Right, reliable, rational data. Data that cannot possibly account for actual human emotion. Just because he throws out “neuroscience” your panties get all wet believing he’s truly on to something. It is so naive to believe this would have a different outcome than religion. He still wants to tell people how to live. However rational it may be, not everyone wants to change. So does it become dictated that we should do the right thing? Where have we heard that before? Oh right religion. That worked out so great. Replace religion with science and it’s the same result. Until we can account for the 90% of gray matter that scientist need just to back up their “how did we get here” claims, you and all atheists are still just living by faith. A great number of brilliant scientists, the ones that study biology at the cellular and molecular level seem to reach a point where they can no longer believe that it was chance. The odds just don’t support the data. Dawkins has said the same but would rather give the intelligent design credit to aliens than a god. Well that’s fine but it’s the same damn thing. Sucks doesn’t it.
Wow. This is quite a lovely collection of logical fallacies you’ve collected here.
Listen, I know it seem like fun to challenge the anonymous coked up party girl to a battle of wits when she mentions that she likes Sam Harris, but you’re only gonna come off looking like an idiot.
For instance, I’ve taken the liberty of linking each one of your ridiculous sentences to its respective logical fallacy in the hopes that you will learn something next time you try and mount a cogent argument against someone who isn’t still fascinated by bubbles.
Honestly, I blame myself for this. When asked about the last book I read, I should have just giggled and said the September issue of Vogue.