Many people use the 'logic' of progression of origin to justify their belief in Richard Dawkins, but a cursory examination of this argument will reveal that the existence of Dawkins is entirely unnecessary to explain anything at all. The argument goes that since there exist a series of books, we can reasonably assume they were composed by a greater intelligence. But this is a thoroughly unsatisfying and ultimately futile argument to make, and in fact it does more to damage the Dawkins hypothesis than to justify it, for we must then go on to ask the question that if Dawkins made the books, who made Dawkins? We become trapped in a puzzle of infinite progression from which there is no logical escape.
Just because books appear to be designed, it doesn't follow logically that they have been, because the complexity of the supposed designer, Dawkins, must be much greater than that of the book that he composed. The laws of natural selection show us that anything complex comes about through a slow, tedious progression of evolution over many years from much simpler origins. We could believe that Richard Dawkins composed these books, but it's much more probable scientifically to presume that the books evolved from a bunch of smaller, less eloquent writings over a period of centuries.
Natural selection provides an entirely more credible hypothesis than that of the Dawkins delusion – that dozens of other books of a similar subject matter, Voltaires, Darwins and Russells, after centuries of being mishandled in library warehouses, eventually got mixed up and pasted back together into the configuration we now attribute to Richard Dawkins. This hypothesis raises much fewer questions than are demanded by the invocation of an entirely new entity in Richard Dawkins, who supposedly blinked these books into existence from nothing. I am continually astonished by those Dawkinsists who stubbournly assert that this evolution of ideas may be "Dawkins' way of achieving his creation" – that Dawkins actually took ideas from these other books and refined them into a series of books of his own. They note that research and study, quotations and references, would be a very neat and easy way for Dawkins to create a book about a scientific principle. The ideas are all there already – why, Dawkins would barely have to do anything at all! In fact, with today's technology, computers and wordprocessing and Google search, books can just about write themselves! From this we can postulate a lazy Dawkins, superfluous, unoccupied, useless, whose expended effort can be reduced to the point where he doesn't actually need to do anything at all: he might as well not bother to exist. Though it seems absurd that a book so eloquent as those we attribute to Dawkins could have come about through a random shuffling of papers, one needs only to cite the anthropic principle – basically, no matter how unlikely the probability that the book could exist, it does exist, and therefore conditions must be right for it to have come into existence. Certainly it is infinitely more probable that the outcome of such a random shuffling would create an incomprehensible pile of garbled schizophrenic nonsense, like a Michael Moore documentary. But if that had happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since we are, we can only conclude that by whatever twist of fate, the pages came together in precisely the right order as to create the illusion that they were composed by an author. This principle removes the necessity of a creating force from the equation, through the simple observation that things are the way they are because they are, and if they weren't, then they wouldn't be.
Look at all the sheep, sharing a joke with their imaginary friend. Baa! Baaaa!
For the god usually referred to in such proclamations to exist would place a limit on its infinitude. Thus, statements "God does not exist" and "God does exist" are equally vacuous propositions the truth of which is not worth determining.
Because accusations levied at both sides that one hasn't read the constitution whenever discussions of gun control arise are slowly giving me heart disease, let's just talk about this openly.
The Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here are two opposing views on that text:
"'Atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aleins have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle."
Remember: there's already a term that describes those who believe that knowledge of a god or gods is impossible, and it's "agnostic."
The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and sometimes referred to as the series comma) is the comma used immediately before a coordinating conjunction (usually and or or, and sometimes nor) preceding the final item in a list of three or more items. For example, a list of three countries can be punctuated as either "Portugal, Spain, and France" (with the serial comma) or as "Portugal, Spain and France" (without the serial comma).
Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English, the serial comma is standard usage in non-journalistic writing that follows the Chicago Manual of Style. Journalists, however, usually follow the AP Stylebook, which advises against it. It is used less often in British English, where it is standard usage to leave it out, with some notable exceptions such as Fowler's Modern English Usage. In many languages (e.g., French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish) the serial comma is not the norm and may even go against punctuation rules. It may be recommended in many cases, however, to avoid ambiguity or to aid prosody.