life itself that is. What's your answer?

Andy Hughes, Putting your question on its head, can you name some reputable scientists who believe as you appear to, that life is a product of accident?

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // Andy Hughes, Putting your question on its head, can you name some reputable scientists who believe as you appear to, that life is a product of accident? //

As usual, it's you holding forth, so the responsibility to back up your sweeping and inaccurate platitudes is yours, not mine.

[Khandro]

Nice try Andy, wiggle, wiggle.