Atheists, the oxymoron belief... Page updated: Sunday, February 08, 2009
The last part of this section of Evolution is a Religion. We will investigate the actual atheist belief. But first let's look at what it means.
Atheist: someone who denies the existence of God. Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.
What I find often funny about this world view claim is: If I did not believe there was a God, I would not spend 2 seconds of my time, or 2 cents of my money fighting what I claim does not exist.
So how many atheist do you know that spend tons of time and money fighting what they claim does not exist? So what does this really show?
1) Atheists don't have enough faith in the non-existence of God to not bother with trying to disprove God.
2) They have to justify what they believe on a daily bases by their actions of always finding a Christian to argue with.
3) They form groups to fight what they claim does not exist.
4) They will even read the Bible about God to find more ways to fight what they say does not exist.
So basically the Christians are called stupid for believing in God. When the atheist, who deem themselves smarter, spend just as much time fighting an invisible being. Who looks more stupid? Because the fight itself actually proves that God exists, or the atheist would have to admit they are morons for fighting what does not exist. So which is it?
The same goes for the theory of evolution. Atheists use it to prove that God does not exist, so they actually would have to admit God does exist, or admit that they are using the scientific theory to fight what does not exist. Which makes them look stupid. How? Would you use evolution theory to prove that UFOs don't exist? Then why would you use it to prove that God does not exist unless it is a religion?
Here are some examples of how evolution is used to try and disprove God:
Now what you need to notice is that Dawkins does not use anything scientific to debunk creation. That is because you cannot scientifically debunk a religion. But instead he tries to "descredit" it. Always remember, there is a big difference between debunking and discredited something. One is scientific, the other is not.
I find it ironic that while trying to unscientifically "discredit" creation and the Creator. Dawkins omits the history of evolution: Shame of evolution.
But let's apply what evolution teaches us in the next video:
How ironic is that?
If you would like to comment or debate the subject discussed here, you can go to this forum where the discussion is already taking place: Evolution Fairytale forum.
