re: #811 Fierce Guppy

Have you actually read any of his books to understand his stance on the issue of morality? Richard Dawkins is far from being a “void” as you put it. As an intelligent species we have a unique opportunity to escape from the cold uncaring nature of selection as a means to better ourselves. Instead of letting disease wipe out millions of humans (knowing that those that do survive were more fit), we instead use our knowledge of biological mechanisms (including evolution) to develop effective vaccinations, which save lives. Even those that are opposed to evolution science seem to have no trouble benefiting from medical advances.

“Like so many atheists on the Left, Richard Dawkins is a philosophical void.”
Your argument is flawed. There are hundreds of atheists that have contributed tremendously to the benefit of mankind in just the last few decades.

“He is aware that philosophy founded upon evolutionary processes is irrational and destructive, but is completely hopeless when it comes to offering an alternative that is founded on human nature and explains and fosters qualities of human nature that theists claim is God given such as benevolence, love, empathy, and compassion. “

Which god are you referring to? The god Allah? Yahweh? Buddha? Vishnu? Thor? Apollo? Zeus?

Not all gods are created equally, all have their merits and flaws. I’d wager to guess that you too are an atheist, but an atheist that makes just ONE exemption. Choosing not to believe in any of the above gods except for one is a logical fallacy, since all of the above have an equal amount of evidence to support their existence, including millions of followers, holy texts, rituals, churches, documented cases of miracles, etc.

You might not like evolution as a fact, but that would not change the existence of the strong evidence in favor of it. In order to combat evolution, you would need to produce strong evidence which contradicts it, and the opportunity to do such is available to all theists.

Aside from saying that she did not believe in evolution, she did not produce any contrary evidence or build a strong case against it’s validity.

That’s because it would be equally difficult to refute evolution as it would to refute a round earth.