I just listened to this refution of Atheism:
Essentially the speaker asks what kind of guidance do informed people get. …
What kind of guidance?
The Christian Fascists of the USA kind or the mad Mullah kind that they call Terrrrrrsts?
Brown necks against red ones?
Protestant ones against Catholic ones?
Christian ones against Muslim ones? Muslim against Hindu? Hindu against Seikh?
Or did the Arab and the Caucasian religions ever get together and victimise Animists and Pagans?
What kind of guidance do slaves get?
How many people have ever bothered to find out what their founding father's religious observations were originally based on? You would never recognise the teachings of Jesus from anything spoken in a Christian church service. Maybe a few quotes but the congregations all come out eager for war when it is foist on them.
Can you imagine Jesus being present for that?
I dare say the same is true about the original teachings of The Prophet and about Buddha and the rest of them. Not that atheism is anything at all different. The tenets of evolution are such that it would put any of its practitioners in gaol in any enlightened country in any enlightened era.
The prospect of the strong taking from the weak as a natural order may be what happens under every religion ever known. It is a totally different concept to that of MAKING it the national religion.
And the idea that any of the material universe could be fit together so perfectly exactly and all the more perfectly the closer you examine any system in it, being an ACCIDENT is illogical and irresponsible. (And actually quite funny, in a very sad way.)