Is it your belief that anyone who gets on his knees and cries out to God will be answered by the Christian God? Are Jews and Muslims not sincere?

If any anti-theists are actually concerned with trying to improve social justice—and all humans should be, they present themselves only as hate-filled propagandists claiming that “religion” only produces evil and should be eradicated—apparently by angry mobs of anti-theists who have nothing to offer but arrogance, theological ignorance, and no reason to reason.

pic.twitter.com/BKJG6j9NyH

http://www.xrayzrrevelations.com/what-s-happening/a-theological-response/

Dawkins' own site today features a study which suggests that as many as 100 million planets in our galaxy could harbour multicellular life. If there are 500 billion galaxies then you're looking at 10>19 planets in the cosmos that can support multicellular life. And that's not mentioning the billions of trillions more which can currently only support unicellular microbial life, but may in the aeons to come be capable of harbouring multicellular organisms. After all, the overwhelming bulk of the history of our own planet was one of single-celled organisms.

With the rapidly growing likelihood of complex life at present and in the aeons to come across the cosmos, the evidence is pointing to a universe designed for the widespread creation of life and its gradual evolution towards complexity and sentience.

Stacy wants anything that supports her belief that science is dependent upon Catholicism. Anything, no matter how poorly written or researched, that supports this unfounded belief, will automatically get an enthusiastic response.

Contrast securing a bicycle with a lock of two dials of three positions each with two one-dial locks of three positions each. Following Dawkins we would claim that the transition from the two-dial lock to the set of one-dial locks, broke up the improbability of 8/9 into two smaller pieces of improbability of 2/3 each. Further, we would claim that replacing the nine different mutations defined by the two-dial lock with the six different mutations defined by the set of one-dial locks, increased the probability of unlocking a bicycle from 1/9 to 1/6, when in fact the probability is 100% for both cases (See references in my prior comment). Upon correct analysis there is no change in probability, but simply a decrease in the number of different non-random mutations. This efficiency in mutation would obtain also for random mutations chosen using random numbers generators to the base 3. If he were spurred to do the re-analysis by his love of analysis, Dawkins might also reconsider his argument that there is no solution to the ‘improbability’ of God in contrast to his bicycle-lock ‘solution’ to the ‘improbability’ of Darwinian evolution in a one-off event.

Why? He has written a poorly researched piece that on any other site we might call click-bait.

Can't one be analytically but also nostalgic about certain things? I think you're creating some straw-man version of Dawkins where, if he is an analytical thinker, is then someone unable to enjoy the religious culture of his youth. I mean, I think of myself as pretty analytical, but I still LOVE Christmas.