# Darwin and Militant Atheism on CNN today.



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 24, 2009)

This is on CNN today.

Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com


----------



## Dragoon (Nov 24, 2009)

Well at lest they have links on the page to people that do not see eye to eye with Dawkins.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2009)

The whole "unanimous professional consensus on evolution and only non-professionals disagree with it" argument really gets to me. Dawkins is defining professional vs non-professional on which side of the fence one falls.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 24, 2009)

Yeah, it has shady adgenda written all over it. CNN is really getting pretty liberal. Fox News in my opinion isn't too far behind it either, really, the entertainment portion of Fox News is usually downright pornographic these days.

At the end of the day there is some sin that people love more than righteousness that makes them want to kill their natural sense of God in their minds. When they get into positions of power of proclaimation like we see with these writers at CNN they can try to sway everyone else to question the fundamentals of reality so their sin can then be seen as normal in a relativistically insane world.



-----Added 11/24/2009 at 10:37:30 EST-----

Here are some interesting resources about evolution.

Atheists and Evolutionists hate this book because of what it says:

Amazon.com: Evolution a Fairy Tale for Grownups (9780882705859): Ray Comfort: Books

Here is the web-site for the book:

Evolution, a Fairytale for Grownups!


It's called: Evolution. A Fairy Tale for Grown Ups.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 24, 2009)

love the title


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 24, 2009)

The author of the book and the author of the web site are not a calvinists at all. But they do present some good biblical arguments for creation as opposed to evolution.

Ray Comfort (author of the book) hasn't said he is a Calvinist, but some suspect he is leaning that way. The Author of the web site Fred Williams is explicitly not a calvinist.


----------



## Zenas (Nov 24, 2009)

That's a clever argument. If you understand it, then you agree with it. If you don't understand it, you disagree with it. As a conclusion, all who disagree with evolution don't understand it, and can't be trusted. He argues from presupposed conclusions and not premises. I maintain that Dawkins is the least able of the New Atheists to deal with argument and reality. He's so sold out on atheism and Darwinism that he treats it all as a foregone conclusion. Anyone else who fails to do so is just stupid. The man may be the most arrogant man on the face of the Earth.

Richard Dawkins will die like everyone else and be forgotten. Christ, however, lives. The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 24, 2009)

Dragoon, you kinda look like Darwin


----------



## T.A.G. (Nov 24, 2009)

Dawkins says that the only decent argument of I.D. is the chances on probability. Then he states that this is flawed because if we were created then the one who created us must be more complex. What he does not realize is that God is not man. He would not have genes, DNA, etc. 
Dawkins needs to stop trying to be "logical" for his worldview can not account for that, he needs to stop stealing from my worldview which can. Not to mention he is stating a lot of so called "facts" in which his random universe worldview can not account for.

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 11:16:35 EST-----



Chaplainintraining said:


> The whole "unanimous professional consensus on evolution and only non-professionals disagree with it" argument really gets to me. Dawkins is defining professional vs non-professional on which side of the fence one falls.



Yeah thats getting to me, basically "hey most smart people do not believe in God" therefore if you are smart you wont believe in God..
hence proof that God does not exist


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 24, 2009)

I like what Alvin Plantiga said about Richard Dawkins. He said that he would say his arguments are sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores. Dawkins may be very good at finding the origins of certain life forms [no one denies that minor changes to certain life forms happen], but he takes that, and runs with it to the point of backing himself into philosophical corners that he cannot escape. Plantiga used Taylor's version of the Teleological argument in his review of Dawkins, and, to this day, I have not seen Dawkins' response to Plantiga. I think that Taylor has put his finger on something that will forever be a problem for Darwinian evolutionary naturalism.

God Bless,
Adam


----------

