The Atheist Versus Evolution

Micha Ghertner starts something. So... as I mentioned in the comments, either evolution is working, or not. Arthur B. thinks Dawkin's characterization of religion as a viral infection somehow invalidates my point, but the last time I checked the virus was subject to evolution.

Which means, ultimately, that atheists, whenever they decide they should do something, like attack religion, are refusing to keep their nose out of evolution's business. Sure, evolution is just a mindless process, but it works, right? So either the "viral infection" destroys the human race, thus paving the way for something better, or somehow this virus is beneficial to mankind and may in fact to help us onward, up the evolutionary escalator.

It is sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise. Of course, it was sheer arrogance to come up with all this crap in the first place. Then you go about contradicting the pseudo-morality you came up with in the first place, and are dense enough to assume no-one can see the holes.
Science, university, in fact all the things you claim to hold dear come from religion; more directly, they come from the believers. Sure, some do fall into an ascetic trap, but the arguments through which we will learn to avoid that will come from believers, not from atheists.