Dude . you are my savior . About to message you on xbox . I have a similar GT to my username . <| sep |> Marijuana testing is a law against black people . Are whites , Hispanics , Asians , etc exempt ? It are you being a bad troll ? <| sep |> I couldn ' t find anything either but I am very interested if anyone does ! <| sep |> Out of curiosity , wouldnt they be better in every circumstance 1 attack ? just because they are faster <| sep |> I mean , we ' re getting a musical crossover regardless . It ' s gonna be between Flash and Supergirl sometime next year . But I really want NPH to be Music Meister as the villain for it too <| sep |> Can you tell me why his arguments need to rely on philosophy ? Is there a problem with him basing his arguments on evolution and biology ? I don ' t understand myself why it would be problematic to take a scientific approach in Dawkin ' s case , evolutionary biology . That ' s not to say I disagree with what you have highlighted , rather I just need a little more understanding why Dawkins approach is wrong . Dawkins ' arguments have to rely on philosophy if he ' s criticizing philosophical arguments which he does in chapter 6 of The God Delusion . There ' s nothing wrong with relying on evolutionary biology if he ' s just covering topics that are related to that field for example , young earth creationism . But the majority of Christians don ' t believe in young earth creationism , so the existence of the Christian God can ' t just be disproved by disproving young earth creationism . Dawkins knows this , which is why he ' s trying to disprove the philosophical arguments for the existence of the Christian God which have nothing to do with young earth creationism as well , and he fails in doing so because he ' s not wellversed enough in philosophy to even properly understand these arguments in the first place , which is evident in the aforementioned chapter in The God Delusion . I ' d invite you to check out my comment on Dawkins ' recent AMA if you ' re interested in a short summary on why Dawkins ' arguments are not sufficient for disproving the existence of God .