Definitions (Evolution)

by Peter P, Monday, March 31, 2008, 13:19 (5862 days ago) @ dhw

I'm puzzled. I really am. DHW raises an important issue about how atheists like Dawkins manpulate terms to suit their purposes. So of course do some theists. George pretends that dhw asked him for definitions (I've read the article under Quotation from Darwin, and I challenge anyone to find the request) and proceeds to manipulate terms just as dhw describes. And what puzzles me is WHY? Here's the situation as I interpret it. Theists believe there is a god of some kind. Atheists believe there isn't a god of any kind. Forget about all this unbelief, nonbelief, disbelief, ibulief carping. If you believe there's no god of any kind, you believe that life came about by chance. Theres no scientfic evidence that there is a god, so theists have to have faith in him or her or it. There's no scientific evidence that life came about by chance, so atheists have to have faith in chance. What's the problem? Why are atheists ... some atheists, not all ... so ashamed of admitting it? That's why I'm puzzled. Why must they go to such lengths as Dawkins and now George to pretend they're scientifically objective when its painfully obvious that they're not? I'd really appreciate an answer from any atheists out there ... thoughpreferably not an answer telling me that I've asked for something I haven't asked for.