So if you want to argue with me about religion there is something that people try to do which is called, in my book, “having it both ways”. This is a problem that Richard Dawkins gets himself into. Richard Dawkins believes, as I do, that evolution is true. But the problem is that religious types know the weakness of the argument and they exploit it. Scientists can’t prove evolution, or at least haven’t yet. So religious types say, “you can’t prove it so you can’t use it”.
But the argument really should be like this:
We both admit that you don’t need proof to believe in things. In which case evolution trumps god because it explains the way the world works far better than religion does
We both admit that we should only use things that we can prove in our argument. In this scenario Evolution doesn’t exist, but neither does God.
Because Dawkins can’t conceive of Option 2, he lets God in by the back door. He attempts to say, “I’m allowed to say things are true that you can’t prove, but you can’t”.
So, yeah. I personally don’t mind what you believe in, but I think evolution sounds more likely than God.