Dude's 81. They'd just accuse him of having Alzheimer's.
"10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
I don't think it's a matter of age tho, as with things related to salvation, humility is one of the biggest factor.
If I were Dawkins, I'd probably have a priest beside my deathbed. Just in case
Never seen any evidence that's true. I've seen so many so-called Christians seem to think just shouting "CHRIST IS KANG" every now and again means they can go around being horrible people all the time. Look at Ethan Ralph. He's really similar to a lot of white trash Christians.
You actually still need to have some semblance of humility to go forth with this decision. To understand that you are not the objective authority of truth in this universe, to accept that you might just be wrong after all those research. It's what converted CS Lewis, it's also explained in "Pascal's Wager".
Old book by Stephen Prothero, a professor of religious studies (I think someone many years ago in this thread mentioned it) had a small section around the "New Atheist" and the poison they fling. It's these academics and their approach that have led to internet atheists reading and adopting this same venomous, dogmatic, poisonous approach. It has trickled down to being mainly the default internet atheist approach.
This is what I always think about whenever I see those "good without God" types. If we're all stardust and we're just a cosmic accident that happened to turn out as sentient creatures, why should we value one configuration of stardust over another? Perhaps there's some sentimental or pragmatic reasons, but who are YOU to tell me what to do and what to value?
But the eggs you eat are unfertilized... fuckin' moron. This would be applicable if the church ostracized women every time they got a period, since that egg was a "person" (which would be extremely retarded).
See that's the problem: pro-abortion zealots are so obsessed with one-upping pro-life movements that they act like menstrual discharge is the same as a 12-week abortion, and you'll see this if you ever look at the shit Freya and Android Raptor spout off in abortion threads. They need to create this slippery slope where restricting at-will abortion at 4 months is comparable to criminalizing periods and miscarriages because otherwise their objections start to sound psychotic.
The line of argumentation they use is so similar to the regular gotchas people use to "debunk" religion in the first place. There are plenty of genuine arguments people can make as a pro-choice advocates. But these people aren't interested in changing anybody's mind. They just want to dunk on le evil pro-lifers. Instead of appealing to the person they're arguing with with real arguments and being able to see things from their perspective it just breaks down to something like "But you eat chicken eggs." Wow, such philosophy.
I absolutely love the Reddit type atheists and their deep knowledge of biology. Everyone knows that periods are TRUE and HONEST people.
Only life can beget life, so where does initial life comes from?
Been a long time since I've looked into it, but the best theory I've seen laid out by Science
was the "Primordial Soup" theory: The idea was that if various lightweight elements that could be generated within a star found its way into early earth's oceans (the aforementioned soup), and enough energy was introduced to the system (like from a lightning strike), it could produce RNA, the basic building block of life. Despite how extremely unlikely it all sounds, the theory states that as long as it's technically possible, given the vastness of the cosmos, it could happen. However, this theory would still require bridging the gap from RNA to single cell organisms, which I don't recall it explaining.
I still question the viability of RNA becoming even single-cell organisms, much less an amoeba becoming more than a single cell, which is probably my biggest objection to the major macroevolution theoriesBeen a long time since I've looked into it, but the best theory I've seen laid out by Science
When an experiment was formed to test this in a laboratory setting, with elements that could theoretically have been there, they were able to produce RNA. However I recall that it also produced carcinogens as a byproduct (which would mutate RNA). So I'm not certain you can call that a success.
