Atheist. Biologist. Writer. Thinker. Richard Dawkins has developed an international reputation of spreading the word that evolution happened and that there is no "intelligent design" or higher being, as you might gather from the title of his book "The God Delusion."
But no matter what you think about his convictions, his ideas have gone viral - including the word "meme."
CNN caught up with Dawkins while he was passing through Atlanta earlier this year. His next U.S. tour is in October.
Here is an edited transcript of part of the conversation. Watch the video above for a more focused look at Dawkins' ideas about evolution vs. intelligent design.
Today, a lot of people think a "meme" is a LOLcat or a photo that's gone viral. How do you feel about that?
In the last chapter of "The Selfish Gene," I coined the word "meme" as a sort of analog of "gene." My purpose of this was to say that although I'd just written a whole book about how the gene is the unit of natural selection, and that evolution is changes in gene frequencies, the Darwinian process is potentially wider than that.
You could go to other planets in the universe and find life, and if you do find life, then it will have evolved by some kind of evolutionary process, probably Darwinian. And therefore there must be something equivalent to a gene, although it may be very, very different from the DNA genes that we know.
I wanted to drive that point home. And rather than speculate about life on other planets, I thought maybe we could look at life on this planet and find an analog of the gene staring us in the face right here. And that was the meme. It's a unit of cultural inheritance, the idea that an idea might propagate itself in a similar way to a gene propagating itself. It might be like catchy tune, or a clothes fashion. A verbal convention, a word that becomes fashionable, like "awesome," which no longer means what it should mean.
That would be an example of something that spread like an epidemic. And the word "basically," which is now used just to mean "uhh." That's another one that's spread throughout the English speaking world.
These are potentially analogous to genes in the sense that they spread and are copied from brain to brain throughout the world, or throughout a particular subset of people. The interesting question would be whether there's a Darwinian process, a kind of selection process whereby some memes are more likely to spread than others, because people like them, because they're popular, because they're catchy or whatever it might be.
My original purpose was to say: It's not necessarily all about genes. But the word has taken off.
There are people who use meme theory as a serious contribution to the theory of human culture and I’m glad to say that the idea of things going viral has also gone viral.
How do you think evolution should be taught to children?
You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.
I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I'd start at the age of about 7 or 8.
There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.
Why do people cling to these beliefs of creationism and intelligent design?
There are many very educated people who are religious but they’re not creationists. There’s a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.
If we wonder why there are still serious people including some scientists who are religious, that’s a complicated psychological question. They certainly won’t believe that God created all species, or something like that. They might believe there is some sort of intelligent spirit that lies behind the universe as a whole and perhaps designed the laws of physics and everything else took off from there.
But there's a huge difference between believing that and believing that this God created all species. And also, by the way, in believing that Jesus is your lord and savior who died for your sins. That you may believe, but that doesn't follow from the scientific or perhaps pseudoscientific that there's some kind of intelligence that underlies the laws of physics.
What you cannot really logically do is to say, well I believe that there's some kind of intelligence, some kind of divine physicist who designed the laws of physics, therefore Jesus is my lord and savior who died for my sins. That's an impermissible illogicality that unfortunately many people resort to.
Why do you enjoy speaking in the Bible Belt?
I’ve been lots of places, all of which claim to be the buckle of the Bible Belt. They can’t all be, I suppose. I enjoy doing that. I get very big audiences, very enthusiastic audiences. It’s not difficult to see why.
These people are beleaguered, they feel threatened, they feel surrounded by a sort of alien culture of the highly religious, and so when somebody like me comes to town…they turn out in very large numbers, and they give us a very enthusiastic welcome, and they thank us profusely and very movingly for coming and giving them a reason to turn out and see each other.
They stand up together and notice how numerous they actually are. I think it may be a bit of a myth that America is quite such a religious country as it’s portrayed as, and particularly that the Bible Belt isn’t quite so insanely religious as it’s portrayed as.
In situations such as the death of a loved one, people often turn to faith. What do you turn to?
Bereavement is terrible, of course. And when somebody you love dies, it’s a time for reflection, a time for memory, a time for regret. I absolutely don’t ever, under such circumstances, feel tempted to take up religion. Of course not. But I attend memorial services, I’ve organized memorial events or memorial services, I’ve spoken eulogies, I’ve taken a lot of trouble to put together a program of poetry, of music, of eulogies, of memories, to try to celebrate the life of the dead person.
What’s going to happen when you die?
What’s going to happen when I die? I may be buried, or I may be cremated, I may give my body to science. I haven’t decided yet.
It just ends?
Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that.
If there were a God that met you after death, what would you say?
If I met God, in the unlikely event, after I died? The first thing I would say is, well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which God are you, and why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?
Where did morality come from? Evolution?
We have very big and complicated brains, and all sorts of things come from those brains, which are loosely and indirectly associated with our biological past. And morality is among them, together with things like philosophy and music and mathematics. Morality, I think, does have roots in our evolutionary past. There are good reasons, Darwinian reasons, why we are good to, altruistic towards, cooperative with, moral in our behavior toward our fellow species members, and indeed toward other species as well, perhaps.
There are evolutionary roots to morality, but they’ve been refined and perfected through thousands of years of human culture. I certainly do not think that we ought to get our morals from religion because if we do that, then we either get them through Scripture – people who think you should get your morals from the Old Testament haven’t read the Old Testament – so we shouldn’t get our morals from there.
Nor should we get our morals from a kind of fear that if we don’t please God he’ll punish us, or a kind of desire to apple polish (to suck up to) a God. There are much more noble reasons for being moral than constantly looking over your shoulder to see whether God approves of what you do.
Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.
It’s to do with a very complicated more zeitgeist. Steven Pinker’s latest book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” traces this improvement over long centuries of history. He makes an extremely persuasive case for the fact that we are getting more moral, we are getting better as time goes on, and religion perhaps has a part to play in that, but it’s by no means an important part.
I don’t think there’s a simple source of morality to which we turn.
What might come after humans in evolution?
Nobody knows. It’s an unwise, a rash biologist who ever forecasts what’s going to happen next. Most species go extinct. The first question we should ask is: Is there any reason to think we will be exceptional?
I think there is a reason to think we possibly might be exceptional because we do have a uniquely develop technology which might enable us to not go extinct. So if ever there was a species that one might make a tentative forecast that it’s not going to go extinct, it might be ours.
Others have come to the opposite conclusion: That we might drive ourselves extinct by some horrible catastrophe involving human weapons. But assuming that doesn’t happen, maybe we will go for hundreds of thousands, even million years.
Will they evolve? Will they change? In order for that to happen, it’s necessary that a reproductive advantage should apply to certain genetic types rather than other genetic types. If you look back 3 million years, one of the most dramatic changes has been in the increase in brain size. Our probable ancestor 3 million years ago of the genus Australopithecus walked on its hind legs but had a brain about the size of a chimpanzee’s.
Will that trend continue? Only if the bigger brained individuals are the most likely to have children. Is there any tendency if you look around the world today to say that the brainiest individuals are the ones most likely to reproduce? I don’t think so. Is there any reason to think that might happen in the future? Not obviously. You can’t just look back 3 million years and extrapolate into the future. You have to ask the question: What kinds of genetically distinct individuals are most likely to reproduce during the next hundreds of thousands of years? It’s extremely difficult to forecast that.
What are you working on next?
I’m thinking of working on another book and it might be some sort of autobiography, but it’s very much in the planning stage.
Over 2000 years ago, a guy named Siddharta Guatama, aka, The Buddha, explained the universe exactly as it is: "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form." It wasn't a parable, lesson, metaphor, or mystery. What he meant was that the universe and everything in it is the Absolute, Awareness, Consciousness (call it God if you like) in form. The Absolute is timeless and eternal, but the form is constantly changing in an eternal, timeless Now. The Absolute is the ocean and we are the waves, under the illusion we are separate beings in a universe of separate objects.
Using terms like "what it meant" eliminates a serious challenge to Dawkins' ideas. All religious zealots use the same trick.
No, We have seen the age where science was allowed to run almost unchecked and it brought about a term which the mere thinking of sends chills up my spine, Mutually assured destruction....before we allowed science to do so we did war with one another, but more people have died due to scientific advances in the ways to kill one another in world war 2 alone than died in any number of wars previously. Over half a billion people....
Since the start of the 20th century science has made us more comfortable, but at the cost of the biodiversity of the earth and our own health. Our grandparent's generation lived off the land and didn't ingest chemicals and preservatives like we do now, and they have and will live longer than mine will.
All science has really done is consolidate power into the hands of the wealthy and made us less independent as people. Our creation of vaccines (a slap in the face of "Evolution" which used them to do away with the weak) has created even stronger diseases by mutating super strains of bacteria and viruses. You see, human nature does not seem to fit in terms of the evolutionary model which scientists like Mr. Dawkins propose. His disregard for the facts when comparing things done in the name of religion and things done in the name of scientific advancement...shows a clear bias and not scientific neutrality.
but he is the messiah of the athiest. the last word as it were...I'm not buying it.
archyle – what is the point of your comment?
are you suggesting we should intentionally retard scientific advancement?
do you somehow believe that a greater understanding of our world is actually the root of our problems?
Wow...just wow. First of all, you need to get your numbers right; the total number of deaths in WWII wasn't even CLOSE to half a billion, not even within the same order of magnitude. The only thing that killed that level of the world's population was the Black Death, and oh, by the way, SCIENCE is the only thing that could prevent a similar disease outbreak recurring. Your grandparents may have "lived in harmony with the earth", but they also had a quarter of their children die in childbirth, from random colds, or from infections from minor injuries. I'll take the science that has all but eliminated that, thank you very much.
Life expectancy is longer now that ever before thanks to science.
Religious devotion clearly does not make one less likely to use great extremes of violence and destruction.
All of the people fomenting those horrible plans, with all those scientific weapons?
Most of them were religious. People of faith.
Dwight Eisenhower, who originated the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction? Devout Presbyterian.
Douglas MacArthur, who wanted to nuke North Korea and China? Devout Baptist.
Let us not leave out all the devout believers all over this world at this very moment who lament the fact that they do NOT have weapons of mass destruction to smite the unfaithful with.
No, religion does not make one less likely to slaughter people. In fact the point could be made that it may very well make one MORE likely.
Judas, Sorry being religious doesn't make one more likely to want to kill. Being human makes us want to kill. Go ahead and blame whatever enables you to sleep at night. But eradication of religion whether you are worshiping a god or whether you worship science or something else won't help. The more radically and fundamentally you embrace something the more likely you will kill those who don't think like you. I see the whole Democrat/Republican thing as a clear powder keg. We no longer contain any boundaries on our intolerance once moral fiber however you derive it gets pulled from the picture.
Science is not bringing about the destruction of the Earth as you are envisioning it. MAN is. Science is nothing more than a tool. Man can use it for good or for evil, but you must blame the man, not the tool, for the world's problems. Science by itself cannot make up for the arrogance of greedy, power-mad men, who would STILL be greedy, power-mad men if we were at a 1800's level of technology.
Without science, we wouldn't even have the tools or knowledge to "live off the land" as our "grandparent's generation" (or even great-great-grandparent's) did. Even something as simple as a garden hoe had to be invented, then perfected through the application of intelligence and reasoning, which is a scientific process. Likewise, the methods for doing any kind of sustainable farming, or the crafting of clothes and shoes, had to be created though science. Without science, we literally would still be cavemen, restricted to scrounging through wild bushes for our food, or killing animals by hurtling rocks found on the ground. I don't think ANYone would successfully argue that this style of living is preferable to the way we live today.
If anything, science shows us that mankind is responsible for its own success or failure.
I've spent some time causally observing physicist and evolutionist. The biggest different between the two is that most physicist merely present their findings. They go hey, this is what we found and that's it. So it's pretty hard to argue against physics. But evolutionist are on a completely different scale. They find one thing and blow it up even though in the end it has shown nothing. There is a huge difference between adaptation and evolution. The biggest problem that evolutionist still refues to admit is the fact that there are conditions that need to be met in order for life to be sustained. Next the problem they face is how do you explain the variation of species in a common environment? The last big question that evolutionist cannot explain is why we are the only ones who have intelligence to the point we do. Dawkins himself asserts that intelligence should help us avoid extinction because of our technological advances. I could go on but it's pointless. I think if we intelligently look at species, we will see that they are all built to do something unique that is not driven by their environmental conditions. If environmental conditions drove change, we should see more commonality among species and we don't. If accidentally discovering something like using a stick to get ants out of a whole led to intelligence, then we should see intelligence increasing in certain primates and we don't. And if animals were as intelligent as people try to make them out to be, they should be driving cars and figuring out how to dominate their environment and we don't see that. Humans are not the fastest, nor strongest species on the earth. We're just the most intelligent and that goes a long way.
In every generation are Luddites. Archyle is just a recent incarnation.
Archyle is simply the latest incarnation of a Luddite...every generation has them.
humans have been searching for our origins since they could think. having a deity as the maker of all things is handy, because it allows us to stop thinking for ourselves. the math is too hard for most people to try and comprehend evolution, which is really just another word for adaptation. religions were created to keep tribes under control:"better do what i say or the big guy will be mad!"; again, intellectual laziness. when i reflect on a god that the creationists say is responsible for everything, i think about why he would create hitler. oh yeah, the old free will argument: hitler's free will to murder millions was more important to god that the collective free will of those millions to live in peace. that tells me this god must be something that i would never want to spend eternity with. maybe heaven is really hell: you are stuck for eternity with a monster that would not stop the holocaust. no thanks, i'll take darwin and the big black void at the end.
@ Archyle – Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You are the type of person I just avoid at all costs as you seem to live in your own version of reality.
Archyle I remember when the Christians executed those who spoke differently then what the Christian church wanted people to know. Scientists were executed for what they believed to be fact. Don't start speaking about how science destroys everything.
Cleareye1..provide us evidence that there is no GOD! otherwise, satan is waiting for you to take you to hell. And you think satan would want you to be back to earth to warn the people that hell is a place of misery? Hell no! because satan wants you on his kingdom...
Archyle is a typical religious revisionist. He confuses ignorance with profundity. The fact religious fanatics like he is are able to use technology to destroy hardly means the basic science is wrong. If it were wrong it wouldn't work. What he's really shown is that religion understands nothing and has nothing to contribute to humanity besides death
Archyle must of heard the "In my day..." speech and instead of rolling his eyes like everyone else, actually take it seriously. lol
Trick? You merely have the option of believing what we believe or not. I've been a Christian for 35 years, and not ONCE, have I heard any conversation or sermon where it was dicussed how we were going to "trick" anyone into anything. This truly is the end times.
@ monstermd – you are incorrect – evolution has nothing to say about how it started – it says what happens after – you are referring to abiogenesis, something that evolution doesn't touch upon what so ever. It is an often made mistake, please don't propagate it further.
archyle, it is not science that kills but how we humans use it. we should be using it to improve and advance our lives, not to kill people. as humans we will never biologically evolve much beyond what we are now because the weak and the sick don't die as they used to, most of them get better. hopefully we will evolve socially and intellectually, but only if we get past our overwhelming greed that stomps out all our compassion for our fellow humans.
czbetaco We often hear religious people ask us to prove there is no god. So you're really asking us to prove a negative, something that is almost if not completely impossible to do. Those who advace a theory, such as the existance of a god, should be the ones who need to provide the proof. I will prove you to you there is no god just as soon as you prove to me that the tooth fairy of our myths doesn't really exist.
Archyle, thy name is Ned Lud
Vaccines do not, make super-bugs. Antibiotics do. Vaccines make your immune system stronger towards that particular disease. Antibiotics are like Red Bull for your immune system. They fight the infection, but wear off, and your immune system is no stronger than it was before. The bugs mutate to beat the antibiotics. Vaccines just teach your immune system to fight it. Science has done humanity so much good. We have modern medicine (vaccine), computers, automobiles, etc. Science has its drawbacks, but it is very helpful in general. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. It is our future.
Archyle, scientific discoveries have of course come up with better ways to kill people. People kill people for many reasons. But to say that is has had an overall negative effect is ridiculous.With genetic advances to food, alone, billions of people are feed where otherwise wouldn't have food. Science did that. Those billions will turn into more billions that will be fed. Science has also turned our lifespans from mid 30s to mid 70s to 80s.
The man is absolutely right in everything he said. If some of you idiots will read him carefully you will note that he said not one word about politics, or ecology or any other buzz words the ignorant are so fond of. He was just stating the truth as he sees it, without religious garbage to muck it up. He left that to you guys.
Archyle – if you don't like the advancement in science so much, please answer me this: assuming you have a family and kid(s), let's say one of them falls really sick and needs a heart transplant. Think about it... the doctor has said that your kid's heart has almost given up and without a new heart, he/she will die. This is completely against the world view of religion; a new heart??? Come on, only god can create and destroy people... you can't simply swap body parts! So... what will you do? Tell the doctor to perform this ungodly act or take your kid to church and pray for a miracle? Come on... be honest to yourself for once in your life and answer it.
Judas Priest said: Religious devotion clearly does not make one less likely to use great extremes of violence and destruction.
Are you conveniently forgetting other people who killed million over millions of people over the hundred of years. like Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Hilter, Mossolini, Genghis Khan, and on and on are you telling me they were all religious people too. No far more has been done by those claiming no religion and no God because they seared their God placed conciousness, than those who claim to believe in God and those people normally did it because they were attacked first or challenged in some way to do it,at least in most cases, that odes not mean religious people can't do atrocities too.
The problem is the "heart" of man as Scriptures in Jeremiah explains "it is desperately wicked and deceitful and no human can understand it" only God has the cure to make you whole again.
You can mock God all you want but in the end He will prevail and you will stand and give an account of every word you ever uttered. Humans are the only ones with a God shaped vacuum that only He can fill. You don't see animals building temples of worship, to a God they may or may not fully know, this is unique to human alone.
Learn from creation it is constantly singing songs of praise to its Creator and we should do like wise! As Jesus said the stones would cry out if I stopped my people from praising me; He obvioulsy knew what He was talking about since he was there at the beginning and hears that Eternal song time either from creation or from His created people who truly know Him.
@Archyle. The Nazi's were Christians dear. Science does not make Man do evil, the motives of Men make Man evil. The desire for power over others has been a bane to humanity from the time an Ape picked up a stick to wack another Ape. Religion solidifies power over the masses for the wealthy and powerful. Science gives us greater understanding of the natural world around us, it's a tool to use for good or evil. And again, that is our Choice how we use it. Have you ever seen a war fought over principles of Science? or have you see wars fought over the principles of religion?
'One one' observes, "Life expectancy is longer now that ever before thanks to science."
In the vein of 'Crocodile Dundee', you call THAT longer? What's five, ten, even fifty more years compared to eternity?
Slight correction: Life expectancy is longer now than ever before thanks to Jesus.
don't feed the trolls people
@Archyle I could beat you with a baseball bat, does that make baseball an atrocious innovation? No. Science and technology inevitably advance. What we do with it depends on us. I'm also sure your NRA would disagree with you when you claim that the invention of the gun was terrible and can only be used for killing people.
@czbetaco You sound so sure he exists that you must know him personally to buy all that crap! So what does he look like?
Still wondering how evolution theory can get past the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the second one.? In the interest of knowlege and learning itself and based on the fact that there are millions who believe in Creationism alone vs. evolution–why can't we all be taught BOTH and make our own decisions based on evidence –by the way, in looking at the lack of a convincing fossil record–most of what was "proof" has been found to be fake (Piltdown man) or just plain wrong. I saw an interview with Mr. Dawkins in which he explained the origins of life stemming from crystals and possbily having aliens involved. I am still wondering where the crystals and aleins came from.
Archyle, your WWII numbers are far out. It was false science that led to the extermination of millions in the Holocaust.
In the Middle Ages the bubonic plague (yersinia pestis) killed 2 out of 3 people in Europe.
Back to school with you. Pay extra attention in science and math classes.
typical failure of logic. based on your own book christ holds the keys to hell. also, there was never a time when any person in the old testament went to hell. the lake of fire was were the fallen angels were cast, not people.
another failure of logic – prove there is no god. what a statement. prove a negative is a typical argument of religious folks. when you reverse it and say prove god does exist they always fall back to the bible. what says the bible is the word of god? the bible says it of course.
reminds me of the commercial about everything being true on the internet. "where did you read that?" – "why, the internet, of course."
It is now plainly clear to all of us that you never read the Bible and that you formed your opinion about the Bible based on negative films, atheistic indoctrination books and other ignorant people opinions – BUT NEVER READ IT YOURSELF.
Cleareye1: Dawkins is a drama queen who is full of negative energy, and continues to use two-three key phrases or words, to sound intelligent. He is an idiot, and you are his cool aid drinking moron follower.
Read the Dawkins delusion, it's written by a scientist too.
Ad hom and therefore irrelevant.
SCIENCE RUNNING UNCHECKED = RENAISSANCE
We have "science running unchecked" to thank for modern medicine, computers, the internet, cell phones and the highest standard of living ever. Letting science run free is awesome!
"What it meant" is their response when you try to put words in the mouths of Religious individuals since many athiest seem incapable of anything other than out of context interpetations that support their narrow viewpoint of several billion poeple.
Slurp – Code Keeping II said: "It is now plainly clear to all of us that you never read the Bible...– BUT NEVER READ IT YOURSELF."
I love how believers always assume that non believers have read their book of fiction. If only it were true, you might actually be able to sustain an argument about your own book of fiction.
Perhaps you need some example of the mistakes, contradictions and violence in your glorious book? Perhaps YOU have not read them? Well, I know you have but understanding is quite a different issue.
A lot of your questions have been addressed by Stepen Jay Gould. If you have a real interest in the theory behind evolution (even if you don’t believe in it) you should read his books. A quick reply: evolution is at its heart a random process that uses what is available. In all likelihood human intelligence is a byproduct of the ability to manipulate objects with precision (the part of the brain that makes that possible is also responsible for language) and the ability for complex social interaction. The latter is extremely important for bipedal apes because the human pelvis (designed for walking) makes giving birth very difficult. Human babies are less developed at birth than their counterparts in the ape world, so humans have to work together to provide support for the newborn.
Alex, your understanding is faulty.
Antibiotics are to treat bacterial infections.
Vaccines are to galvinize the immuny system to stimulate the immune system to make antibodies. 1) they are either small amounts of a disease (antenuated/inactivated) of the microorganism (virus) or dead (killed) versions of the virus. 2) They can be small amounts of a toxin (toxoid vaccines), 3) protein subunit – part of the microorganism (a protien fragment) that can stimulate the antibodies. 4) conjugate – protein outer coat used to stimulate. There are other types but these are the main ones.
But remember – bacteria and virii are not the same thing at all.
Your explanation– from a fat guy who preached self-control– explains nothing.
Explanation is the exclusive property of SCIENTIFIC THINKING. Philosophy is simply a method of rationalizing one's ignorance. Just like the bible and koran and every other battison of stupidity
Buddha was not fat, he is depicted of being fat because he was full of knowledge
Battison of stupidity, eh?
Not true. Evolution is one conclusion reached by those who start from a certain point and make certain assumptions along the way. It is not known if the starting point represents what conditions actually were. It is not known if the assumptions are correct. Therefore, evolution can never be a fact.
Dawkins says that "children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started. . . ." But Dawkins does not know how life started - no experiment has shown that life can spontaneously appear. He just assumes. He also says "we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys. . . ." He undoubtedly bases this on DNA similarity. But there has been no scientific experiment to show that organisms with similar DNA are related in an evolutionary way. Again, it is just an assumption.
so called scienctific thinking explains exactly nothing. Best it can give is the description of phenomena. No answer, what's so ever, to the question "why"!
Everyone thinks they're smart :)
yo chair...old budha was full of something...and it wasn't fat! I use to think an athiest was just confused but I now believe they are a little "light" in the upper region.
I'm assuming you were trying to use the word "bastion"? An excellent example of "one's ignorance"...thank you for that.
You are mistaking the Buddha for Hotei. The Buddha was not fat.
philosophy gave rise to many of the sciences we have today. without decarte and his method of doubt the scientific method may not have even gotten started. philosophy is just reasonable answers to open questions. key word REASON. there is religious philosophy but when it comes to metaphysics it doesn't hold water. one of dawkins most avid supporters is daniel dennett, a very well known contemporary philosopher. in fact philosophy gives some of the strongest arguments against a divine creator and absolutely shows the complete contradiction with the notion of an omnipresent, omnipotent and all good creator.
like its any different to listen to a white-blonde-gay guy we call jesus
"But there has been no scientific experiment to show that organisms with similar DNA are related in an evolutionary way. Again, it is just an assumption."
This is 100% incorrect. There have been many experiments that have shown this. One of the best showed how viruses sometimes infect germ cells, adding random bits of genetic code in an organism and all of its offspring. Scientists are able to determine when these events occured in the past because different species sometimes have the same exact 'garbage' viral DNA in the exact same place in their genomes (containing tens of thousands of genes) because a common ancestor millions of years ago was infected by a virus.
Try actually reading some real science sometime, instead of just repeating the same old nonsense.
Explanation is not the exclusive realm of science. Roses are beautiful, I think we can all agree with that. Do we need science to explain it? Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist, and I'm an atheist, but there is much science can't explain for a variety of reasons. An explanation gives a reason for what we all already agree to. We can't use science to explain why we should or should not go to war in Iran. We can't use science to explain how much to cut spending and how much to raise taxes.
Well each person has their own belief. But Darwin was off. How can each person have unique DNA, the sun rises and sets. There is something greater than us and that is God. If Christians are wrong than we led the best life we can even though we make mistakes. But, if we are right and i believe we are, your eternity for not following the Lord will be so awful we as humans can't imagine the greatness of your future pain
Science explains, Philosophy understands, and it's "bastion" and not "battison" of stupidity.
Buddhism holds one thing above all others- that change is inevitable. This is why they are quick to throw out any old belief if and when science says otherwise. This makes it different from all other religions. It holds no ideology, is constrained to no dogma. It holds science in favour of all else.
Philosophy is the study of "being". The discipline of science came from philosophy moron. Evolution is still a theory. It has not been proved, but it is prolly the best description logically of how we got here. Science, math, logic, are tools. The problem with people like you and dawkins is you exclusively think science will disprove God. You can not disprove a negative. I don't need science to prove to me that there is no God. Rational thought and Reason are way different than rationalization. Which is, by the way what religious people do.....they rationalize their existence through something that is an abstract......why would anyone do that?
You are comparing philosophy to religion have you even taken a philosophy class?
sure have @Rob, and I was also trapped in the guilt machine a.k.a. religion, as a child. I finally became conscious one day, and escaped the mysticism that clouded my mind, and started to use Reason.
the theory of evolution is excepted based on the overwhelming evidence. Theory in science has a different meaning than what the general population understands it to be. The theory of Gravity is also excepted based on the overwhelming evidence. Would you deny that too? Stop believing in bronze age myths. Your god doesn't exist any more than the thousands of other god or gods that man created and then abandoned. Even you supposed god acknowledged he wasn't the only god when he supposedly said "thou shalt not have any other got before me". Of course, he wasn't speaking English either.
Actually, explanation isn't the exclusive property of scientific thinking (that's a self-aggrandising statement). Science is decidely limited, as it cannot determine anything outside of the physical realm. While science has achieved incredible things, and will undoubtedly do more, it can never go outsideof that limited field: science cannot prove or disprove the existence love, but we know that love exists. Science cannot measure pain, but we know that pain exists. Science cannot measure happinees: would you argue that happiness therefore doesn't exist (applying the same scientific logic that you use)? Look beyond the limited focus and seek the truth – you'll be amazed at what really exists.
That is a gross misrepresentation. You think love does not exist in our realm of the universe? You understand that, by definition, science cannot prove things?
We already can test for pain, it is a measurable phenomenon.
Why do you think science will never be able to detect love or happiness? You know we already study the thought patterns of belief, right?
The only crock is you. The very laws you live by are written, and conceived by philosophers. the natural laws that make it possible for you to live are made by God, they did not just happen to be. Without such laws no life would be possible and chaos would rein supreme. You are the biggest moron to have ever lived. I guess to some point evolution is right you obvioulsy did come from a monkey.
A thorough study of philosophy begins with the fundamentals of human reason – the selfsame principles all human thought is built upon, including scientific thought. Though science and religion may duel, neither approaches anything that resembles a pure or absolute truth. In terms of absolutes, science is no superior to religion. The labile history of each has only shown for a certainty that they will both always be wrong about everything. If anything, they both might be said to be differently defined mechanisms coping with uncertainty – the one human absolute. One might be more empirically based than the other, but not more comprehensive when posed within an active field of possibility and infinity. In no capacity can the human mind attain absolute comprehensiveness unless it itself (and by itself) is the infinite absolute. In other words, in order to possess universal fact (science) or knowledge of God(religion) you yourself would have to be the entirety of the universe or God itself.
The question "why?" is tantamount to the purpose of seeking scientific knowledge. Unless you're looking for some sort of cosmic "why", which implies causal reason, which requires a deity.
In that vein, using science to explain a mythical creature is impossible, in the same way that religion cannot be used to explain how an internal combustion engine works. For you to imply over the Internet that the scientific method has not benefited mankind at all is ironic at best and grossly uneducated.
"Explanation is not the exclusive realm of science. Roses are beautiful, I think we can all agree with that. Do we need science to explain it?" -- Science doesn't explain that 'roses are beautiful'...at all. Beauty is determined purely by the perception of the PERSON looking at the rose. Someone else may look at a rose and find it repulsive. Science CAN attempt to explain why different people have different perceptions about the same things, however. Science can explain how the rose came into existence, it cannot explain why precisely YOU find them beautiful; only YOU can explain that. Also, perceptions change over time as a result of countless types of stimuli and experiences, so to say "roses are beautiful" is actually inaccurate. The correct phraseology would be "roses are beautiful to me at this moment in time because..."
@little jack: Which is more likely to be true? A) Out of thousands of different religions world wide the one you choose to believe in is "the right one", or B) None of them are right. Given that the vast majority of them are contradictory and profess mutual exclusivity, I know which one I think is true. Also, Pascal's Wager is just posturing. As an atheist, I have lived the best life I can, and I do everything I can to make sure that the good that I do outweighs the bad that I do. I just choose not to believe in something that has no evidence of it's existence. If our fate is determined by living a good life, why does belief in a fairy tale alter that outcome? There is no good that is accomplished by or in the name of religion that cannot be accomplished by purely secular means. Religion brings nothing irreplacable to the discussion, and is therefore replacable with logic and reason and free thought.
"Beauty" is entirely subjective, not empirical. You, as a scientist, should understand the difference.
This is simply incorrect. science measures and repeats, and draws conclusions–sometimes wrong–from those repeated measurements. In fact, science does not explain very well–it provides raw information about the world, or one small aspect of it, and when it sets out to "explain" that data it often gets it wrong: the hydrodynamic view of nature from the 19th century, or the clockwork universe of Newton are moribund, to say the least. These stories that science tells are useful–the Newtonian story still works in most cases, nonetheless, the universe is not a clock, nor is it purely mechanical– but they are not "true" in any meaningful sense of that word. They are factua, but inadequate. I.e, the fact is that humans experience some combo of neurochmeical interplay they call love. What that is, however requires other modes of understanding–philosophy, art, and yes, religion.
We tell stories to explain the raw data of science–and the stories are always just that–stories, some true, some part true, others false.
Now as for your rejection of religion: there are religions of belief (Christianity, et al) and religions of practice. Do not confuse them. Please educate yourself in this regard. The Buddha told his earlier followers to take nothing on pure faith–practice, meditate, lead a virtuous life and see if it makes you happy. But this is not mere ethic either–more and more studies indicate that meditation practice reduces craving/addiction, reactivity, and depression. It seems to rewire neural pathways to do so. In rejecting such religions in the cavalier way he does, Dawkins, and you, are not really very good scientists, are you? You and he obviously know little or nothing about a physiological/mental religious practice, and yet you feel free to make fun of it and reject it out of hand–like, well, like the fundies reject science. Hmmm....
"Therefore, evolution can never be a fact."
There is zero doubt, absolutely none at all, that evolution is a fact. Hopefully what you really meant is that you don't believe evolution has been proven to explain the world as we see it, but the reasoning that precedes the quoted sentence suggests that you actually believe there is no evidence that things have evolved, period. That position–that there has been no evolution–is patently false. Forget about the fossil record–there's plenty of evidence of evolution happening in time periods short enough to be observed.
"battison of stupidity" could you mean bastion? I personally like the clip of Dawkins "IS RICHARD DAWKINS REALLY STUMPED? The TRUTH – In His OWN WORDS" on youtube much better. If evolution is the only game in town, how come he can't answer this simple question?
Since God created science, I don't see the problem.
Bible yes.. But Quran !!! read it sometime
@acmecr8tive Oh you must mean this one, right? Try being more creative next time.
\/\/ \/\/ \/\/ [dot] You 2be [dot] co/\/\ ?v = [dot]uz1CiDDIq4
@terri Please provide evidence to support your claim. We'll wait.
Somewhere above, tq70 says that science does not answer "why?" I assume this is a reference to the "why is there something rather than nothing" question. The implication is that religion has the answer. God made it all. But that does not answer the question, why did God make it all? There are creation myths, of course, which try to answer this. Quantum mechanics provides a better explanation. But that is science, and it involves a certain amount of study to understand it. It's much easier to just say, "God did it."
Science-ism is just another religion.
In defense of Buddhism, it really does not have a dog in this race. In Buddhism there is no God, no element of faith, except in one's own ability to achieve happiness, and no polarizing views (expect that there is no creator). In Theravada Buddhism there is an element of "gods," but they have no impact on humanity, so they are irrelevant. It's more in a Hindu sense where it all means something to an individual and his/her psyche.
It really does not make sense to include Buddhism in this argument. Buddhists would not side with theists or atheists. The buddhist idea is more along the lines of, "Please have your argument in the other room. We will be in this room working things out internally. Eventually, although we will have to keep working at it, we won't need a room at all." At its core, Buddhism does not support concepts, as they lead to what this blog turns into: an argument, a.k.a. suffering.
Dawkins is extremely logical, and I agree with just about everything he maintains. But, his arguments have the same faults as that of overzealous theists. He only presents one way to look at things, which, despite his research and his rock solid rationale, ultimately boils down to an opinion. I am not a theist, but I do think there are humans who have experienced great happiness being theists. Perhaps it has to do with their level of understanding. Maybe their brains are evolved to understand the world in that way. Who knows? Whatever we say about it is because we have faith in a certain answer, not because we actually know something. If we believe or don't believe, what's the difference?
It should also be said that Buddha was not an overwieght asian who wore jewels and goofed around all day. If he lived at all, which textual evidence from different sources suggests but doesn't confirm, he was likely nearly emaciated for much of his life, as he was homeless, ate one meal a day, and was reliant on receiving food from others. Also, it is said over and over that Buddhism does not argue with reality, so whatever science presents would be what it would be, from a Buddhist perspective. However, it just won't ever be the bottom line.
I hope this is helpful for everyone. It is meant to show how Buddhism does not belong in a thread that argues theism vs. atheism, or myth vs. science. It's really a separate discipline altogether.
BATTISON of stupidity...really ? Pot...kettle...black.
What's a battison?
Philosophy plays a role in ethics which is fundamental to things like, I dunno "Rights", the atheist equvalent of a sacred text. There is no reason what-so-ever to treat your fellow man fairly regardless of what over-fed professors might think.
The ethics of not taking humans for invasive experimentation has justifications in philosphy but scientifically it makes no sense. Imagine what could be accomplished he we were allowed to work with living brains when developing cures for diseases, instead of voluntarily donated brains that are already dead. We could accomplish so much, cure so many diseases without the lowsy ethics that philosophy put in the way.
The only people who think that a decent world arises out of emperical data alone, are just as deluded as the religious indivduals they ridicule. Society has been built over thosands of years, one that could not have existed without religion, philosophy, or ethics; the same as it wouldn't have survived without science, goverment, and education. Also, the fact that most athiest frequently repeat the same talking points over and over makes me doubt the validity of the term free thinker? Or whether or not they understand how religious thinking works?
If you've limited your thought based on what you want to be true. You thoughts are far from free.
You are a reminder of what religion fanaticism is about, as if it wasn't enough that most wars have been fought over the ridiculous theories and believes that you seem so proud of.
oh that's right I forgot how deeply religious Hitler was
Nah, most wars are fought for greed.
This statement doesn't agrre or disagree with any thing in the article it's solely a response to your statement. Wars have been fought over religion but "most" over resources (land mostly) or ability to tax.
Hitler was Catholic, so yes, you are correct. Check the 'pedia, if you wish:
In political relations with the church, Hitler adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes"
Much like most, if not all, people who claim to be religious. How convenient!
BUZZ. Next. Thanks for playing, though. Consolation prize of the home game awaits you backstage.
Pinewalker, Hitler was very religious. And in case you forgot he also tried to exterminate members of a different religion. All of WWII was about religion. Just as every war is about religion. Why is there so much fighting on the Middle East? Religion. Why do Middle Easterners want to get rid of Israel? Religion. Why do Republicans keep insisting that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Because they know that most people who will vote for them think that's a negative thing. If religion went away most of the world's problems would be solved.
W.R. Martin: Hitler was NOT a "Catholic". He may have been born into a "Catholic" family – who knows how much if any of it they practiced – but he rejected Catholicism and despised the church and all other religions when he became an Atheist. Plenty of Catholics died in Hitler's death camps – Look up Edith Stein or Maximillian Kolbe who died heroically in a starvation chamber to allow a father to be reunited with his wife and children.
“By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. It will observe the agreements drawn up between the Churches and the provinces; their rights will not be touched. The Government, however, hopes and expects that the task of national and ethical renewal of our people, which it has set itself, will receive the same respect by the other side. The Government will treat all other denominations with objective and impartial justice. It cannot, however, tolerate allowing membership of a certain denomination or of a certain race being used as a release from all common legal obligations, or as a blank cheque for unpunishable behavior, or for the toleration of crimes. [The national Government will allow and confirm to the Christian denominations the enjoyment of their due influence in schools and education.] And it will be concerned for the sincere cooperation between Church and State. The struggle against the materialistic ideology and for the erection of a true people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft) serves as much the interests of the German nation as of our Christian faith. …The national Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See. …The rights of the churches will not be curtailed; their position in relation to the State will not be changed.” Adolph Hitler – 1933
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. ….. As a Christian ……I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” Adolf Hitler
There have been lots of little wars through out history that were fought because of religion, But for the most part these wars used religion as an excuse for war, As for the two greatest wars ever fought neither one was over religion, Neither has America ever gone to war to defend religion. Unless you consider Oil a form of religion. This is just the first thing a Athiest fires out of his mouth in his tirade against God, You may have an opinion that there is no God and I have an Opinion there is a God Neither one of us can tell the other there Opinion is wrong, Its just different. So as a Country we have to find a way to Live together and get along, We are not going to change each others minds. The belief in God or the Non belief in God is a choice we all make, It cant be forced or taught. Its just part of our own personnel evolution.
@ Wizard: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death." - Hitler, 1941
I love how religious nuts point to Hitler as an example of how great religion is. The facts are that Hitler could not implement his secular views, the Christian Germans rebelled when he tried to take the crosses out of classrooms, when he wanted to remove mentions of God in oaths sworn by civil servants. He could not rule without support, so he backed down on those things. But kill Jews? No problem. The Bishop of Berlin even wrote letters to British and American Bishops defending the Night of Broken Glass. Also Hitler targeted people because of their religion, he saw some religions as better than others.
Anyway keep spouting your ignorant argument.
Religion is often used as a justification for conflicts rooted in greed.
Dawkins and the other athiests lose me when they fail to see that all religion/mythology is in reality metaphor. And, the truth of the metaphor is of course not the symbol that is obvious but the underlaying transendant meaning. I have no complaint about his view that the truly literal religious folks miss the boat but he loses me when he denies a supreme being and metaphor. It is as plain as evolution is. Dawkins can't answer the how and who of creation.
Maybe, but the metaphor is presented as truth. Clearly many commenters on this blog assert the dire consequences for non-belief. Unfortunately, not many will donate money for clergy, and church hierarchy, and buildings raised to honor metaphor so it is unlikely any church would ever take that position.
So why do you leap to the supernatural, something of which there is zero evidence. At least there is evidence to support Dawkins' views. Show me something – anything that proves any sort of deity and I might listen. Until then, your argument is the same as arguing the existence of the Easter Bunny.
Craig, do you believe in life after death?
What you have in common with atheists is that you don't know how the universe was created, or whether or not God exists.
Where you differ from atheists is that atheists admit they don't know anything, instead of assuming the Earth was created in a story which involves a magic boat, a talking snake, and a burning bush.
The reason he lost you is because you've yet to read up on it. Don't backpedal, you're already snagged in it. Had you actually studied up on the idea of the hairpin evolution, you would understand how it makes evolution comes to reason with people who claim it's "just a theory with missing pieces". At one time, yes it would be a plausible argument; unfortunately, Dawkins, as well as three of the founders of the Human Genome Project cleared this topic up in "The Greatest Show On Earth", detailing how it is that if humans came to be, why are there still lingering creatures of such likeness to man. By all means, have your Unitarian Universal idea in mind, as it treads on no feet and reinforces most religions in a positive manner. It doesn't change the fact that they're referring to an invisible deity with whom no one has shared sentient contact with, nor does it have any visual representation.
Evolution shoved past religion in the past 15 years, almost violently. You may agree with his idea of the literal translation of religious texts being childish, but unfortunately that's how the world is motivated to view it, because without it theological ideas would slowly lose control over people, and they'd sway into something they felt was deeper in meaning. People HAVE TO see religion as 100% undeniable fact and literal interpretation, otherwise all it is, is another magical anthology of folklore.
I think that Dawkins and other atheist understand that some religious folks treat the Christian Bible as metaphorical and not as factual. I think he said so much in the interview. however, I know a lot of religious folks that think that since they don't take the bible as fact then clearly no other Christians do either. This is also wrong. Many, many Christians believe that Christian Bible is the factual word of god. Scary.
Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.
Craig, you should really learn to type coherent sentences. There is no proof for a supreme being, so why believe in one?
Truth is relative, depending on who is espousing it and for what underlying motive. Facts are concrete and can be measured/weighed. Having a belief system that disagrees with itself by fragmenting into multiple factions tells my reasoning mind that there cannot be a Real Deity. Call it Human Nature or Human Ignorance....whatever you call it...it prevents the human race from coming to a unanimous conclusion of the existence of a deity. Buddah was not a deity, he was just a man...however he came to "truth" as he sees it by his own effort. I myself believe the Universe is Alive...we are all part of the universe down to the molecular level. I don't believe the Universe has a Human type of Intelligence. I don't believe the Universe is a Deity. I DO believe there is more to existence after death, I don't believe in "Heaven" or "Hell". where does that put me?....waiting to see what comes next.
It is as plain as evolution is. REALLY, did you just write this? neither are plain and obvious in any way. that's the argument. although Science has years and years of proven theories followed up by facts, and religion has absolutely none. This does not say that there is no higher power, BUT science has done alot more to prove itself than Religion.
"Dawkins and the other athiests lose me when they fail to see that all religion/mythology is in reality metaphor."
LOL if the bible is the word of god like most think, then it is hardly a metaphor. It should be absolute, which it isnt.
"Dawkins can't answer the how and who of creation..." and "nobody can be certain whether the Earth or the Sun are at the center of our solar system...blah, blah, blah. Well, that's what they said to Galileo when he dared to challenge the Aristotelian Authority. You are incorrect that Dawkins "can't answer." Dawkins, like Galileo, can't answer everything YET. That does not mean they CAN'T. That is, unless, you have information that you would like to share that proves they can't ever prove every gap in knowledge. If the past is prolog, they WILL.
Your "how" and "who" suggest that there was a beginning in which there wasn't something and then...magically, there was. The suggestion here is that you believe in magic. In other words, if the rules of the Universe are not universal for ALL time, then god MUST use magic. If you believe in god, you believe in magic.
Perhaps creation is little more than spontaneous fluctuations of the vacuum. If you study quantum field theory, which is a very accurate theory of the fundamental forces in the universe (for example, quantum electrodynamics matches experimental observations to some 9 or 10 decimal places), then you find out that the vacuum, i.e., the state of "nothingness" is actually a very complicated state with particles popping in and out of existence constantly and space-time roiling with small bumps and "bubbles". Out of all this complexity, big bang scenarios that give birth to universes are not inconceivable and, given infinite time, will all happen.
It's obvious how religion exists to make people feel good. Even when something unpleasant happens to the devout, religion is a tool that tells them it's part of "god's" grand design. Hey, it's all part of the plan. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Everything will eventually turn out very well for you. Religion is a drug. Science does not stoop to pacify people's fear of the unpleasant aspects of nature or life. It presents facts whether favourable or not. Science = Earth will ultimately be extinct through any one of various ways (at least we have options). Religion = The world will come to an apocalyptic end but wait ... you get to go to a utopian scene and live happily ever after.
"Dawkins can't answer the how and who of creation."
And you can? You're more arrogant than you claim he is you imbecile.
You should be in politics. You have just written an entire paragraph and successfully managed to say absolutely nothing.
Even though I'm an atheist, I do believe that some evolved enlightened people who have lived on this earth had great things to say. Even though what Buddha was describing sounds "religiony", I think he was speaking in terms of science, that is, everything is made up of energy. He just used metaphors to describe it.
It is too bad that Dawkins' work is not as well thought out and as well grounded in the scientific method as it is well publicized.
I believe evolution is the best scientific explanation of the history of life on earth. But as a John Lennox once pointed out there is a difference between mechanism and agency that seems simply beyond Dawkins. Also beyond Dawkins is even a rudimentary grasp of any concepts of epistemology. No amount of understanding of the mechanisms and progress of evolution disproves a whit of the concept of universal agency found in any major world religion.
Epistemology from the religious perspective could be simply reduced to "if I think it is to be true , it must be true". Same as most of the "theological reasoning" it makes any term meaningless, not just the epistemology
Anything simplistic is going to lose out there. But the limits of our ability to perceive are a problem for epistemology that specifically excludes religion. There is a limit to what we can know firsthand and thus a reasonable limit to the conclusions that we can reach through that path. And it is quite plausible (maybe more common?) to find a construct with a divine/ethereal/dead-people agency to be a more complete explanation of our total experience than one without.
" And it is quite plausible (maybe more common?) to find a construct with a divine/ethereal/dead-people agency to be a more complete explanation of our total experience than one without."
The problem is that a more complete version in opinion does nothing to tell us the nature of the universe. In fact, it could damage our ability to accept the things that actually are true. That is the crux of the problem with belief in things without evidence. How do you know when to not believe in something?
Who says that one would be drawing that conclusion without evidence? Among other things the universe seems to favor irony, and until a theory is developed that explains that, a world with invisible actors is just as valid an explanation as randomness (which is the other option). It couldn't be an anthropomorphic God duplicating the context of a particular religion, obviously. But no one who claims to be self-aware should expect it to be.
When one can accurtately describe how somethingness comes from nothingness....I will ascribe to the idea that this fruitbasket and Darwin may be on to something. Until then, its just cheap talk and entertainment.
And yet you believe fervently that God came from nothing or always existed. If God can be the reason for his own existence, why can't the universe?
Look at this "intelligent" man just wave away 150 years of research in one of mankind's most well supported and evidenced theories. What does it feel like to be so wrong and yet think you are correct? How many years have you studied evolutionary theory to just hand wave it all away and say it is wrong? Just another fool who thinks his opinions on science are worth more than a pile of dung. So sad this country is fool of imbeciles who ignore hard science in favor of their deluded fairy tales.
There is a such thing as "something from nothing" at the subatomic level. There are particles, similar to but not the same as the Higgs Boson, that spontaneously appear and disappear from nothing. It happens.
"When one can accurtately describe how somethingness comes from nothingness....I will ascribe to the idea that this fruitbasket and Darwin may be on to something. Until then, its just cheap talk and entertainment."
So apparently the sentence "God said let there be light" is an accurate description...
something never came from nothing. That is an inaccurate description of the Big Bang theory (which doesnt describe how the universe came into existence, but merely describes how matter came to spread outward. Matter has always existed in some form, once in a tightly clustered mass. The very concept of nonexistence is an abstract idea, but there was never actually nothingness. It's an impossibility, and knowing that makes it useless to presume what could create something from nothing.
Except that Darwin and evolution make no claim about how the world began. Only how species derive from other species. Please tell me what part of evolution and the process of natural selection states how the world began. And no, the big bang theory is not part of the theory of evolution.
The following is an excerpt from an article on Lawrence Krauss' recent book."
"In just under 200 pages of his book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, Krauss walks us through a hundred years of mind-bending breakthroughs in astrophysics, which have led scientists to the inescapable conclusion that our universe sprang out of nothing — "without design, intent or purpose" — and is destined to return to that bleak, cold, dark space."
"A professor at Arizona State University, Krauss clearly relishes his iconoclastic role, gleefully demolishing all theories of creation that require a creator — that is, most religions."
Stephen Hawking also states that "because gravity exists, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." He also says that "God did not create the universe and does not exist." Many other scientists have also denounced the existence of God. It is time to adhere to logical, factual and well-established scientific truths and discoveries rather than subscribe to an illogical, ancient belief system that was invented by primitive people thousands of years ago. This is, afterall, the 21rst Century! I very much appreciate the excellent responses to Mark's post!
"When one can accurtately describe how somethingness comes from nothingness....I will ascribe to the idea that this fruitbasket and Darwin may be on to something"
Mark – Just exactly what makes YOU an authority on biology so as to belittle the WELL substianted views these very intelligent men (Darwin, Dawkins)?I am allways entertained by the comments after atheism is mentioned! – it brings out some of the most intelligent as well as some of the most ignorant replies. Mark – try to READ Dawkins or Darwin – It IS a bit scientific, however rather understandable. you can use wikipedia to help with the big words.
READ IT! I DARE YOU! – Darwin – On the Origin of Species.. http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/darwin/table01.htm
When one can accurately describe how God came from nothingness... I will ascribe to the idea that you fruitbaskets...
That is a few more words that you needed.
*Hand wave* "These are not the Droids you are looking for."
There... I fixed it for you.
Nick, scientists long argued that the universe was eternal – though we now know that it is not. Even now with with the multiverse hypothesis there is the assumption that some thing is eternal. If science can imagine an eternal thing, why is it that you have trouble with an eternal God?
BTW it is not the idea of an eternal thing that is the problem logically but an infinite series of things. The impossibility logically of an infinite series of real things is the reason that an eternal universe or multiverse is difficult to imagine. The impossibility logically of an infinite series of real things does not exclude an eternal God.
Dawkins and many other say they are atheists. Some others claim to be “true believers”. What about the “in between”? I believe the “true believers” are correct on what they say they know and what they believe on because it came from Faith. That is not true in the case of the atheist, simple because they came from reason and thus, knowledge. Knowledge is from what we call “science” at its best. Now, how much does science “knows” about the quest of “after death”? Nothing: a blind ignorance. Are there any models, hypothesis or theories about this issue? If not, then no one can claim to be an atheist for sure. The best approach for them is to reject faith for reason default. That, however, doesn’t bring any assurance to their atheistic believe. We must beware of words usage, such as “truth” and “knowledge”, an old disagreement since Plato and Aristotle, till today…
Faith is the acceptance of a belief without proof. The scientific method develops a theory to test an observable hypothesis. You have set forth a test of something that is not observable.
lucke – your comment is ridiculous.
faith comes from indoctrination and knowledge comes from observation.
the two are in no way similar.
Exactly! Dawkins, although indubidly intellectual and intelligent, is just as much of an ignoramus as the people he claims to be such who believe in a higher power or beingness. (Forgive me, the human language is sooo limited in actually being able to discuss these matters). He can't prove that a creator, power, source doesn't exist, so how can he and his findings be all inclusively, authoritative?
There was a scientist (forget his name) who has researched into all this evolution vs. creationism stuff. This is what that scientist concluded: "That creation coming together as it did being seen as just some "matter of happenchance" taking place, is insipid. It is like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a fully workable automobile. Chances of that happening....pretty much impossible"
datru1 – It was a 747, said by Fred Hoyle, and he was using the metaphor to argue for panspermia as opposed to abiogenesis, not intelligent design or a god, and only referring to how the first living organisms came to be in the ancient primordial seas. He was also not arguing against evolution, fully accepting it to be true.
I think most people are atheists at heart. If people really believed in God and really believed there was an afterlife, why do we try so hard to prevent death? When a doctor gives us a grim diagnosis and tells us we only have months to live, why is that not received as great news– a chance to finally be with The Lord and live in heaven? The reason is that for all the talk about angels and God and Heaven and such, deep down, we all know the truth: Death is the end.
Because most of those people understand how temporary and how precious a gift life is. Even though I believe in the afterlife I want to experience life to the fullest and be here with my loved ones. I want to see history marching on. Life is a trip and personally I believe its boot camp for the soul. How can you be so aware of your own existence and not contemplate that there must be a Creator? Even if you take humans out of the picture, animals, etc. and are only left with the universe and expanse of space, planets, and the stars...how did it get here? How did existence happen? I don't really understand how anyone breathing can look around this beautiful planet and all the amazing things on it and not come to the conclusion that there must be a God. If evolution is as powerful a force on the scale that Dawkins and so many others propose I should be able to dig in my yard and find all sorts of crazy fossils. Think about what they want you to believe...that every living species evolved from the same single cell. That humans not only evolved from fish but from chimps and so on. (Not to mention Darwin's theory of evolution is racist. Does racism stem from the belief that African Americans are more closely related to apes, chimps?) That is one hell of a metamorphis. The only answer they can ever give is it took billions and billions of years. That is not really an explanation though. You are not just a skeleton walking around with a voice box. You have a spirit, a soul. You need to really consider what you sense deep in your heart. You do not need to divorce yourself from intelligence or science in order to acknowledge God. God created us because he wants us. He wants a relationship with us. Forget about religion and just seek God.
Death may be the end right now, but if everybody would put their minds together and learn about science and build on our technology, death might not have to be the end. And just think what might be possible if all the great minds in the past were still alive today.
"If evolution is as powerful a force on the scale that Dawkins and so many others propose I should be able to dig in my yard and find all sorts of crazy fossils."
When I dig in my "yard" I do find all kinds of crazy fossils. It depends on where you live.
"Think about what they want you to believe...that every living species evolved from the same single cell. That humans not only evolved from fish but from chimps and so on."
This is not a matter of belief. There is independent confirmation from many different sources.
"(Not to mention Darwin's theory of evolution is racist. Does racism stem from the belief that African Americans are more closely related to apes, chimps?)."
Any modern biologist will tell you that race does not exist. It is a social construct. African Americans or even Africans, in general, are no more closely related to apes or chimps than any other group of humans. That you could believe such a thing demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of most of biology.
"You have a spirit, a soul."
This is a very old and outdated philosophical belief called "dualism". A couple of hundred years ago there was a vast laundry list of things that the "spirit" supposedly "did". Since then, scientific experiments have demonstrated that all of these things are actually done by material processes in the brain.
"The cell is a machine. Animals are machines. Human beings are machines." - Jaques Monod. I find this a much more awe-inspiring thought than any of the stories found in the Hebrew or Christian theogonies.
The reality is God does live and Jesus is the Christ, Gods son born in the flesh, who died and overcame death through His ressurection. This is no myth, fable call it what you will, this is absolute truth. No person can know for himself until he applies the laws and principle prescribed by Christ himself. John 7:17 "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself." There is only one sure way to know.Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. No one would ever know unless they experience it for themselves and the first requirement is faith or belief in Christ.
I know people who have done EXACTLY that; they have seen deaths doorway, and choose to continue without treatments that would extend life. But that in itself is still not enough. The Bible records a large collection of evidences of supernatural events. The question is are they genuine? The flood for example has left a record of its reality, but evolutionary scientist ignore evidence such as fossil trees through layers purported to have hundreds of thousands of years represented. Mt. St. Helen has been and incredible opportunity to observe the effects of disaster; a lake of acid with organic matter and finally trees, which after their bark was soaked off and fell to the bottom, then sunk root ball first to form a virtual forest at the bottom; this is exactly what is seen in coal beds, but the evolutionist says it was swamp forests. But they have no explanation why leaves and fossils appear in complete forms. Or why the same mo is found in all coal beds. I remember distinctly being taught millions of year old swamps produced coal.
Or what of the recent discovery of blood and tissue in T Rex fossils? Reading the Smithsonian article, every science of fossilization is being reconsidered, but the age is not questioned. Again, all known science is questioned, but NOT the AGE. Amazing. Strong evidence of a evolutionary bias. I have read that there have been numerous evidences of tissue discovered in other fossils. It appears nobody thought to look inside the fossil; you don't spend time and money to dig it up and clean it to cut it open I guess...
The main point of faith is the existence of the supernatural. The Bible records evidences of them. It declares the Cosmos of which we are a part is a testimony of divine power. It testifies of spiritual realities like love being more desirable than silver or gold and political power. We can KNOW that love is real because we can put others needs before our own. But to the natural man, the evolutionist, it is foolishness. His mode of operation is self preservation.
The Biblical Story of Jesus makes no sense to the natural man. It reveals a love beyond the visible limitations of the world. We have only two options, to declare that Lover is foolish, and all who believe in it; or to declare it is real, practice it and recognize the greatest act of Love ever made, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of the Son who through Love, overcame Sin and Death to declare, "I have overcome the world; I have the keys to death; I came to give you life, and life abundant!"
I believe because Love is real. To deny it, to fight it, and argue against any supernatural reference to Love is the ultimate manifestation of foolishness, and to trust in Love and its author, the greatest gift we can ever know.
Maggie said: "... I don't really understand"
Exactly. OK, that was unfair taking it out of context. However, read on, it's clear you don't really understand.
Maggie said: "how anyone breathing can look around this beautiful planet and all the amazing things on it and not come to the conclusion that there must be a God. If evolution is as powerful a force on the scale that Dawkins and so many others propose I should be able to dig in my yard and find all sorts of crazy fossils. "
If you knew just a little bit about geology, which you clearly don't, your "back yard," would need to be in the correct strata. If you happen to live in a part of the world where the correct layers are at the surface, sure, it should be in your back yard; I doubt that's the case.
Maggie said: "Think about what they want you to believe...that every living species evolved from the same single cell. That humans not only evolved from fish but from chimps and so on. "
Yet, that is what the mountains of evidence show. We have predictable and consistent evidence of this process. We also have proof in your post that you have very simple understanding of how evolution works. Without having conversed with you, I can't really tell but I suspect that you're working on a "gut feeling." Anyone that understands evolution knows that we did not evolve from chimps. To sound like you actually know what you're talking about, you would say, "evolved from a common ancestor as chimps."
Maggie said: "(Not to mention Darwin's theory of evolution is racist.Does racism stem from the belief that African Americans are more closely related to apes, chimps?)"
No, I think you just said that, Dawkins and evolutionary theorists said NOTHING of the sort. By the way, racism would be if one said that ONLY black people evolved from a common ancestor as chimps. That's not what they are saying, is it? No, what they are saying is that all of us humans evolved that way.
Maggie said: "... The only answer they can ever give is it took billions and billions of years."
What took billions cells or humans took billions?
Maggie said: "You have a spirit, a soul. "
Insert proof here. Any scientific claim requires it just as someone claiming to have a cure for cancer YOU must bring extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims. We'd take norm evidence though...
Maggie said: "You need to really consider what you sense deep in your heart. You do not need to divorce yourself from intelligence or science in order to acknowledge God."
Yet, you clearly have divorced yourself.
Maggie said: "God created us because he wants us. "
A claim without proof.
Maggie said: "He wants a relationship with us..."
Yet another empty claim that is made as though YOU have the authority to know what this fictional character wants.
Don't be fooled easily...there is a reason scientist call evolution a theory... It is not a fact because there is no proof only a theory based on observations. For you to argue that those observations are reasoning enough to believe in evolution and not believe (or tell someone they should not believe) in God based on only observations of God's existence is hypocritical. There are way too many guesses and it cannot be tested except statistically and it would be statistically false without some divine intervention : ) I love how the statistical testing hypothesis symbol looks similar to the Jesus fish symbol. God creates us and he creates us so that we are adapted to our environment as we need but if evolution was so simple, natural and easy, then you'd think that we could just evolve ourselves as we see fit. We are smart right? According to evolution all you have to do is put a person in a particular environment say the water for generations and then they will evolve gills to survive...easy as pie no? Do a thought experiment where each generation that does not grow gills dies young because they are not able to survive as well and figure what it would take to get that DNA turned around in one swoop to get gills...of all things. How many mutations? Do you evolve through feathers first as a trial by error? I mean according to evolution all events are random. So how many random mutated events occur like feathers or a long tail or horns before you get to gills? Also, be sure not to confuse selection with evolution they are two different things. So, you could choose to select for someone with a God give gift to be a better swimmer perhaps but that is not evolution.
Religon is a social demographic event and is considered a relality to those who fully accept it, Tha include Buddhism. The person who got i right was Plato in the Allegory of the Cave. People on neo-lithic periods would huddle in caves and society emmerged, nights when animals growled and storms were about. They would sit around a fire, and be collective wishing or praying, that they can make into the next dawn. They all sat staring at a fire all seeing a different shadow so perception and organized religon spawned with time with one prime. to make into another day, and to ensure the safethy of the elders and the children. Language and writing evolved, and because of social demographics religons became a way to allign oneselve to the better sense of the community one lived in. Then Greed and Avarice and Pride kicked in and power fights were initiated and hence they still exist today, Very few societies have lived peacefully nor ever will. That is the random Chaos evolution has put in play. One thing I will guarantee all is"we are nt getting off this planet alive". So carpe diem, and be good respectfully citizens of this very small place called Earth.
Not sure where you got your Philosophy 101, but your interpretation of the Cave Allegory is twisted. The cave dwellers are chained so they can only perceive their reality as shadows of the truth. In short, according to Plato, it is those who do not believe in God who are looking at a "material realm of shadows" as distinct from the world of pure eternal ideas. If your assessment of the allegory were correct, I would certainly wonder why Plato was not an atheist.
Not to diminish the work of our ancestors, but why do we always look to " absolute truth" in our past, as if they were more informed than us now? They are observations as influenced by their times. They may be pithy and insightful. They may be truth and facts. But they are of their time and not now. We have grown as a society because of them, and at times despite them. I revere Darwin, Newton, Galileo and their special minds that conceived truly novel ideas. But take them into our times, with our knowledge and our technology, they would alter their perception of the same questions of how the world works. Darwin with genetics, Newton with quantum mechanics, Galileo with a computer! Imagine the advances. We have evolved as a species and as a society to even have these conversations without a pyre, excommunication or inquisition. So learn from the past but live for the future.
Ever looked into the nights sky and wished you were off this planet?
What is the meaning of life, is it just as simple as to experience it ?,... all the good and bad and destructive components of it? Is it up to us to clean up and refine humanities acts , or has god spun a sym universe that is in essence a set of variables of cause and effect that will take care of itself .... is god the building blocks of all matter and energy and all we can currently see with our eyes and neural imagination.... where do we stop this analysis of cleverness and thought...
here is something simple that I think all the masses can TRY in this earth based moment...., try not to be hurtful, nor a bully, nor use your wit and cleverness to verbally or physically hurts others intentionally, .... just try.... that's all we can do for the moment in this 7 Billion + world....tip the scales in that direction and we will evolve sooner than later....,
also, in order to escape this us verses them (vice versa) we need to evolve into a higher being or energy, unfortunately it will take time but we'll get there one way or another, our version and current cycle of life will be a temporary thing, statistically the variables will ultimately align and we will once again (earth included) be part of the cosmos in some form or other and experience eternal rest and peace, ... nobody has come back to tell us otherwise...... not yet at least.....
Come on Bob do you tell yourself that when the doctor tells you you have three months to live or you just lost your job and your home you have been paying for is next? Or your child that has spinabifada asks you why the kids make fun of me?Come on Bob you can do better.
Yep, Kevin...just as you console yourself when the doc tells you you have pancreatic carcinoma and have only six weeks...it is human to console ourselves, whether it is the myth of religion or the myth of those who interpret scientific findings (the "hows" into "whys" as many scientist tend to do, thereby stepping out of the lab coat into the blazer of the philosopher or the decor of the priest). Only your experience can tell you...but it cannot explain my experience, because that is my own...and the exciting part? Who knows if our "experience" is even reality? This makes life exciting for me...not you?...I accept that...
And our feeling of separation is the cause of suffering. :)
...Excellent!...you beat me to the "punch"
If it is eternal it is immutable by definition!
The quote given about empty form is misused and misunderstood. The Buddha said that form (body), feeling, perceptions, thought formations and consciousness is empty of anything we call soul or self. Buddhism is the only religion that does not believe in a creator god nor a soul. There was no mention or teaching on a universal consciousness or god (which the Buddha specifically called a delusion). The fat "Buddha" is Ho tie (Chinese culture) and has nothing to do with the Buddha who lived over 2,500 years ago. In short, the Buddha taught that mind/body is merely a process and is impermanent, subject to stress and without soul.
Ahem.... what is this thing called reincarnation then?
What the hell are you talking about?
You must be high or on an extreme acid trip.
Here is what we know. We as humans only see in a limited spectrum called "visible light". We can only hear sounds between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Science is our attempt to apply a man made system of measurement to that which was not made by man, the universe. The universe exists and is essentially everything by definition.
attempting to understand God is like an Ant attempting to understand what a human is by its small scope of perspective in which it see a flesh colored mountain before it that is our toe....Can it rationally determine what it is to be human by seeing a small peice of the whole. Is it safe to say that God does not exist because you wouldn't recognize if you saw one single aspect of him, if you did you wouldn't recognize it as God, but as something familier because that is how your brain works.
Mr. Dawkins you cannot observe God because you are an ant which believes you are the biggest and best thing out there in existence. The reason you think this is because you have never seen anything to prove you wrong. The fallacy is that you believe your scope of perception to be infinite, which it clearly is not.
If God exists your limited perspective only allows you to see a piece which your finite understanding cannot comprehend and therefore attributes it to the familier. You want to talk about delusions, you're experiencing one of the biggest of them all.
I disagree a few of your points:
1. understanding gods is a relatively easy prospect and a field of study for generations. It is science that we cannot understand thoroughly.
2. the sense limitations you listed do not account for our ability to build devices and methods that let us extend our senses and our ability to measure.
3. You are suffering from a desire to believe in the paradigm you want to exist. This will prevent you from objectively dealing with the world you live in. How many gods did you try (of the infinite number of possible gods) before you settled on yours? What made you stick with your currently worshiped god?
Also, it's "Dr." or "Professor" Dawkins to you.
Are you able to see better than us? Do you know the absolute truth? Please, please....do enlighten us.
Bravo! Well put...
Very well said!!!
We went to the mountain to find God. He wasn't there.
We took to the skies to find God. He wasn't there.
We left our atmosphere to find God. He wasn't there.
We left our solar system to find God. He wasn't there.
I think your ant analogy is a little flawed. Every level up the "flesh-colored" toe we go, we find nothing but things we have come to understand, through science.
u said, 'attempting to understand God is like an Ant attempting to understand what a human is'.
This analogy is already false because u have assumed that god exists.
What if i believed in the tooth fairy and said to u, 'attempting to understand the tooth fairy is like an Ant attempting to understand what a human is'. As u can see my statement holds no merit as i have assumed that the tooth fairy exists and is outside my understanding. The obvious and correct answer is that the tooth fairy does not exist. But i have made the assumption that 'the tooth fairy exists' (just like u did with god) and the rule 'that we cannot understand the tooth fairy' (so that the tooth fairy and also god and conveniently hide away). Why not admit the obvious and simpler answer (Ocaam's razor) which is that the tooth fairy/god does not exist.
What Buddha said has been greatly misinterpreted. But given this example you give, Buddha was factually incorrect. Emptiness is neccesary for form to exist im. It is not the same as form. Buddhism has gotten most things wrong, but fortunately in a way that can be explained clearly exactly how they are wrong.
Creationists know nothing! We shall find out in death. Very soon.
this man is very dangerous in so many ways. He is the human face of pride and arrogance. #1 problem in our world today is lack of faith and trust in God. Faith and trust in God leads to hope, optimism, and finally inner peace and joy, and finally love. Nobody wants to admit it…nobody wants to talk about it, but ‘man’ cannot function properly without faith in God. It’s the way it was designed and encrypted by God himself. If we convert our hearts and learn to depend on Him (not the gov’t), we might stand a chance of saving our world. We must become humble…and thankful, everyday of our lives! There is a ‘natural order’ to things. This is how God ‘programmed’ our world from day 1. If this natural order is broken and we lose our ‘divine connection’, then our societies will begin to break down, leading to degeneration, disaster, and war. This is no doubt, what is happening in our world today. Currently, abortion and atheism are destroying our society from the inside out. Corruption of individual hearts, minds, and souls are rampant and common place. People have become shallow, materialistic, and lacking in any sort of divine connection.
"Faith and trust in God leads to hope, optimism, and finally inner peace and joy, and finally love."
Many, many things lead to those qualities. I am a life-long atheist and have found all of those.
Do you think "faith and trust in god" was a slight problem for Galileo?
Actually, picllb123, I function quite well with no faith in any god whatsoever. You cross clutchers may need a god to help you along, but I'll stick with the truth.
Our #1 problem is lack of faith in "God"? Really? I don't think so buddy. I stopped believing in imaginary friends long ago.
It will be quite interesting to watch human reaction after October 12 this year. Will surely say a lot about our specy.....
Yes, I had a similar vision when doing acid years ago.
The brain is truly amazing and we understand so little about it thus far.
But... that does not mean we should entertain fairy tale explanations just because our knowledge is incomplete.
I'm a geophysicist so I have a great love for science and mathematics. There was a period in my life where I thought that humans were really nothing more than an evolutionary overshoot. I'm not a church going sort of person. But I have come to the conclusion for a variety of reasons that there is no way what we experience and what we are could have come from nothing spontaneously without purpose or design. We reason, if God is there, why play games, come out. And why don't you answer me when I try to talk to you. Now, I've gotta tell ya, if God did that there would be no meaning, no mystery, no challenge and no requirement for faith. By the way, atheism is a belief system just like any other. So, clearly, the reality that we can't sense in our 4D world is not material but it is there. Come to think of it, if you drill down there really isn't anything there. People made of chemicals and compounds, which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles and, as one theory holds, are made of one dimensional vibrating strings (emphasis on the one dimensional aspect). So what's down there. Are we just made of subatomic forces and what are they made of, etc. Are we in fact only "light beings" on a journey which has not been completely revealed to us. No way, when someone says, when you die, your brain dies, and therefore that's the end. Maybe who we are has taken a form that gives us the "physical" experience that we have and when we die it is merely a transformation of energy. Morality, conceiving of a Creator, our drive to understand are imaged right into the fabric of the Universe. We cannot prove or disprove. We can only choose to believe and this comes from a different part of the mind than scientific thought. If we had an almost infinately high frame rate movie of God's creating of the Universe, I would want to slow it way down and watch the details as each atom and molecule get put in it's place. I think you would see a very ordered sequence of things. It might just be evolution. Time, remember is only a perception and it is not real. A mosquito landed on Einstein's nose. The mosquito stalked around for a while and then concluded that there was no intelligence there and flew off. The mosquito's name was Dawkins.
Darwin's theory was proven FALSE and a fraud. FACT
100% He was paid to finish a book first.
EVOLUTION is a fraud, as is GLOBAL WARMING< CLIMATE CHANGE and OBAMA
WAKE UP AMERICA..do your research.. dont fall victim to these fakes
Thank you for this.
Yes, and the world is flat too. I think religion has proven time and time again that it needs to stay out of the science business.
WOW! – Here is what is REALLY scarry – they let idiots like aj VOTE! – THEY (the self rightious yet IGNORANT) are a true danger to soceity. – NOTE to aj and the other 'buy bull' thumpers out there – here's a challenge: Just for 1 day, put down your prejudice, and pick up a BOOK (other than further religious indoctrination) try some NON-fiction. Before you bash Darwin – READ Darwin! http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/text/darwin/table01.htm (although written about 150 years ago and containing big words, it is fairly understandable – however you do have to know how to use the back button on your browser between chapters). before you bash Dawkins, READ Dawkins! – I suggest 'The Greatest Show on Earth' for a start. After reading 'The Ancestor's Tale' , you might be able to actually start to understand the concept of evolution – WARNING! it is comprehensive, not written at a 3rd grade level, and requires EFFORT. get a clue before you start typing and embarrass us (as members of your species) with your ignorance.
aj, thanks for that, it's not often that one gets to laugh at pure ignorance. It's quite funny. Perhaps, if you sprinkle a little fairy dust around, you can make your beliefs real.
Yes, and the evil Powers That Be are responsible for 9/11, shark attacks, and the fact that I cannot get a Bacon and Egg McMuffin after 10 am. Regarding the notion that Darwin's theory was proven false ... chapter and verse, please. If you can provide good evidence, you should be maintained in luxury at state expense for the rest of your life.
Is it possible that we haven't discovered everything yet and just maybe some future knowledge may change we what now believe is true?
On a different note, I find the comment, "Who cares about creationists? They don't know anything" quite disgusting. To place value on a human being based on their knowledge, or lack thereof is disturbing.
Not certain but I think there was an implied "Who cares about [the thoughts of] Creationists?..."
Science created man, man created God, God created illusion, illusion created war.
I am sorry but this man is just trying to sell books and get wealthy out of people ignorance.
An atheist always says that God does not exist. But he can not keep this dogmatic position. If he wants to make that statement with authority, he should know the universe in its entirety and master all knowledge. If someone had those credentials, by definition, would be God. Since Mr. Dawkings is not omniscient, he can not make such a dogmatic statement about the existence of God. He can only indicate that it is uncertain whether or not there is a God, and that's agnosticism, not atheism.
Agnostic, is usually someone who does not know whether God exists. Fuzzy minded about God. It should be a skeptic. Some are more aggressive than others in search of truth, which we applaud. Unfortunately, most do not make a real effort to know if God exists. He already decided the issue is not crucial. However, it is. The fact that an agnostic is unsure, makes it logical that he should consider the claims of Christianity. So agnosticism is not a reason to reject Christianity, but is a reason to examine Christianity.
Agnosticism and Atheism belong in different realms. Agnosticism is about knowledge, and to say someone is agnostic means that he claims no absolute knowledge about the existence of god: Your point actually. Dawkins have explained it many times. He is also agnostic about tooth fairy or a flying teapot in the earth’s orbit. In fact you can make anything up and strictly speaking one has to be agnostic about it. For example can you say with absolute certainty that there is a 33 head monster that is living in the molten core of the earth? But it’s not very likely now, is it? Now Atheism is about belief. Dawkins lives his life with no belief in God and thus he is an atheist.
Everyone on the message board, except me, is a GIANT D.O.U.C.H.E. Cheers buddy!
I agree with Bob. It's interesting that in the Vedic scriptures they say that in this age of darkness What is truth will be considered false and what is false considered true. God and the individual soul are eternal (the essence of truth) all other things transient, only true for awhile and hence false by vedic thought
And yet today only things we can see are considered true (and NOTHING that we see we ever last forever) and God is considered false. Topsy-turvy
I suggest if any one wants to know real science then read the old and new testiments and then meet Jesus. Now that is real science..anything else dawkins and other atheists like have to say is meaningless because he has his head buried so far in the sand that if he burps sand comes out his behind. There will be a day when all questions are answered and I promise that the atheists got all the wrong answers.
Just the statement "Religion has nothing to teach us" is a cognitive distortion. Goes to point out that someone who's really smart in one area can be a total idiot in other areas.
great, so how would that help me love my wife, feed my family, enjoy my vacations and stick around with friends. nothing? that theory is too big or there is nothing to be of any practical use. guatama and dawkin surely are telling us a lot of nothing! when you are against something, we can find all kinds of arguments against it. what am i for and what am i doing about it is the question we need to ask and find answers to.
So what are you for?
Just in case anyone is counting, "might" beat "fact" 13 to 1.
There are great minds on both sides of the argument about whether or not there is a God. It is a question that everybody asks themselves some point in their lives. What I have found that makes it an easier question to answer is the fact of how life all began. You can either believe that the Universe was created by intelligent design or simply the fact that life came from nothing. I have heard the single cell particle theory that says life started with one molecule that started all of life but I ask where did that particle come from? Now on the other hand people ask will if God created the universe then who created God? My answer to them would be, if God was created, he wouldn't be God then would he. I don't have vast knowledge on the issue but I can sure prove more that we came from a creator than from nothing at all.
"My answer to them would be, if God was created, he wouldn't be God then would he. I don't have vast knowledge on the issue but I can sure prove more that we came from a creator than from nothing at all."
Interesting use of "he."
Your answer is more mumbo jumbo, voodoo and pixie dust.You can't just say that your can "sure prove" that a creator was involved solely because they are complicated. Besides, that is exactly the point of evolution. Things evolve in the most fantastic ways because they needed to for one reason or another.
More religious lies.
What science really knows from evidence
I teach evolution to college students. We just finished the unit on creationism and intelligent design today (debunking both). I make it clear to students that evolution is an explanation about how living things adapt to ever changing environments and that it is a Theory (capital 'T') because of the preponderance of irrefutable evidence in its favor. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life (no life = no evolution). There is no viable alternative to natural selection. Period. Evolution cannot be used to negate the existence of a Creator as science cannot quantify the supernatural.
I have no spiritual or intellectual objection to Richard Dawkins atheism, but I wince when it is used to support an atheist cosmology. Evolution is biological process which should be accepted at face value and not used (or distorted) to support a world/spiritual view. I live for the day when accepting Evolution is no more a spiritual crisis than is the earth revolving around the sun. I guess I had better live a looooong time.
Your issue is not with Dawkins, then. Your issue is with the large groups and faith-based organizations which try to prevent evolution from being taught and try to add Creationism to education curriculum. Dawkins purpose is to teach evolution in schools and keep it there, and to keep mythologies out.
We all know there is a complex 'straw man' of distortion and inaccuracies leveled at Evolution by nay-sayers which will take many years of science education to detangle. As the author of "The God Delusion," Dawkins has unfortunately made his atheism the face of Evolutionary Theory to many fundamentalist Christians. I would rather a modern-day Teilhard (or any Theistic evolutionist) argue for science-only in the classroom....
We all know there is a complex 'straw man' of distortion and inaccuracies leveled at Evolution by nay-sayers which will take many years of science education to detangle. As the author of "The God Delusion," Dawkins has unfortunately made his atheism the face of Evolutionary Theory to many fundamentalist Christians. I would rather a modern-day Teilhard (or any Theistic evolutionist) argue for science-only in the classroom.... (I had a computer glitch; if this posts twice, I apologize)
smith said: "Evolution cannot be used to negate the existence of a Creator as science cannot quantify the supernatural. "
Well, if you claim that your god created things in a certain manner and the evidence clearly displays how things actually evolved, yes, you can use evolution to debunk their creator.
Creators, don't get to make even one mistake. The evidence clearly displays mistakes. Evolutionary "wrong turns" and dead ends are everywhere.
You cannot debunk creationism. To try to you would have to assume that you are all knowing and all intelligent of all things to try to debunk creationism. You merely debunked your own lack of understanding of what God is and hopefully not the faith of those poor children who may have fallen subject to group think.
tifischer said: "You cannot debunk creationism. To try to you would have to assume that you are all knowing and all intelligent of all things to try to debunk creationism. You merely debunked your own lack of understanding of what God is and hopefully not the faith of those poor children who may have fallen subject to group think."
First of all, you're right, we can't debunk creationism because it's not a real thing. That aside, it really doesn't take much to debunk them. No god is needed to understand how things evolve. It's really pretty obvious if one bothered to read that science.
By the way, your use of the phrase "group think" is incorrect. Group think implies that the group (Scientists in this case) is somehow wrong about what they are thinking about. By it's very nature, the scientific process self regulates itself from falling victim to the failings that is standard in religion. Through observation, prediction and verification of the facts, the negative group think is avoided.
Religion, on the other hand, doesn't bother with verification. It goes right to observation and prediction. That's where it stops.
"we can't debunk creationism because it's not a real thing" is not a rational argument. There are many rational arguments for creationism and to argue against it with "I just don't think it is real" is not a rational thought processes but merely an argumentative statement to spite what I had said. So, with historical evidence,
I also did you group think correctly but you did not understand who I was applying the statement to...you only twisted my obvious intention to apply to whatever you felt like...again, an argumentative method and not a rational thought processes. By suggesting the possibility of group think, I was referring to group think as you being the teacher with whatever supporting others were present that the rest would mistakenly fallow being easily influenced by the so called authoritative figure and any others in support.
Religion is supported by observation, prediction and verification of the facts...really, just think about it for a second : ) Verification of facts can be made cross-culturally, independently through history, and on a personal level amongst billions of Christians around the world. You can verify events in the Bible by comparing it to the Torah, the Koran, dead sea scrolls, the new testament verifies prophets from the old testament and the new testament Gospel has verifying testaments from multiple witnesses. On a personal level I know that there are sometimes witnesses that can verify observation of God's intercession.
In addition, science in fact supports the existence of God. Think of the Big Bang and genetics...there are a number of post on this topic already that I hope you take time to explore one guy going by Slurp... something was really interesting.
m o smith said: "I teach evolution to college students. We just finished the unit on creationism and intelligent design today (debunking both)."
I can just imagine our classroom if the believers get their way...by the way, they already started...
"We're going to have a class on wizards and witches. Next week, class, we're going to do a unit on Santa Claus followed by a section on the Easter Bunny. And just to pacify those Pastafarians, we're gong to finish off the year with a section covering pirates and noodles. For extra credit, you can read about the Invisible Pink Unicorns."
When the year is over, students won't know a thing about how the world ACTUALLY works but they'll leave thinking the world is swell. The Nation of Idiocracy will have arrived.
m o smith, You must have such an easy job finding examples to debunk...keep it up :)
I think the Bible taught us that crusade is not over. We've yet to take back Jerusalem. Bible taught us global warming is a lie. The extreme drought we have this year is nothing to be worried about.
Your certainty is precious but always start a fairy tale with "Once Upon a Time".
Matter does not exist. There is no matter. All arguments that Dawkins uses are matter based. Therefore, he is wrong.
well said bob lewis, but before siddhartha (budda), i mean way before him, the vedas have explained about the formation of universe. in fact, the vedas can be interpreted as "rules that describe the universe". sure u will see hymns etc, but most of it is symbolic. like for example lord vishnu lies on a million headed snake in an ocean. ocean here is consciousness and the way heads of a snake twist and turn show you the endless possibilities or dimensions..... only vedas (from all historical books) quote the earth was formed billions of years ago. infact the vedas include a clear calculation as well.
That doesn't mean there's a god. It's just a silly way he described things. It doesn't mean he's right and it sure doesn't mean we should put any stock into it. Live a good life and don't be a d1ck...it's that simple.
I scanned quite a bit of these silly posts on here... Let me give yall an impartial summary:
Dawkinists: You're all brainwashed narrowminded uneducated dumb retarded sheeple, blinded by faith, believing in imaginary blond ghey white man with a "virgin mother" (LOL)
BibleHuggers: You are ALL misguided Morons with no soul, no spirit no compassion who will BURN IN HELL. Show me proof that God doesn't exist. Show me proof of how men/animals were FIRST created. Read the Bible before you discredit God (LukeSKYwalker 16:31)! Mr. Dawkins is a MORON! Mr. Darwin is a MORON!
My take: Dawkinists 1: BibleHuggers 0
Dawkinists: Thinkers (keywords: scientific, balanced, open-minded, educated, rational, wise, truthers)
Bible Huggers: Anti-Intellectuals (keywords: blind-faith, Crusades, Virgin Mary, "Thous Shall Hasth no odda God Before Meh" "Believer or go Directly to Hell")
Re: teaching Creationism at Schools
As it is, American HS educational system is a joke compared to India & China, wanna make the kids dumb & dumber & more igNANT? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why the BibleHuggers are epicly hating on Dawkins:
They read nothing but the bible that when an educated man with proper english & without a lisp speaks, they have a hard time understanding what he's saying. Also, they don't have the intelligence to comprehend the facts, theories presented – simply way above their heads.
P.S. Remember to kiss your bible, love your neighbor & have compassion towards fellow humans. But feel free to maassacre them when they don't worship THE god.
OMG Bob Lewis, I am so happy you posted!!
iIt is so very refreshing to see someone else here who can see truth. Science is what convinced me of the truth of Buddhism. For me it absolutely hit the nail on the head. Everything clicked. Such truth. I also am intrigued that he also said that his teachings were not for everyone, because it may not be their time in cyclic existence....Great Post...
But to me it smacked me dead in the face and in just a few moments gave me every answer to questions I had been asking my whole life....that was 15 years ago...
Mr. Dawkins, or whoever can correct these assumptions or answer these two questions (objectively):
I have a graduate degree in chemistry, have taken graduate courses in nuclear physics, relativistic physics, and work in the R&D department of a multi-billion dollar chemical company.
I have a couple questions regarding the use of isotope ratios for determining the Earth's age. First, my assumptions:
1. Aging measurement methods for the Earth are based on isotope ratios of sufficient half-life.
2. These isotopes are generated during natural solar fusion/fission processes. Once these materials leave this environment via Big Bang, supernovae, etc., the ratio is at time-zero and begins to change based on half-lives.
3. We don't know how long it took for ejected solar material, already containing these aging isotope ratios, to coalesce into Earth, etc.
So, how can isotope ratios be used to determine the age of Earth? How old are the pre-Earth isotopes before Earth formed?
the molecular clocks used in radiometric dating are not created only during solar events. it happens every time a volcano erupts and magma solidifies. you – surprise – don't know what you're talking about. you creationists never do, and then dishonestly ignore that fact and move on still trying to prove your point. that's not very honest. sounds like something the devil would do. manipulative and ignorant, wow, what kind of god do you stand for?
How dare you to talk about "honesty" when you are publicly stating that the "Evolution Theory" is fact based when, instead, you are stating suppositions ?
When and where was it agreed by the scientific community that the "Evolution Theory" is now a Law? Honestly... that's dishonesty.
You probably shouldn't be a scientist. I recommend learning pressure flaking. It's all the rage.
Dear Slurp: not fact, just a very very *very* good theory ... better than creationism by the ratio of an anteater to an ant.
Well, I guess I can take *that* to the bank.
Buddhism is philosophy,not "religion" in the western sense. Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" is getting all the press, but I found that "The Blind Watchmaker" give an even more convincing "argument" into Dawkin's "views" (they shouldn't be called views as much as proofs.)
II am so glad people are at last openly denouncing these absurd middle-age beliefs. "Say it loud" as James Brown would put it ...
What you've just said is absolutely nothing. The universe is "absolute", "timeless", "eternal", "changing" and "now"? Aside from the contradictions of the words with each other, you've conveyed no information at all. You could say the same thing about the soul, or beauty. Based on this post, a person would know nothing at all about the universe, except that it has at least one being in it that is unsuccessfully trying to sound profound.
Buddha was a very wise man.
Imagine the peace in the world without religion, sad but so true.
Maybe in the next life I could be a monkey, swing thru the trees as a banan junky , stare at the sun with an IQ of 30, scratch my asz, lick my fingers when they are dirty...
I can prove the following mathematically. There are only 3 possibilities.
1. The bible is correct.
2. Humans did not evolve on earth.
3. We came here from somewhere else.
Enough said. Understand the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, and the answer is clear.
Those "laws" are mere theories which give rough approximations of events, not the real truth. Science has still a long way to go before knowing anything about whatever. However, it has become a kind of religion as well with its high priests and powerful hierarchy. I would say: remain humble and observe.
Thank you. That is also very poetic and I believe it's true.
The author believes that when he dies it all ends because his brain dies. However, he has forgotten that it is his brain which perceives time, so, when he dies, the notion of time vanishes, and that this may happen even before his brain dies. I believe that when we die, we remain in a timeless dimension with all our good memories forever and ever.
Memories are stored in the brain. Your brain is dead thus no memories.
But the perception of time halts before the brain is dead, so you are suspended in a timeless dimension.
Problem 1: When you are asleep you are unaware of time, are you in a timeless dimension then?
Problem 2: Demonstrate a timeless dimension exists.
Problem 3: Memories are stored in the brain, show that these memories are moved to the timeless dimension.
Hi Jerry! Thank you for your reply to my posting. Good that you brought dreaming about. I recall having very elaborated dreams with plots worthy of a Hollywood movie and all the time elapsed was less than 10 minutes. So, maybe we don't even have to die in order to sense that timeless dimension. The world is as real as the perception we have of it. How does a tree perceive the world? Science will say it doesn't because it has no nervous system. To me that is shortsightedness. I don't have to proof things in the lab in order for them to be real. Most important things in life, like the emotions that bind us and drive our efforts to thrive, have not been proven by Science and probably never will as long as Science keeps following a religious course as any other religion. Of course I can't prove this, but i have observed a lot and given it a lot of thought. It is worth of being a working hypothesis.
You are basically saying that you do not care about reality you only care about what makes you feel good. I prefer my beliefs mirror reality as much as possible.
either are your beliefs too narrow for me or is your reality too sad.
First there is only one reality. You're confusing perception with reality.
Second, you've used phrases like "can't prove". That demonstrates you do not care what is demonstrable.
I say that perception of reality is the only possible reality because there is no other way to perceive it. Of course it is important to demonstrate the veracity of facts. However, I read every day scientific articles where demonstrations fall short of proving anything. However, they are taken seriously because they are politically correct or backed up by strong lobbies. By the way, i am a scientist, but i recognize that not all facts could easily be proven.
Then you are not a very good scientist. Science has nothing to do with lobbies.
Science is observation. The scientific method is based on the concept of people checking each others work. You would know that if you were really a scientist. Also, perception changes. Reality does not change.
"not all facts could easily be proven"
You need a dictionary. If it's a fact, then it can be proven.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as they are answering fundamentally different questions. Science seeks to answer the questions of 'how', where religion seeks answers to 'why'?
No. Religion predisposes the question why and gives no answer.
dragonfire77 is correct. Without why even science is useless. The how is insignificant without the why. For instance, who cares how molecules come together to form compounds unless you are trying to create a pharmaceutical drug to save someones life? It is the why that is most important not the how. Any scientist will tell you that getting funding in science is dependent on the 'why' you want funding...there are many people that propose how they will do something but cannot get funding because they do not have a good reason.
You assume their is a why.
that's a fallacy of most scientists. There is no "why" just a "how".
No sir, there is no funding without a 'why'. And from a pschological or philosophy point of view you might wonder how does that works but if you don't care, then why would you ask how...so why do you care to know? That is what is important. and if you ask how for no good reason no one else will care and your how becomes insignificant. So, the importance of the how is relative to the importance of the why...there is a direct correlation. Right a grant for funding a 'how' with no 'why' and see how much money you get ; )
i only want to know how and what. "Why" is no science. However, sometimes the line is thin. Nobody will write a grant with me. I am the kind of scientist who has been enslaved by others. I do have my own views of things, but nobody cares until they find there is some way to make a profit in what i have to say.
pliberato you are inslaved by your own myopic view of you. People only pay for things they care about...only things of significance to them some good and some bad. You also have to know that you asked the question for a reason...a why would you care to know how? You are searching for an answer a meaning to something to give you understanding that your spirit craves. But you are still left with why? Why does your spirit crave that question? Perhaps it is trying to lead you to a greater answer. Perhaps that thirst of how will never be quenched until you figure out what you are really thirsting for.
You're talking about 2 different things. To get research funding, yes you may need to provide a why. That's economics. But the scientific method does not care about why.
God Almighty reveals himself in 2 ways: through the Bible (John 1:1), and through His handiwork (Genesis 1:1). In terms of the Creation they both describe the same events – it is our interpretation of the Bible and the natural world and how they link together that is at fault. Maybe somewone will work out the puzzle, maybe they won't – but it's really only secondary to the main points of Christianity: that God loves us, that He wants us to love Him thorugh a defined relationship, and that He wants us to love each other while we are alive on Earth.
Unfortunately, these messages have been so corrupted by so many for so long that it's no suprise Christian's don't have much standing. But – Mr. Dawkins, God does love you and He sent Christ to die for you so that you don't have to go to Hell (John 3:16). Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as 'substance .... and evidence..." ; and after being alive over 50 years, I can attest that I've seen and heard enough to convince me the God of the Bible is real.
The bible is nothing but an archaic old book of ancient mythology. Written thousands of years ago by members of a primitive culture in an attempt to explain existence and give people comfort in the face of their mortality. It's no different than other ancient mythology. Science on the other hand requires evidence. There is absolutely no evidence whatever for the Christian god or any other god, other than ancient mythology.
If the kinds of things described in those ancient texts we real and happened then, they would be happening now. But it's funny that I don't see any god flying around in a cloud and a pillar of fire. I don't see stick turning into snakes, water turning into wine, manna appearing from heaven, etc. etc. etc. It's just ancient mythology from a primitive society. Get over it.
We are all agnostic by default!
LuisWu, I couldn't agree with you more. Science has answered the questions that religion was once used to explain. People put faith in God but calls others crazy when they believe in aliens or ghosts. Yet, there is not a single shred of evidence that God actually exists. Too many peole have a hard time believeing or don't want to believe that there is no after-life as it is too depressing.
Your right on point with these old scriptures, they written by a man for crying out loud.
in the days of Jesus many that were in His very presence believed in Him – many did not... when He was tortured and hung from the cross many weeped while others mocked, spat, scorned and even laughed at Him... you may ask yourself "is there a possibility that I would have been one of the latter?" Luke16:31 – "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "
go back and read the parable of Lazarus
you will mr wu - you will
dawkins tottaly foolish and ridiculos....
"We are all agnostic by default!"
no we are all atheist by default, we know nothing about any gods at birth. Its only later we are taught to do what one particular one says or suffer an eternity of torture.....in their love and mercy.
Amen, brother. Right on – from a muslim.
No book of 'mythology', as you put it, parallels and records historical events with any accuracy, much less coming anywhere as accurate as the scriptures, nor has any book of mythology had any of its events proven to have happened through lineage and archaeology in the way that the Bible has. Jericho was found in the very state and condition as it was described in the Bible. Your attempts to label it as myth fall very flat indeed.
It is possible that evolution is a very personal experience; that is no one can help me to understand anything about my environment. I have to want to understand my environment. There has been three books that helped me take a deep breath. Two of them by Andrea Puharich: "the Sacred Mushroom" and the othe book is "Uri. The third book is "Arigo" by John Fuller.
To my understanding at present, what is important is not where I came from nor where I am going. What is important is where I'm at, that is due to the dialogues presented in those three books, together with observation of natural phenomenas,which lead physisists to the hyposisis of the existance of level of reality indepandent of time. The hypothesis that a photon that had left a galaxy million of years ago had complete knowledge of the maners it is going to be detected and where it is going to be absorbed, together with the idea that the photo adjustes its polarity and t's location in a manner to be the most useful to the environment. My question to the reader is whether morality is a law of nature.
The differance is Jesus was in THE history books of the world and even in other religions Books , such as the koran( he was mentioned as being a phrophet in the muslim koran)...Those pillars of fire and manna from the sky came as they needed to , to help Gods people. Now days if you dont think things happen that are just as astonishing as manna from the sky , then you are not opening your eyes to see what is clearly there for all who will fill thier hearts with faith. Look , even when Jesus was performing miracles in front of people ...his own people ...they still crucified him and still some did not believe...the natural human nature is disbelief and needing of a in your face proof ...like the other guy said ..Gods message is Love ...Love all, many people distort the bible aND THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANS FOR PERSANOL GAIN SUCH AS WARS AND TAKING OF MONEY FOR FORGIVEINESS , BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRUE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF RELIGION AND GOD ARE NOT GOOD. tHE DIIFRANCE OF OTHER SO CALLED RELIGIONS IS EACH BOOJK OF THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN 100S EVEN THOSAND OF YEARS APART , BUT YET THEY WERE ALL STILL TAKILING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS HAPENING TO THEM IN THE SAME WAYS , NOW DAYS THATS EASY WITH TECHNOLIOGY , BUT IMAGINE BACK THEN , THOSE PEOPLES IDEAS AND THOUGHTS AND EXPIRIANCES ALL BEING SIMILAR AND THEIR PHROPECIES COMING TRUE THOSANDS OF YEARS LATER AND BEING PUT TOGETHER IN A BOOK THAT HAS LASTED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF YEARS...ITS REMARKABLE...TO EACH HIS OWN BUT I WOULD HATE TO BE IN A WORLD WITH NO GOD LIFE IS TOO SHORT AND I PRAISE GOD FOR MY SALVATION AND THE WORLD TO COME.
Actually, the Jesus story existed before Jesus' time, but using different names: Moses, Gilgamesh, etc.
It is a common story. Being a real person in history makes no difference in the likelihood that there is a divine god or gods, nor does the historical existence of Mohammed, John Smith or Jim Jones.
I love to see how everyone thinks they have the answer. Well I say this. If we all are right then why don't we agree? Hmmmm...People fear what they don't understand. If some of you don't believe in God then don't! What I will tell you is that when you're on the brink of death, I PROMISE you will question that belief whether you like it or not. God said that a non believer will say in his heart "there is no God." Clearly that is true on all accounts. If you want to question things in the Bible because it doesn't "fit" with your logic go right ahead. But my question is this: Is murdering someone wrong? If so then why is it? Who told you that it was wrong, and where did they get that from? Some things don't require explanation or clarification. Deep down somewhere you just know. Hence the reason why people believe in God. Science is all based on theory. If you weren't present at the time all this happen to attest it to be truth, then you shouldn't be speaking in the literal sense. It is fruitless.
The Word of God is not easily understood and almost impossible unless you really want to know and ask for it.
Or if your stubborn like many of us are, demand the truth and even ask for some form of proof. (Eventually you'll probably regret that tone but hey,, you should be honest with yourself going into this)
Then read it. Like a Science project . King James version is as good as any to start. Everyday for 1/2 hr ,,E2E. No Church, no coaching, just say (think) every day prior "God show me what you got" and read.
If your lucky(blessed is the official term) you'll understand and know more that most clergy. From there no one else needs to know or you can decide what to do with your new found discovery.
Praise Jesus. You'll burn in hell Dawkins for your common sense and reasonable way of thinking!!
But...there is no hell.
Stop making us look bad, Worried Christian Mother. Seriously. I am tired of telling people like you that the only one who saves or condemns is God. This is NOT your job. Unless you think you're God. In which case you should look into getting psychiatric help.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3. Read the Bible next time. Thanks.
"Judge not lest ye be judged". Looks like you'll be joining him.
Not sure, but I think this is sarcasm. You guys take stuff way too seriously.
Nah, Dawkins, and all others "KNOW" God, no one is without excuse. The problem is that they do not give thanks and honor to God. That is the issue.
Read Romans 1:18-25
Praise Jesus... or burn in hell?
(Let me take a wild guess – Are you a Republican?)
Sarcasm detector fail, check your batteries.
lol! trollin' hard (I hope)
man, people are dumb
YAY! I like bread!
Yea, let's quote the bible as a defense of creationism. What a cretin you are.
Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. You'll burn too.
Ah, yes. The inevitable death threat from the faithful (worriedmother) coupled with a quote that involves imaginary beings (witches).
Please stop with the fairy tales, there is already enough crazy to go around.
I'd much prefer quoting the bible than quoting some ridiculous pseudo-scientific garbage.
well said bill. :) Sad to see so many people turning against their own GOD. I'd rather have faith here on earth then find out i was wrong later. Being wrong about GOD's existence is the worst decision we could EVER MAKE. Please know to open your hearts, God loves you and pursues you.
Right, J. You're a perfect example of the sort of thinker Dawkins describes when criticizing a sort of false morality: God has given you morals, through fear. Fear that if you don't please him with adequate praise, you'll burn in eternal punishment (making, as you put it, the "greatest mistake") – and from therein springs your glorious sense of morality? Right.
Fear of God isnt a problem you should fear God. But I also love him and want to do his will. That isnt living in fear. Perhaps you don't run a RED LIGHT or murder someone MICHAEL BECAUSE your AFRAID of JAIL? POLICE ? LAWS?
You've just proved his point (Dawkins not god) by saying essentially that you're hedging your bets in case you find that there is a god after you die. By definition then, deep down, you don't really believe, you're just afraid that not believing might be wrong. Be honest with yourself and really ask the question do you believe the rubbish the religions tell you and you will find the real truth.
So, according to you, God is a stalker, since he "pursues" me? Explains a few things.
lets hope you believe in the right god then. There are thousands to choose from.
J: I don't run red lights primarily so I don't hit someone or get hit. I don't murder people because I'm not a terrible person.
Kohlberg's stages of moral development: the lowest level is acting in a way to avoid negative consquences from an authority. Those whose moral basis is the fear of retribution from a higher power are, morally speaking, children.
"I'd rather have faith here on earth then find out i was wrong later. Being wrong about GOD's existence is the worst decision we could EVER MAKE."
Now, THERE is a ringing endorsement about one's spiritual beliefs. It's like, hey, I could be wrong, but I am going to hedge my bet just in case and say that I actually believe in something even though it might not be true. Accepting things on faith is for the weak, feeble-minded among us. Science seeks to prove and validate whereas religion seeks to browbeat and intimidate through fear for a political/financial purpose of the proponents of that religion. That's like a Christian going out and sinning like the devil all week knowing that he or she can go to chcurch on Sunday and ask forgiveness – how utterly convenient!
If I ever see somebody who claims to be a Christian actually living the life they claim to believe in, then I might be convinced of, or at least amenable to, the possibility of god and the sanity of religion. If such a person exists, then he or she is definitely not in the GOP or the Tea Party! "Do as I say, not as I do" is not a ringing endorsement for what one claims to believe.
And being wrong about God's NON-Existence is worse, as you live a lie all your life and never bother to really grow as a person. Instead, you live by the rules of long-dead charlatans who in no way could have possibly set down life rules that would apply to the modern world.
If you could be utterly proven wrong, how much of your life has been wasted?
J: That's not belief, it's covering your bet. Ever hear of Pascal's Wager?
The thing is J, either you believe or you do not. It is not really a decision that you simply make.
J...God will know what is in your heart, hedging your bet is not gonna work. You don't have "faith" because you are worried about the consequences, you have faith because you believe deep in your heart that God loves you and everyone else no matter if they are Muslim, gay, black, white, Episcopalian, or a Democrat. The point is that if God loves anyone he must love everyone.
@J, people like you terrify me. The only thing that keeps you from being a serial killer is believing that some sky god is watching you 24×7 and will roast you in flames for eternity if you mess up. Please do us all a favor and never lose your faith/delusion.
John was written 1500-1800 years ago (?) and Genesis was written 3000-5000 years ago (?), and any version of either that you've read in your 50 years has been heavily edited and translated multiple times since then. This is proven fact; not theory and not assumption. I don't need faith to believe it. If you believe that the version you read is somehow the perfect "word-of-God" direct from his lips to your brain, you are wrong, and anyone who taught you that was either misled themselves, or they were lying for some reason.
Aside from this, any personal experiences you've had that bolster your faith in the almighty have nothing to do with what's written in that book, and if they do, it's only because you were taught to interpret those experiences through the filter of said book.
Please demonstrate that your God is the right one, and that all believers of other faiths – many of whom believe in the targets of their worship just as fervently as do you, if not more so – are wrong.
yes many religions, but only one man (JESUS) who died on a cross to remove sin. SELFLESS.
Jesus has already proved he is the only God. Christians be ready, and keep the faith as our redemption draws near, and our Saviour returns to Earth. As it was in the days of Noah, shall it be the coming of Jesus return.
There is no evidence, and they can't come up with any to prove it.
What was selfless about it? Jesus not only KNEW that he'd have to die, but also KNEW he'd be rewarded eternally for it. Especially if you believe the whole "God is Jesus, Jesus is God, they are one etc etc" There was no sacrifice to be made.
I find it funny that people will say that Jesus is their savior...the bible tells us that God made Jesus to spread HIS word – not Jesus' word. He was the voice of God on earth – NOT GOD. If you are Christian then you should be praying to God, not Jesus.
Bill, gog hates it when you only use a single source for all of your information. YOU are the one who's got the problem. You worship a book, not a god, and the book came from Sumerian priests, including Abraham the priest of ADAD the THUNDER GOD. So really, what the heck, why do you 1) worship a book, and 2) worship ADAD the Sumerian THUNDER GOD instead of like THOR the NORSE GOD OF THUNDER? Selective god-choice is your human right?
Maybe CNN will let this response post? I've been having a lot of my ADAD-explaining posts stopped by the editors apparently, who also, apparently, don't want the truth about Yahwehism out. What up with that? Let my posts be free!
If Mr Dawkins were responding to you he would probably say (this is a Dawkins quote), that it is depressing that if there is a 'God', that 'He' was not clever enough to find a better way to forgive humanity than to manifest himself as a human on ealth and to have himself tortured to death in a most demeaning way. Why could he not simply have forgiven humanity?
He would be right .. Had he believed, he would have gone for Judaism or Islam where God will forgive or punish based on good and bad deeds.
As Christians all we can do is show them the path that they can choose to walk or not to walk in, as Christians all we can do is testify and live by example, those who CHOOSE not to follow and accept by faith, will be judged and for those ppl who CHOOSE not to follow and accept by faith as Christians we can pray for them. Those who have personally CHOSEN not to accept will also be held accountable for other souls in which they influence and lead astray. You can lead a horse to water but if he chooses not to drink then he will not and will eventually wither away. Once you have heard with word of God you are held accountable for your actions, your thoughts, your beliefs, and even inactions..... I do not judge, I just speak what is true
You make a false assumption that your path is true. Religion and gods are nothing but imaginary friends that you have adopted. You and your cronies assume you're right without one shred of evidence. You attempt to use your bible as law even though it is NOT the law of the land rather the law of the loonies.
You assume we have souls that will be judged by your imaginary friend. You assume to much really. Gullibility has made millions of people like you the laughing stock of the world and as we move into the 21st century and into the 22nd your imaginary friend will fade as real knowledge is uncovered and we learn to understand our universe.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. There is no god except the one in your mind and if you keep listening to those voices in your head you may find yourself in a place that doesnt allow visitors.
Well Scott, you are nothing but reoranized matter, put together by a random process. You don't really exist. Why should we listen to you? Oh by the way, people like Charles Babbage, the Wright Brothers, Tolkien, Werner Van Brahn, Faraday, Newton, etc.... were idiots to laugh at?
How do you know it's true?
Rick & Tammy, there's a flaw in your self-superior proselytical adage. And since parables are your preferred simplification method, let's look examine it thusly:
"You can lead a horse to water..." But if there's no water there, it will wither and not only will you have wasted a perfectly good horse, you'll be stranded, horseless, in the desert. And just continuing to insist that water is there isn't going to do either of you a lick of good.
Thankfully, some horses are bright enough to find water themselves. They go on to use critical thinking and science to create real-world solutions to real-world problems. Just like your version of Jesus, they sacrificed so that you could live comfortably (or live at all) - in the actual world, not in a fictional afterlife. The more horses can break free of your inept guidance, the better this world will be. Stop luring horses to your empty well, and try to contribute something useful to this world before the "randomly" organized matter you so readily dismiss is disassembled by the provable, unavoidable process of entropy.
Also, please stop USING randomly CAPITALIZED words for EMPHASIS. It's kind of a CLICHE for bible thumpers when they're REGURGITATING rote falsehoods.
The failure of logic from folks like Bill Charsley always amazes me. Does he not realize that there are others – millions of others – in this world with equal if not greater faith in ideas that directly contradict his own? If that faith gives him the power to condemn others to hell for not believing as he does, then surely he must realize that others, again with equal or greater faith, must have the same power over his "soul". But never fear. I have just as much power to sentence you to eternal damnation as you do me.
Almighty God, Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is therein is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent and you will meet your Maker one day Mr. Bill Charsley. If you don't repent, you will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity whether you believe it or not.
And another of the profoundly ignorant 40% explains the depth of his stupidity.
50 years under a rock must have left you flat as a stamp...
Billions of people have died over the thousands of years modern and primitive man existed. So, the fact that Jesus died does not impress me.
Millions of people have died in much more agonizing ways than Jesus did, and suffered their agony over much longer periods of time. Jesus's death has nothing on the excruciating pain experienced by bone cancer patients over many months. So, again, I am not impressed.
Jesus knew his father would resurrect him shortly after his death, so it wasn't really much of a death. More of a sham, really.
And torturing and killing his son was a pretty cruel and cowardly thing to do, whatever the supposed reason. Guess what? I'm not impressed.
You will not say that to his face. In fact, you will bow your knee and confess with your tongue that he is God. The truth is independent of your belief and whether you are impressed. The crux of what you are saying seems to be that Jesus' physical death wasn't so excruciating as to impress you. Although that seems like a very odd thing to latch onto, the concept you are discounting is the unbearable emotional agony Jesus suffered alongside the physical death, i.e. at that moment on the cross when he was dying and called out to God asking why he was being forsaken, he was enduring total abandonment and wrath of God in our place, as he bore the weight of the world's sin. It was literally hell on earth that we will never have to experience because Jesus provided a way to restore our relationship with God that had been broken due to our sinful and rebellious nature. God desires to save all who repent and accept Jesus as Savior – he is the way God chose to reconcile sinners to him. God does not want to send people to hell – they go there because they persist uncleansed in their sin when God is just, pure, and cannot abide by sin. (Again, that is the moment when Jesus felt abandoned by God, when he took on the world's sins and the presence of God departed from him.) How very sad to hear the gospel and still refuse to believe. I pray regularly for the unsaved.
Thank you, Mr. Charsley for standing up and speaking the truth. We can deny it, fight it, fear it- but quite simply-we cannot change it.
Bill, your first sentence is perhaps the most childish statement in this entire thread. Don't you understand that I can say that I know Zeus exists because of his "handiwork", just like your god? Don't you understand that the fact that anything exists is not proof of any diety? Please think critically. Nobody knows whether or not any diety exists. Claiming that you do know makes you look silly. Saying that you have faith that a god exists is a whole other thing entirely. Having faith is fine, just don't claim that you KNOW not only that a diety exists, but which one it is.
Christians don't have much standing?!?!? What country do you live in? Certainly not the US.
I don't really care who believes in God and who doesn't. I believe in God, I believe in creationism, I believe in evolution, I believe in heaven and hell. The bible says God created everything in six days, but doesn't say how long a day is, I was taught that a million years may only be a second to God, so six days, biblically speaking, could be billions of years. A lot of you may think that I am silly or stupid for my beliefs. I don't care – when I die, if there is no heaven or hell = no loss. If there is and I make it to heaven = excellent. If there is a hell – enjoy it for etenity non-believers.
I agree 100%
"when I die, if there is no heaven or hell = no loss. If there is and I make it to heaven = excellent. If there is a hell – enjoy it for etenity non-believers."
T, If you god exists, don't you think he is "super" enough to see through your "pascal's wager" argument? He knows you are only placing a bet on his existance. YOU ARE NOW DOOMED!
Ah, yes, but what if you are worshipping the wrong god? Then you're in a pickle. Thor will not be happy with your false idol worship. You may laugh, but there is no more evidence for any god than for Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why pick your one god and assume you have no risk. If there are 100 potential gods you have only reduced your risk by 1 %.
Read about pascal's wager.
Saying that you believe in creationism and evolution is like saying you believe in theistic gravity, where angels carry planets around the sun. If you knew the first thing about evolution, you'd know it's a "natural" theory. It doesn't posit god because god is unnecessary. Once you toss god into evolution, it stops being a scientific theory and becomes another form of religion – untestable and thus useless.
You forgot another possibility: you believed in the wrong God. now what? :D
"If there is a hell enjoy it non-believers"
Well, isn't that nice and christian like. Are non-believers automatically evil and deserve to burn in this so called hell? What if the non-believers are unalbe to believe becuase of the evidence that is in front of them? People can't just shut their brains off and all of the sudden believe, that is ridiculous. So someone could volunteer everyday feeding the hunger, picking up litter on the streets, smiling and loving everyone but still be unable to believe in a God and still go to hell? That is a crazy religion you all have.
I agree that someone should totally use their brain to the fullest. There is one book that amazingly captures the power of the human brain. One book that many scientists start believing in after reading and "comprehending", as it encloses the secrets of the universe and of creationism. This book is the Qur'An, don't listen to what others say about it...for you may only get the truth by reading it!
THe quran is worse than the bible. I've read it and it is highly moronic.
For instance, Quran sura 4:34 -> "... a man must not be asked why he beat his wife." What is enlightening about such a stupid statement by muham_mad? He also calls women inferior to men in the quran. Not a very enlightening book.
Muham_mad also married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. This is a fact. Look it up on wiki! To me, a book written by a certified pedophile is not 'enlightening' at all
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Then Jesus came and said "43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,h to the unquenchable fire.i 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell" Mark 9:43
You don't specify which version of creationism you subscribe to. If you are one of many who believe that the billions of years of evolution were triggered by a deity, then I have no argument with except to say, why does there need to be a god? But if you simultaneously believe the literal translation of Genesis and all the works of science, then you must suffer from some pretty powerful cognitive dissonance.
I love how atheists cling to science as their backbone for explaining something so complex. Science can explain some things, but so very little in the scheme of things. It doesn't say in the bible that if you don't believe in jesus you automatically go to hell. You discard something, yet know very little about it. That also goes for believers, wishing something so horrible like that on someone is wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Not to mention read the bible a little more! Intolerance is portrayed in many forms, one of them is telling someone they are stupid for believing in something. We call that verbal abuse, unless you do have all the answers in which case i apologise.
The mere fact that science cannot explain everything does not mean the bible explains anything. If you want to assert the truth of something in the bible, use evidence, or at least a cogent argument. Simply saying "you don't know everything, therefore I'm right about this" is faulty reasoning.
This idea of redefining a 'day" in Genesis is typical religious nonsense in light of scientific evidence that shows the universe wasn't created in six days. Genesis specifically describes a day as a day in the common understanding of the word. Of course, some believers will still argue a day is not a day. In other words, they don't believe the written word of God. They believe what they want, redefine what does not make sense and ignore the ridiculous.
Damn it T!! Now God knows the plan!!
Well, science seems to say the day was shorter in the past, like 4 hours long.
Another thought: Have you read any of Marcus Borg's book? He is professor at Oregon State University. He speaks of panentheism (not pantheism) – the belief that God is the universe, and not only the universe – but everything beyond the universe and also, all around us and present in us. I think he might also say that God's creation was accomplished thru evolution. Just something else to think about. I think the reason so many atheists make fun of people of belief, is that some Christian's believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. To say that Christianity does no one any good – you have to be delusional – or you do not know very many Christians. I think you could say this of many other religions, also. Don't be so arrogant, atheists! Have you ever hear the word "Tolerance for people who believe differently than you" That can also go for people who are not atheists.
That's a stupid old argument ("who can say how long a day was for god"). Well, ironically, your very own book defines it quite clearly, "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." So one day equals one rotation of the Earth. 24 hours. Of course we know that due to the Moon's tidal forces the Earth's rotation is slowing. So it was faster in the past. Ergo, a day was shorter in the past, not longer. So the invisible bearded man in the sky was under even greater time constraints back then to wish the universe into existence. Darn! Foiled by science again!
What if you picked the wrong one? There are an infinite number of possibilities if there are gods, so your odds of picking the right one are virtually impossible.
"If there turns out to be no God = no loss" That is incorrect. Living the Christian lifestyle leads people to make poor decisions about marriages, children, jobs (i'm going to pray and look for a sign!), politics, climate changes, etc. So basing your life on a God that does not exist DOES do harm.
You are a christian because you are afraid. That's what the church wants. Control by fear.
"The bible says God created everything in six days, but doesn't say how long a day is". Sure you can make an excuse for why the men who made up the mythical genesis creation story got the time line wrong by saying 'well u know, we dont know how long a day is in genesis'. I've heard this excuse many times by bible thumpers.
But, i would like to bring to ur attention that this excuse does NOT work because genesis also has got the order of creation wrong. For example, science has shown that plants needs the sun to grow (aka photosynthesis). THis is a fact and common knowledge. But if u read genesis, on the 3rd day god created grass/plants, and on the 4th day he created the sun and the stars. THis is wrong! The order of creation is wrong and ur 'we dont know how long a day is in genesis' excuse doesnt work.
Here is another fact: Science has shown us that the sun formed first, and then the planets including earth. That is the reason why earth revolves around the sun, cause the sun was here first to keep the earth in orbit. The earth formed about 30 million years after the sun. But again if u read genesis, on the 1st day god created the earth and on the 4th day he created the sun and the stars. Wrong again! Genesis has got the order of creation wrong again.
These obvious flaws in the bible's creation story should cause u to raise red flags on whether god wrote this story, or did bronze age nomads make up this story. It is very obvious that genesis was made up by men who had little knowledge of how the world came to be and hence made up stories whose basis is 'god did it'.
These stories are shown to be wrong by science and common sense facts like i showed u above. Hence genesis is false and u have been believing in fairy tales. I hope u use ur rational brain and critical thinking skills so u can discern what is true and what is not.
What is a day without the sun? What is a day to you vs a mouse vs God? Time and space are relative. For instance some of my posts are posted before others but show up after wards because we are of different time zones. If you consider our time and space relative to the third dimension that is not the exact same for the first, second, third or fourth. So, if you understand heaven as a higher dimensions, you see that a day may not be what you think because you are limited to your perspective of time.
Your 'explanation' as to why genesis has the order reversed is basically 'magic'. Magic is the only answer a believer has, because the only other option is admitting that genesis is wrong. And if u admit that genesis is wrong, what u have believed all your life is destroyed.
Lets break down what u said.
"What is a day without the sun? What is a day to you vs a mouse vs God? Time and space are relative."
A day to god (i will assume he exists and speak about him) is literally a day to humans (and also a mouse by the way as mice have the same day/night bodily cycle as other mammals). CHeck out what god did on the 1st day Genesis 1:5 -> 'And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.' It clearly says evening and morning made up the first day. There is no doubt that a day is a literal day in genesis. I can think of a comeback for u and im guessing u would reply with 'but evening and morning to god is not the literal evening/morning to us etc...'. This causes the conversation to again move to 'magic' where u r not answering my question rationally and making up stuff as u go along.
The last part of ur sentence which says 'Time and space are relative.' does NOT explain why genesis has the order of creation backwards. Time and space are relative does NOT mean that time goes backwards. You r still at square one and not explained anything rationally.
you said -> "So, if you understand heaven as a higher dimensions" lets not talk about heaven (which is imaginary), lets talk about what u cant explain, i.e., god had plants growing before there was the sun on the 4th day, and he created the earth on the 1st day before there was a sun and stars on the 4th day. There r a lot of facts such as:
– Sun is dated to be older than the earth by 30 million yrs
– The reason the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun is cause the sun was here first
– Plants need the sun to survive (everyone knows this)
– Many stars we see r older than our sun, which implies that they were here BEFORE the earth formed. But genesis again has the order wrong
All u have done to explain these errors in genesis is magic, not one shred of rationality exists in your argument.
I never said that time goes backwards but that your definition of time revolves around the sun : ) when in fact time is relative meaning without the sun would you still have a day? You could keep time of day but how? You would make it relative to the galaxy but a year would no longer be a "day" by definition.
If God is so vain that he would torture people for eternity for not kissing his ***, he isn't worth worshipping.
@Maya – god may appear vain to be making those claims, but do you really want to spend "eternity" without being separate from those who hurt you, killed childrens, etc? i can't wait for heaven, to be in a place of moral righteousness, peace, love and joy. for eternity, there must be eternal separation of good from evil; all religion teaches that. well, if there was no eternity, or beginning, no god, such separation is not really required. and we do not need to live today with any moral framework, any courtesy, any truth, any commitment, right? and don't we make any rules ourselves?
Religion at it's very essence is a celebration of ignorance; I don't understand the world around me so I resort to religion/mythology. I know how some will react to that statement but it is not meant to be critical; merely an observation about reality. I recognize there are many very dark places on this earth as well as the potential for a person to experiences very dark times over the course of their life that can only be dealt with, or survived, through hope and having something or someone to believe in when there is nothing else to hold on to.
A "celebration" of ignorance? LOL! While I certainly agree there's a lot of ignorance in religions, you use the word "celebrate" simply because it's one of the stupid words that's out there (like saying "awesome" for the tiniest thing that happens, even though if you know the meaning of "awesome" you wouldn't say such stupid things) in popular culture. So if you're trying to write something that makes people think you're cool and well-educated, don't belittle other so much with this "celebration of ignorance" junk. While I'm not very religious myself, what makes you know it all?
A celebration of ignorance is a very accurate description.. You are the blowhard!
Celebrate – "To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing" THATS EXACTLY, what a religious ceremony is.
This guy has no more knowledge about how the universe works than anyone else. All of this babble is pointless. We'll all find out what happens in the end won't we? Either we're all food for the worms or there's something else. No amount of mindless oration will change it. Until then just relax and enjoy the ride.
that's an easy but lazy approach. consider what politicians believe in this nonsense, and the power they have over your life. that's the scary thing
You may call it whatever you like yet no amount of ignorance or disbelief makes it any less accurate.
Wrong. He does know a lot more about how evolution works than just about anyone else. Read his "The Greatest Show On Earth" and you'll see what I mean.
He was a professor of biology at Oxford. I daresay he knows more about biology than most.
Does he know how...or why the consituents involved in the chemical reactions involved in evolution became animated? Why can't anyone else in a lab spontaneously animate matter? He, like most great scientists, suffers from chronological provincialism. The fact is....we don't know it all. There are many, many things we do not understand yet. To take one's knowledge, no matter how deep – and extrapolate that to mean something broader than it really is – is foolish, regardless of how many degrees one has.
There are theories about the origin of life (abiogenesis), and Dawkins briefly addresses those at the end of the book I mentioned. But that's not really in the domain of evolution, which is about how life developed once it did exist.
Besides, last I checked the big arguments for and against "creationism" referred to the Biblical idea that humans and all other known animals, plants etc. were created simultaneously out of nothing. If creationists are now willing to acknowledge that evolution by natural selection is correct for everything AFTER the appearance of the first living cell, then at least we're moving in the right direction.
Yawn, your question (or statement rather) was that he doesn't know more than anyone else about the universe. The response was that he does know MORE than the average person about the universe, which is ENTIRELY accurate. He knows MORE, no one ever said he knows ALL like you're trying to insinuate.
I know he has more knowledge of biology than I have, so your statement is patently false.
Sounds to me like you're just jealous of people more intelligent than you are.
Hey, Dawkins-look in the mirror and try to convince yourself there is no God. You only see the material evolution, but you don't see the spiritual evolution. God is the unseen spirit of the universe. He is not meant to be seen, but to be believed in. The Holy Bible, the Koran, and other holy books are the feeble attempt of human beings to explain the meaning of God's purpose for all of us. Inside our bodies is the eternal spirit that God Himself provides us with when we are born, with all the personality characteristics that define each individual spirit. He wants our spirit that he provides us to love him like He loves us-not by command, but by by free will choice. We have a lifetime to try and figure that out. If there is no God, we would all have the same personality, like animals. That's why we were given dominion over them, to subdue those we needed for food, and to take care of the rest. Animals do not have free will-we do. However, we bear the responsibility of our choices in life. Sometimes we have to admit to God that we were WRONG!! What is so terrible about that? You know, I could write a book on this subject, so I've said enough for now. However, my final thought is this–evolution AND God go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.
"Hey, Dawkins-look in the mirror and try to convince yourself there is no God."
And just what was proven by that comment?
"If there is no God, we would all have the same personality, like animals. That's why we were given dominion over them, to subdue those we needed for food, and to take care of the rest. Animals do not have free will-we do."
Last time I checked, "animals" have distinct personalities and free will.
These arguments are futile; each side has their own convictions and movement from one side to the other is rare. As far as your statement, "we would all have the same personality, like animals" do some research Treblemaker. Selective breeding of animals, specifically working animals like horses and dogs occurs to isolate specific PERSONALITY or BEHAVIORAL traits inherent to a specific requirement of man.
I am not saying that anyone is wrong or right, but if you are going to make a statement outright, please know what your are talking about before opening your mouth or typing on a keyboard. This argument and the points made within it is stupid. What does it matter if one wants to believe in evolution, God or a retarded monkey squirrel frog? The most frustrating part in all of this is everybody’s lack of tolerance with each other; Christians and non-Christians alike. What happened to loving your neighbor? By the way, this is a tenant of both humanity and religion.
"If there is no God, we would all have the same personality, like animals." Really? Have you never been in the presence of two animals of the same species? Animals absolutely have different personalities.
And no free will? Tell that to my dog who NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, from the age of 6 weeks when we got her had an accident in the house, left a duece in the middle of my bed when I and the rest of the family left her alone one night even after I had taken her out to do her thing before I left? Who then wouldn't come upstairs when I called her even though I used the sweetest voice in the world? She knew exactly what she had done and had made the decision to do it. That is animal free will and personality all wrapped up in one fell swoop, my friend. Try another argument.
Not to change the subject or anything.
Treblemaker – wow, absolutely nothing that you say has any sort of evidence to it.
Actually, we know a bit about free will and personality development. Part of it involves GABA neurons in the prefrontal cortex and cingulate gyrus that inhibit courses of actions we deem inappropriate. If you inhibit those inhibitory GABA pathways (inhibiting the inhibitors – pretty common), you start acting in ways you would normally deem inappropriate and acting more impulsively and randomly. To see this in action, go to a bar and watch people drinking. No God is required to explain it.
Prove it. Oh, that's right you can't.
If you can't provide a logical argument and objective evidence for your beliefs, your beliefs are worthless. You contribute nothing to the discourse and serve only to denigrate humanity with your trembling worship of shadows. Your kind brought on the Dark Ages. Your kind needs to fade into history.
What exactly makes Dawkins an expert on anything?
Has he established any ground-breaking theories in science? No.
He's just a hack trying to make a name for himself by taking on religion with the same tired nonsense that much smarter aetheists than he have been talking about for centuries. They didn't kill religion then, and they won't kill it now.
Did you read the article? He's the guy behind the concept of the meme, which is absolutely ground-breaking in the area of information theory.
He's ground-breaking because he re-labeled the concept of the "idea"? Ok. I think that's a bit gratuitous but whatever.
Some interesting stuff, no doubt, but "ground breaking"? Oh, please!
Well, there are his decades-long academic credentials for one thing...
Look, you don't like him, I get it, but to pretend he doesn't have the credentials to be considered an expert in "anything," is just laughably ludicrous and only serves to make you look overly biased and ignorant. He graduated Oxford with a zoology degree and then got his MA and Doctorate under Nikolaas Tinbergen (a Nobel winning zoologist), who was his tutor and doctoral advisor. He was an assistant professor at UC Berkeley and lecturer and fellow at Oxford since 1970. He was granted the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science chair at Oxford in 1995, a position basically created for him with the expressed goal by its benefactor of going to one who is "expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field." He has served as the president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2004, his alma mater Balliol College, Oxford created the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities." he has written a large number of peer reviewed academic papers (adding a lot to the idea of the gene-centered view of evolution), hosted science programs for both children and adults for decades, and written nearly a dozen (well-respected) books on the subject of genes, biology, and evolution.
And you have the gall to sit on your anonymous little internet forum and question "what exactly makes Dawkins an expert on anything?"
Your pathetic attack is pathetic.
His studies and research make him an expert, though this qualification generally comes from his peers.
He is significant in that he is working (among other things) to keep education of our children focused on science and devoid of non-science. For many, even theists, it is a worthy goal.
His book, The Selfish Gene, established a gene-centric view of evolution. That it isn't organisms, per se, that compete for survival but genes that compete. He is one of the brightest minds in science of biology. You should read his books.
This guy used to rock on Family Feud, but now he's such a Debbie Downer. Do you think he kissed the interviewer's wife when he walked into the room?
Jimmy – that was RICHARD DAWSON. Not the same person. wow. Family Feud about sums you up.
I seriously doubt that the now deceased, Richard DAWSON, former host of Family Feud, kissed the interviewer's wife.
Umm... that would have been Richard Dawson :)
I think you are thinking of Richard DAWSON, who was host of Family Feud – he is now deceased
Not totally sure but I think Jim In PA might have been kidding, folks.
Sarcasm is often hard to detect without the benefit of spoken words. And its no fun making it obvious with a smiley. But the sarcasm in a comment as ridiculous as this one should have been obvious to most people.
Still trying to figure out WHAT MAKES THIS person RELEVENT ???
Now that was mature.....rofl......
Now try answering the Question...What makes this him relevent?
What makes Dawkins relevant? Well, first off, the fact that he's about the diametric opposite of a moron. Second, the dozen or so books he's written. Third, the fact that he's amazingly articulate. Fourth, the contrast with folk like you.
That's arguably just one point stated four different ways, but yeah.
He's a best selling author who has done a lot to bring atheists out of the closet.
For one thing, he knows how to spell, an ability you clearly lack.
Sad comments from an intelligent but hollow, bitter man.
I didn't find anything sad there. Can you tell us what comments were sad to you?
he has no real answer because he doesnt know Jesus.
Jesus transforms lives, ive seen it , as well as in my own life. I wish i could go into it but maybe another time. Gotta get back to work. Please have an open heart, True Christianity DOESN'T hate, it loves. if someone is HATING & calling themselves a Christian, they are NOT of God.
Jesus is the object of your affection, much like a lucky charm. But, its not Jesus that changes lives. WE change our lives, and over 1,000s of year have been guilted into thinking that we cannot influence our path. Re-connect with yourself.
I've had more hate, more criticism, more judgment from "Christians" who berate me than from all other groups combined. For the last 15 years, if I wanted to feel ostracized, unloved, and judged, I go to a 'Christian' church. Someplace where people refuse to use clear thinking, who refuse to ask any questions (yep, the Bible has sure helped me with my wireless contract, with my intermittent internet service, and ignorant drivers). We have these extraordinary brains to USE, not to just follow what ancient civilizations said to interpret THEIR much different world 1500-6000 years ago.
So, God loves me? Maybe, but doubtful. Do I love myself? You betcha. And if I"m made in *ahem* God's image then that is good enough for ANYONE.
Try making your point at the end of a sermon. Just stand up and say you have something to say in disagreement with what you have just heard. You would be placing your life at risk.
Oh please. Jesus hasn't even taught you how to type properly.
You are wasting space.
Hollow? You're the one spending your time trolling people on the internet.
While I respect Mr. Dawkins' right to, and grasp on, his beliefs about the origin of life, I disagree with his assertion that evolution is a fact. Scientific truths must be demonstrable and reproducible. Until someone here can take a catfish and return a bunny rabbit in its place, it's still just a theory, regardless of the degree one fervently believes it to be true.
You should at least know what the theory of evolution is before attempting to refute it. It just reveals your extreme ignorance. Don't get all your info from your pastor.
why aren't we still evolving ? why aren't new species of humans just popping up AGAIN? Its been long enough. perhaps its Because everything has a SOURCE , a maker, a creator and that is GOD.
The pastor should be getting his info from the bible the word of GOD. You are getting your word from Scientists...and they are getting it from theory. The same ones who thought the world was flat. think with an open heart...pls.
@J, you realize that evolution takes a LONG time, right? The human species IS still evolving, but it's just too slow for us to perceive well. Human skulls from Jesus' time were larger than the average skull now. It's a slight change, but it's change nonetheless. If humans hadn't developed advanced means to travel and were still largely land locked, we might have begun to see greater genetic differences between populations of humans in Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia...those populations were separate long enough for different races to emerge, but with all the travel these days there's little chance of seeing a population of humans evolve into a separate species.
J – We are still evolving. New species have been observed both in a lab and in nature. Try learning how something actually works before closing your mind and shouting MAGIC MAN DUNNIT!
Individual creatures don't evolve; populations do. For example, if you give someone antibiotics but don't finish the treatment, most of the bacteria in them will be killed but there will be a small surviving population with a genetic resistance to the antibiotic. These surviving organisms now make up the entire bacteria population, they reproduce, and WHAM you now have an entire strain of antibiotic resistant bacteria. In other words... the population evolved. Understand now?
That's not how it works. Yes, catfish and rabbits have a common ancestor waaaaaay back on their respective family trees, but that doesn't mean you can turn a catfish into a rabbit. You can only trace back to where family A produced a mutation that sprouted family B.
It's unfortunate that the phrase "the theory of evolution" is the one that became popular. It's better called "A theory ABOUT evolution", which recognizes that evolution is a rock-solid observable FACT, and that it's best explained by natural selection (the ACTUAL theory) causing divergent descent from common ancestors. There are other theories to explain the FACT of evolution as well (check out Lysenkoism, for example), but none as successful as natural selection, which is why it's UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED by biologists (that is, people actually in a position to know).
david: you display your ignorance beautifully.
Thank you. I used the outlandish bunny rabbit example to encourage all of you to make my point for me. So-called "experts" can't even agree amongst themselves on one definition of "evolution" and its implications on our origins, be they natural or by divine intervention. There are more tangent theories than flavors of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and that's OK. There's nothing wrong with theories. But they are what they are. The bottom line is, and STILL IS, we don't know for certain how we got here, regardless of how many scientists "accept" one theory or another.
Evolution is a fact, the theory that everyone keeps referring to is actually "The theory of evolution through natural selection." There is no question that things evolve. But, like you said, science isn't really about "proof". Proofs are what you get in mathematics. Biology isn't really mathematical, so the closest thing you're going to get to "proof" is scientific theory.
David, please read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show On Earth" with an open mind. The book reviews the huge amount of convergent evidence for evolution via natural selection, from many many different fields
Among other things, there have been many actual experiments where fast-reproducing populations (bacteria, guppies etc.) were allowed to reproduce for many generations in carefully controlled environments. The populations evolved exactly according to the predictions of evolutionary theory, e.g. the guppies who lived in an environment with a spotted pattern on the ground quickly developed spots of similar colors, but ONLY if there were predators present to provide the evolutionary pressure to evolve a method of camouflage.
There are hundreds of experiments and findings like this that build up the theory of evolution from all different angles. When you see it all in one place, it's really not possible to deny it (without denying the validity of the scientific method as a whole, which many evolution deniers end up having to do).
Taking a catfish and making a bunny would actually disprove evolution.
A theory in science is the highest standard an idea can be. Gravity is a theory.
No Jerry, David is onto something here...we are intelligent beings so according to evolution we could create an environment that selects for a catfish to evolve into a bunny or however we see fit.
No that is not what evolution says. Catfish do not have the genetic components for their offspring to be bunnies. Evolution does NOT say that one species evolves into another.
That's the point...nothing does.
I misspoke evolution does not say one species changes into a completely other species.
What it does say is small changes over time will cause the descendants of a population to no longer be able to mate with other descendants of the same population. Small changes eventually become large changes.
There either is a speciation event or there is not. At some point there is or is not a new species created. So, once again you say that evolution does not explain speciation... what I hope is that you then consider that your concept of evolution is actually adaptation and the creation of a new species is something different and unique. The problem is that people take the concept of adaptation and extrapolate it to fill in the blanks. But if you consider the why a lone or if your not adept to philosophical or psychological analysis then there is the statistical component that you are still overlooking. I've already posted about this, please review those topics for more understanding.
Wrong new species are created.
A typical creationist argument i that dogs eventually turn into birds which is not what happens.
We as humans like see,touch,hear,calculate and formulate. I am all for it,but there are things bigger than we are and you just have to trust and believe.
As an atheist, if I died and met god, I'd tell him it was an innocent mistake. What, he's going to send me to hell for not believing in him? Then he's a dick.
Really though, none of that crap is real. If you take a moment to think critically about religion, and you still believe in god, you are not very intelligent.
If there is a god he is a dick anyways given what all goes on this world.
an innocent mistake in your case, maybe. but there were atheists who send pamphlets to the world, started movements, and after couple of years, tens of millions died in humiliating conditions. gulags and lagers were just materialization of materialism, the idea that soul and consciousness is mere movement in material brain. just emergence, illusion, without any higher meaning, and killing a human being is merely stopping that uncomfortable movement.
i do not believe that any idea, which can lead to such crimes, is innocent, nor pure, nor attractive. and i find that any moderately intelligent and conscious man should be able to recognize that, or makes guilty himself for all those deeds!
I see people call Dawkins arrogant, or smug, or pretentious. For a moment, let's grant that you're 100% correct about his att¡tude. Does that somehow or other invalidate the accuracy of what he's saying? No, not at all. Those critics are desperately trying to change the subject from the CONTENT of WHAT he says to their own ATT¡TUDE about HOW he says it. Frankly, that's because they can't refute his facts or his logic, so they're reduced to attacking his personality.
Frankly, I think he just sounds British, which may come across as smug to unsophisticated ears.
ATHESISTS like dawkins want to believe in evolution because it is their excuse to CONTINUE SINNING.
The belief in God/Jesus would have them be accountable to GOD. Without God, no LOVE exists. He is the "I" in "I AM" – he IS love. If we all define what is right then Child abusers can say their ways are correct. There has to be one ROOT, and ROOT defines all, we cannot define, as everyone has their own defenition of what they think is good and evil. That is GOD. Aren't you glad it's God? It could be a NON LOVING GOD, & that would not be good.
Comments like yours are all kinds of silly. Dawkins isn't exactly renowned for being a hedonist. He's a boring old academic type. Also, your comment screams of insecurity, and of desperately reaching for a reason as to why someone would DARE to have beliefs that differ from your own.
if love can't exist without god, how come my atheist husband is the most loving and devoted man on the planet?
IM SURE HE DOES love YOU, NO DOUBT. But that LOVE comes from somewhere. However, his love would be even greater if his LOVE for CHRIST was first, like it is with my husband. Thank God.
when you put GOD first, the selfish desires one would normally have are out aside. So if your husband (for example) wanted to cheat, he'd be thinking of himself. However when you're in CHRIST, you want to pleae Christ FIRST, not yourself. So in doing that your desires change. Im not saying we as Christians cant fall, but with GOD as strength – our armor is MUCH, MUCH greater. Hope you can understand . Again, im not trying to insult, just trying to explain what I mean. Yes there is LOVE, but its not the same LOVE that you feel when GOD is in your life. I know, Ive had love before Christ in my life, but this time, its a totally different love.
YOU MIGHT RETHINK HOW DEVOTED YOUR HUBBY REALLY IS. I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT,HOWEVER THE STATS
WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT. I WISH YOU WELL. MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN. THINGS CHANGE AS LIFE MOVES ON. THE BLESSED WILL OVER COME IN ANY CASE.
"FAITH HOPE AND CHARITY", can you point me to a web page with the statistics you are talking about? Maybe a book or something? I'd be interested to see a study that demonstrably relates religious belief to marital fidelity.
M.E. – I'm am so glad that your husband loves you. That is how it's supposed to be. However, just because he does not believe in something does not mean that thing does not exist. I have met people who do not believe in black magic, but that does not mean people aren't practicing it. So, your husband not believing in God does not negate the existence of God and that He's the source of love. God loves you and your husband.
But her husband will share the same fate as you and any other believer. No one knows what that is. That is why agnosticism is the only rationale guide line until things change.
If you look deep into a mirror and say "Jesus" 8 times, he will appear and drink all your blood. If you dont believe me, try it.
Hmm... According to one, certainly unscientific but often quoted survey, 90% of americans believe that God loves them. This would then include lots of murderers, child molesters, rapists, drug dealers and the likes. Now, all scientific and philosophical arguments aside, why would anybody in his right mind want to do anything with God who extends his love to such creatures?
We know something about the neurological pathways that produce love. You can read a layman's summary of much of what is currently known in "Biological basis of love" on Wikipedia, if you like. No god is required to explain it. Curious that people believe a god is required for love, but not selfishness, or for philosophy, but not hunger.
I do not see where one can not believe both in God and evolution. I was taught in high school by a social sciences teacher that there is no God. I believed that, but in many of my searches to prove to others there was no God, many answers did not add up by science. Think creationism, if God did not create the universe, how was the universe created? Where did the materials come from, the organization of the universe, etc. evolve from? God is just as good of an answer as "science has not figured it out yet." I believe we as humans have evolved, I do not believe we evolved from Apes, as because if we did....why do we still have apes? Do human and apes have a common ancestor? Probably. So looks like there is common ground to believe in creationism and evolution at the same time–it just does not fit into the Bible's teachings. My faith actually teaches that religion should not ignore science, but in fact science enhances God's presence in our lives. (No, I am not a Scientologist). I have just found that searching for scientific answers leads me to appreciate God, and God exposes so many scientific wonders for me. But, it probably all comes down to if you believe in the Soul. If you don't, then none of any of this makes any difference.
Beyond that, where did the space/volume/"box" that the universe was created into, where did that come from? Lot's of questions, few answers.
The universe (singularity) was not created into space. The singularity IS space. There is no "outside" the universe.
"lots", not "lot's. Your lack of writing skills reflects your intelligence level.
So... "I don't know the answer, therefore God"? You're basically admitting to pretending there's a God because you find it unsettling that you don't know the answer to these questions?
No, it is "none of us know the answer, therefore an answer of 'God' or an answer of 'science has not determined how yet' have equal footing, and to insult and belittle someone of the other opinion is, frankly, just a means to find personal validation by distracting from the fact that you are threatened by the opposite view.
God is a lousy answer. Who created God?
I had a high school Science teacher that called evolution 'crap'. Just goes to show you the low standards that public education sets. There is no hope of anyone actually being educated. Which explains why there are so many people that cling to religion like it's a life preserver, against all reasonable cognitive thought.
Actually, Laura, he was just telling you the truth. Why didn't you listen?
You say " God is just as good of an answer as "science has not figured it out yet." "
but, one is acknowledging lack of understanding and intent to study, the other is making up a fantasy answer supported by no evidence and asserting knowledge. It is no different than saying a fairy did it, that santa claus did it, that spiderman did it, that the flying spaghetti monster did it. Is that just as good of an answer?
I never said I stopped studying. I continue to read books on the origins of the universe and find them fascinating and mind blowing. If science can evolve to the point that it can create its own universes, then obviously you are proven right. I am not trying to prove there is a God, only that it is OK to believe in both faith and science. However I assume you have already made your own mind up about NO GOD and will never allow any further research to threaten your personal truth for whatever reason. Have fun with that, but stop being angry and insulting at people that do not believe the same things you do, especially since you have no open mind to even accept that there may be different approaches to life.
Most of the comments about this article pit science and religion as opposites, implying one can only believe in one or the other, and I think that's because most Americans are from a Judeo-Christian background. I think one can be a serious scientist and use the scientific method while simultaneously believing that there is an un-quantifiable something that connects us to the universe and each other. That 'something' may well be an evolutionary advantage for our survival over the long haul.
Different peoples have called it different things: the holy spirit, chi, prana, mana, even Steven Spielberg had 'the force.' Others may see it as the laws of physics, and still others as love. But one can be a serious scientist and still believe in that 'something.'
So while traditional religions and science may be at odds, spirituality and science don't have to be.
I agree. Even the evolutionary drive can be thought of a force for good. There is somehow this impetus for some matter, for life forms to become more intelligent over time, when the natural tendency of most matter is to decay. If some people personalize this "force" and call it "God" or "consciousness" or whatever, that's fine.
"Different peoples have called it different things: the holy spirit, chi, prana, mana, even Steven Spielberg had 'the force.' "
Dude, that was George Lucas, and you are just as uninformed about the "virtues" of spirituality (the modern, politically correct term for superst¡tion) as you are about science-fiction movies.
George Lucas had The Force. Spielberg was not involved in Star Wars.
You can't argue with the truth and Dawkins brings the truth every time.
Sure you can SS. You don't have to be right to argue.
God is written into the design of man whether He exists or not. Dawkins is not only fighting a losing battle but he's missing out on the psychological significance of an unconscious hard-wired belief in a transcendental reality. I can't tell you from an evidentiary point of view that God as we know Him from popular accounts, exists, but I do have evidence of a transcendental reality - a hidden infrastructue to life. There is much that exists that lies beyond our five senses and physics will one day bare this out.
I agree. This also means there's no need for religion, as no religion has the "answers", because the answers in general are not knowable.
Which god? Thor? Zeus?
You can theorize this thought, but you will never have evidence to this point. So, why suggest it. That allows you to theorize (without evidence) on too much of our being, and too much of our daily life. Because there is no evidence to support your stance, in order to live harmoniously and with a pragmatic and civil soul, we much not assume things beyond our evidential support. We thing lend to this propoganda, and affect our functional society. Its not to say that you are wrong (although I disagree), but rather to say that there is no place in assuming this without evidence.
Spot on. Anyone can claim anything without evidence but they shouldn't expect thinking people to believe them.
Thou shall not cast thy pearls amongst swine? Why would you argue with anyone that doesn’t believe? Pray for them fine, but this idea that you are going to force them to convert by talking to them is wrong. Better to leave the word where they can find it, but to freely cast it out so that it may be spat upon is not right.
Do people like you realize how much humanists like us do for the community, for people of all creeds and types, how much time we spend thinking about goodness and working for compassion and mercy?
All without prayer, sitting in church, hating gays, racist mindsets, and a desire to keep ones own money?
Tell us all the wonderful things you do CJ. Oh... and if everything is a random accident and morality is nothing but personal preference – why do them?
I care nothing for this world. It was corrupted long ago to the point of its demise.
Why do them? Because there are many, many benefits to me and to my family in being a caring, cooperating, altruistic human.
Believing in evolution does not mean "everything was a random accident" as far as life on Earth. Even the appearance of the first living cell (which by the way is not relevant to evolution– which is how life developed after that first cell or cells) was not "random", but heavily constrained by the physical and chemical state of a specific environment at a specific time. All the more so for evolution. They call it "selection" for a reason– genes may vary randomly but the vast majority of mutations will not be advantageous and therefore will not persist and evolve further.
As to why morality and altruism exist if we believe in "evolution without God", there has been a lot of scientific work on that too. Basically, for certain species, including our branch of the primate family tree, certain aspects of the environments they evolved in were favorable to a social/group dynamic rather than individualism. So our instincts evolved with an orientation towards helping and protecting others in the group. Plus, as Dawkins says in the article, our morality doesn't come straight out of our biological wiring either. It's something that we learn from the culture around us, which has also changed and developed over cultural time (a much smaller timescale than biological evolution).
Then why do YOU go on? Just die...
Yes I will, when it is time.
Then why post here George? You are defeating your own logic.
I stated a law of verse; and, I didn’t imply it to anyone that didn’t need it. That being how did I preach to those that shouldn’t hear? It seems I defied your logic, but to me it seems to fall well within the word.
Man = fallible, Atheism = Pretentions for the soulless
Religion = Death, God = Man. See I can do that too.
I can see why many atheists are frustrated with religion. Religion has mislead most of the world since after the first century Christians passed away. In fact, God himself showed John a vision that He would put an end to all false religions in the world during the last days. It's apparent we are living in the last days. False Religion is ready to fail, and will be crushed and devoured very soon. But it doesn't invalidate the Bible, it affirms it. The atheist said that a large population of the US still believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The Bible doesn't indicate such a thing, in fact it later explains in 2 Peter 3:8 that a "day for God is as a thousand years", meaning the earth was created in six "creation" days. We don't know how long a creation day is. It could be a billion years, but the Bible indicates that time with God is must different than time with us. The next verse makes it clear why God has allowed this wicked world to continue for what seems a long time to us. In 2 Peter 3:9 it reads: "God is not slow respecting his promise as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you , because He does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." This is why he seemingly is taking His time. But very soon he will literally step in and put an end to all the wickedness in the world. The atheist said in the video that if he ever met God he would ask him which God he was. There can be only one true God and he has a name. When the God's due time comes, as some translations of the Bible convey it in the book of Ezekiel over sixty times, "Then they will have to know that I am Jehovah."
Everything affirms the bible, right? Yawn.
A true Bible reader knows that science supports the Bible. Archaeology supports the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book, but the Bible does not contradict true science. Religion contradicts science and that's where the confusion is.
@ viper – the Bible doesn't contradict science? Like the bit about the talking snake?
Can you define a "true bible reader" to us ignorant ones?
A ventriloquist throws his voice to deceive and pretend the puppet is doing the talking. Satan deceived Eve by pretending to make the snake talk. This was very clear.
ViperGuy, you are a total loon. Get some help before the next David Koresh finds you, brainwashes you and you go off and suicide bomb some children's orphanage.
A true Bible reader is a discerning one who does not read superficially and take a verse for what seems to be face value. He studies and researches and uses other scriptures to determine the meaning of a verse that may be difficult to understand. A simple example is when a person reads the first chapter in Genesis. A discerning one will realize that the earth could not have been created in six literal days. He then checks for other scriptures, such as 2Peter 3:8,9 and finds out that a Day has different time-frame in creation. He looks for even more scriptures to reaffirm his reasoning, such as in Daniel where a "day" was actually a year. He finds other scriptures that clearly indicate the the Israelites knew the earth has been around for eons of time. Therefore, he concludes his study by logically reasoning that the Creation day must not be a literal 24 hour earth day, but an undetermined timetable set by God.
In genesis, god created plants on the 3rd day and the sun on the 4th. Science, and more importantly, COMMON SENSE should tell u that plants require the sun to survive via photosynthesis. So the Bible is wrong here. What's your excuse as to why god had plants growing without a sun?
have any OF YOU mocking the bible ever even been to church? ever actually listened to an entire sermon or two or 3 on the bible? Meaning a pastor actually describing what it is your reading...because often what you think it means isnt what it means. Before i didnt understand the bible, but now God has opened my eyes and ears to understand it, its amazing how much more i understand NOW. You should try and not continue to put down. the reason you dont understand is because you;ve already knocked it. Try really listening with an open heart.
Yes, I've been to church. I was forced to go every Sunday for 17 years, my father was a Chaplian. I am happy to report it is all total crap, all of it, utter nonsense and a complete travesty to the brainwashing of children and the pathetic vision of the 'flock' and all that means. You are the lost ones, lost in a storyland of impossible claims. You are the ones who stole my childhood and have the arrogance to assume privileged knowledge that I am incapable of finding without your blessed intervention. To hell with you, only well, you know. No hell to go to, except the living noise of unfortunates like you. I am completely atheist, and so very happy about that and intelligent humans like Dawkins. Go back to your cave and await the rapture. I'm actually living now, no thanks to people like you, and my father. He was a fraud.
ALSO the bible says – only a few will enter the gates of heaven, so its not surprising what is happening today.
True... zero IS a very few.
Actually J, yes. For many years, even in ministry.
Yup, that's what it says. But lets quantify here, shall we? By "a few" it specifically means 144,000 — 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. (You could look it up.) So what are chances YOU'LL make the cut? I figure the 144,000 will consist entirely of innocent newborn babies who died tragically in infancy.
See you in hell, buddy, courtesy of your "loving" God.
We are not living in the end days, they have been saying that for thousands of years. It is simply not true. There is no end of days.
Yes, and Mitt and the Mormons will triumphantly reign and all false Christians and other do-good religions will be destroyed!
DAWKINS could possibly be the anti Christ....
What about the Uncle Christ?
Oh crap – capital letters – I'm in trouble now. Hew – I have an idea: UNCLE CHRIST!
Considering all the crap that has come along with Christianity ( wars, ignorance, hatred ), I'm actually ok with the thought of an anti-christ
Sad to hear you say that.....if only you KNEW, you'd never say that. Sorry to hear, And you accusing Christianity of this & that? So, non Christians are perfect they never fight wars, never kill?? Christians arent perfect, NO ONE IS. Its clear in the bible. We make mistakes. Difference though is Christians must repent to God when mistakes are made. God loves you.
Your right J we make lots of mistakes. We sure made a big one when we cobbled the bible together from a bunch of stories .
'Gods' are merely aliens visiting our ancient cultures.
what a profound thought!
I've always suspected that too.
who else on earth would have superpowers, virgin birth, resurrection, compassion, half animal half beast & similar qualities? seriously
Never understood why people can't just let people believe in something. Atheists hate when people try to convert them, but yet they always try to convert christians? Just let people believe what they want to believe and stop trying to convert people one way or another.
having religious beliefs is like having a pe-nis. Nice to have one; nothing wrong with being proud of it. But please don't take it out in public, or try to jam it down other people's throats
I've yet to meet an atheist who actively go out and try to convert people. Some are vocal, yes. But I've met many, many "missionaries" from various religious groups who actively try to convert others.
Mmm. no. I think these days atheists DO try to convert others. I've not had anyone from most religions, like Catholicism, Islam, knock on my door, as you say (and geez, could you say something even MORE simplistic than that?), yet I've seen billboards from atheists.
Jim – Then consider yourself lucky. I used to get a copy of the Watchtower at least once a week in college. And I have had completely strangers come up to me and tell me to accept Jesus. Many relgious faiths place a duty on their congregations to evanglize and spread the word of their god. I have yet to have an atheist come up to me and tell me not to accept Jesus.
how many atheists have knocked on your door to convert you???
If I had a dollar for every christnut at my door while I'm trying to eat my kids...
Why would you eat your kids?
I have never met an atheist who tries to covert people, but I've met many so-called Christians who think it is their only holier than thou job in life.
Most Atheist were/are quite content leaving people believe what ever they want. The problem is that things have been going backwards the last 10 years. You are trying to rewind us back to the dark ages. When you try and push your particular beliefs into the classroom or the government you are now trying to make our kids as stupid as yours. We can't let you do that.
teach whatever science you want it schools, but you are mean. I sure hope my kids don't learn that.
Just one comment: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death".
Unlike some atheists, I don't think the existence of life is necessarily a fluke, a minuscule chance occurrence in the universe. The tendency is for matter to increasingly go from order to disorder. Things decay. All the stars in the universe will eventually die out. Entropy death, if you will.
And yet within the universe there is a counter process, evolution, where things become increasingly ordered. Matter becomes increasingly more "intelligent". Who knows where this trend will lead to millions or billions of years from now, and whether this increasing "intelligence" can change the course of the universe itself.
A purposeless accident is a purposeless accident.
Notice in this article where he is asked, "If there was a God that you met after death, what would you say?" Dawkins responds by saying, "If I met God, in the UNLIKELY event..." That's all I need to see to know that even he is not 100% sold on atheism. He says unlikely. Why would he say that? The rest of what he says makes sense to the question that's asked, but the fact that he says unlikely says it all.
There is not a person in the world who has not wondered if there was or was not a God. That's because nobody knows for sure. Nobody knows anything for sure. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt there is a God, but that doesn't mean that I know for sure there is one. Just as an atheist believes there is no God, that doesn't mean they know for sure that there isn't a God. But the fact is, you can't get something from nothing. Do the math.
If you can't get something from nothing, then where did god come from?
Something has to be eternal – either God or the material universe (Einstein proved it wasn't matter, by the way). If the universe was eternal, all the available hydrogen would have been converted to helium – and we'd have nothing but uniformly disbursed random energy throughout the universe.
Argument from ignorance – I don't know, so the answer must be god. doesn't follow.
Who made God? Unfortunately you'll never know.
god-papa and god-mama met, then fell in love....
Quantum mechnaics has proved that you can, indeed, get something from nothing, and it's still happening all around you.
"he is not 100% sold on atheism. He says unlikely. Why would he say that?"
Intellectual honesty. He acknowledges the POSSIBILITY but offers up an honest assessment of its probability. That's what scientists do, you know.
Then atheism is not true in itself. Nor is theism. It's all a matter of belief and disbelief based on what we can possibly process in our brain. In the end, I would rather die believing in God than die not believing. Atheism believes nothing after death. Theism believes in wonderful things after death, if you live by the morals and principles of the most popular book in the history of the world forever. Just because we ignore atheism, doesn't mean evolution won't continue. We could live another million years and will never know how we got here. But after we die? Well nobody has ever died and come back except for one person. That's all the proof I need.
Where is the proof that happened? There is absolutely no proof of the 'so-called' resurrection, it is just part of the many stories that were made up many years after the date a man supposedly called Jesus had died supposedly on a cross. A story that had been used before too!
"That's all I need to see to know that even he is not 100% sold on atheism. He says unlikely."
Nonsense. Suppose someone asked what you would do if you found yourself in the place of a character in a movie? By your logic, answering it would mean you think the movie might be real. Intellectually dishonest, malicious misrepresenters like you are part of the reason religions are bad. Get someone to answer a hypothetical, and claim it shows doubt... There is a reason I tell religious proselytizers to shove off. They are all liars. I have met no exceptions.
The man is a god. Ironically.
Listen and learn. If you were brought up Jesusy or Mohammedy, fine, do some good deeds, but please; learn...learn...
Soon some rabid muzzies will go after him and kill him for offending their phony cult. Islam; what a joke it is.
as opposed to the rabid chrissies who are going after him in this thread? get a grip on reality please. are you one of 40% who think the earth is less than 10K years old? i believe you are. therefore, you must be since i believe it.
I read one of his books, The God Delusion, I think, and in chapter 5 he shows himself to be a very damaged person with substantial baggage from his childhood. I do not think he is a good source to judge about the existence of God.
What dis he say that gave you this impression?
And all the nuts who've led or who follow religions didn't have baggage? You, I, we all have baggage. And cite your example...
Gwen: could you please elucidate how that "baggage" from his childhood lessens the validity of the points he makes? I've had a damaged childhood, but I still say the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.
That's weird because Chapter 5 doesn't make a single reference to anything about his childhood.
Granted, I have obviously not met every atheist, so I can't say this is universally applicable to all atheists... however, every atheist I have ever met had some sort of baggage that poisoned them against religion (and, more often than not, against Christianity specifically). I think it's a very rare individual indeed who spends a large portion of his life attempting to disprove another person's beliefs unless they blame those beliefs for some measure of personal suffering.
Vice is just as certainly versa.
How many people turn to religion because they're told it will fix all of the problems they've suffered as a result of not having religion? Quite a few. I don't think this works as an argument either way.
I told my parents at the age of 9 that the nuns at CCD were lying to me, that a man couldn't be born from a virgin and that the world was billions of years old and wasn't made by god in 7 days. I didn't have any baggage, just brains and the balls to realize I understood science and the world better than my teachers.
The baggage I carry is that having gone to church and religious schools all of my life it became quite clear that the bible is complete hogwash.
And I read the bible- ALL of it- and it's a bunch of crap only a fool would believe.
Try reading some science instead of having second hand opinions.
To all those that say Dawkins comes off as pompus and smug...he does and with good reason.
He has spent decades debating ignorant people that repeat the same questions and the same logically weak arguements over and over and over again. It's like beating your head against the wall. Of course he is frustrated. It's like 2 people standing outside and one says the sky is blue. The other simply says no it's not. They are both standing under the exact same sky and staring at it, yet one refuses to accept the facts before him.
Just about every arguement or challenge against evolution and/or atheism that I see commenters posting has been done to death and thoroughly debunked many, many times. You can look them up yourself all over the internet. Your comments aren't original and your conclusions as bad as ever. Just because you refuse to accept the answers that are based in fact doesn't make the question/challenge any more valid than it was the first time it was presented and debunked.
The problem with his argument against faith and yours is that there is NO WAY that you can possibly debunk the existence of an almighty creator other than to say, "since I don't see Him", He does not exist which is an equally weak and fallacious argument, the likes of which would never be accepted by a fact finding tribunal.
Everything you believe in your faith is a lie.... churches and organized religion are nothing more than businesses designed to profit on peoples feelings of hopelessness and insecurity! You are a clown and so is your ridiculous god... you detest me, you blind sheep
That argument can be applied to anything...
there's no evidence disproving the FSM, so it must be real...right?
Oh dear. You really need to read more. Dawkins himself quakes in the presence of the best Christian apologists (i.e. William Lane Craig) in part because he has no answers for them. Not saying he's wrong or they are right, but to dismiss believers because you think they have no arguments? Well, you are either ignorant of the rich body of Christian apologetics, or you aren't very honest with yourself.
Oh, Marvin – that is rich! Quaking in the presence of Christian Apologists? Quaking with laughter, maybe! Like that great apologist Ray Comfort, who claimed that because a banana fits the human hand, can be opened easily, and is a good food source, god exists!! Quake, quake, quake!
Really?! Let the apologist who has beaten Dawkins, Dennet, Harris OR Hitchens please step forward! There ARE none and NEVER will be! You cannot prove that which has absolutely NO proof!
To both of you...
All arguements for religion start with the assumption that there is a creator in the first place. Where does that original assumption come from? There is no basis for it. You can't just make that claim that there might be a creator with no evidence to suggest it in first place. That fact alone makes all other religious arguements flawed. Christian apologists assume that if there is a creator, it is their god. That is even a bigger logical leap than saying there is a creator in the first place.
I never said that there were no arguements for the christian god. There are plenty, they are just all deeply and fundamentally flawed in their initial assumptions.
In as soon as 100 years this desperate clinging to theology will get chuckles in the classroom.
Wouldn't that be nice? But the opposite is more likely. Evolution can be very slow and religion's evolution has a long way to go, primarily because fear so dominates humanity. Fear is why religion persists.
That is if we don't kill ourselves over it first.
"You can’t just look back 3 million years and extrapolate into the future"
That's pretty pathetic. Modeling & Simulation 101 Bro. We do it everyday, in meteorology, engineering, astrophysics – so why is it so difficult with this thing called biology when you have an exponentially larger data set to build your predicitive model? And don't play the "random" card either.
and since when did meteorologists get it right for this afternoon's weather? Let alone 'the future.'
I'm sure he is aware of modeling. The issue is one of scale. Meteorologists have a hard time predicting weather 5 days out but have some success predicting climate into the future. Same with biology–one can predict, given a series of known forces, the likely evolutionary trajectory of a population a decade into the future, but the question was about what will come after humans and when. How is your modeling 101 going to tackle that one?
Religion is all about control. A group of people convinces you that TERRIBLE PAINFUL THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU unless you do as they say some invisible being wants you to do; and then when you do as they say, you will feel good warm feelings inside. And then you imagine that these good warm feelings come from some invisible being, and you see coincidences and interpret them as messages from this invisible being, and that only reinforces your belief in this invisible being. And then the people in control can tell you that this OTHER group of people is wrong and bad and that you should ignore them because anything they say is motivated by a desire to hurt you. Every time you follow along with what you're told, you give people more power over you.
That is a very astute condensation of religion...if you are in fact a 3rd grader.
ooh, snap! the "third grader" insult. why not try Na! Na! next time? Even more cogent a reply.
OR someone who can think.
You're right. They teach this fairytale stuff in third grade and the kids naively believe it. And they keep on believing it.
How nice for them, also, that god made it a rule for everyone to give them 10% of their money... Awesome!
Ditto, well said.
Control is about who has the power. You can't blame the ideology or philosophy of the the person or power doing the controlling, but the person or power themselves. Do you really think that religion has control or power in a Marxist state?
It's a classic case of giving you the poison and then selling you the cure. Christianity has perfected this scam and keeps infecting the next generation.
tim : i disagree, religion explains the poison and proposes the cure for why we are here, where we go when we die, morality & mostly no-science stuffs. religion is not against science.
religion is taught (revealed) to the followers by a guru "with higher consciousness", science is taught to us by those with "greater knowledge". like reapairing a car or tv, we need help cause we don't have the expertise, same with religion. dawkins is a great scientist, and he can explain many things, but don't go to him for moral or religion – his "meme" is just a theory.
The beauty of Dawkins' arguments is that they are self-defeating. If the universe, and thus all that is in that universe, is simply the result of random, meaningless, non-directional happenings, then his thoughts themselves have no meaning, and thus no value. Indeed, his thoughts, much like religion (in his view), are nothing more than empty and meaningless constructs based on what are, ultimately, simple chemical reactions in the brain. In the end, his worldview can only reach the conclusion that his own thoughts and beliefs are no less or no more valuable than the beliefs he seeks to ridicule.
That's a very mistaken assumption to make: that there must be a purpose for life. Do you expect the same unique and special purpose for a housefly or a housecat? Life needs not follow a fictional narrative to be important and wondrous.
Good reply, thank you. However, I've often wondered how anything can be "important and wondrous" if everything is meaningless. There is no "direction" if everything is meaningless...no good, no bad, no beauty, no ugly. Everything just IS, it exists without value. Any designation of value ("important and wondrous") then becomes nothing more than a comforting construct. This is why I consider atheism to be self-defeating...if it's true, then the argument itself means nothing.
Marvin – The extent to which an idea makes you feel good has, unfortunately, no bearing on whether that idea is true. The truth is that we are born, we live, we die, and generations after us will carry on. You may wish that there were some superbeing out there who loves you personally and gives your live meaning, but wishing does not make it so. Therefore it's up to you to find meaning in your life, to find your own set of values by which to experience the world. Think of it this way: if you can't find any meaning to life unless you imagine some superbeing giving it to you, then what does that say about you?
He's not saying that the universe is meaningless. You're simply putting words in his mouth so that you can twist your argument to refute him. If you disagree with him, fine - but at least do so with some integrity.
Thought is one of the attributes that we humans evolved to possess. Free will is not a product or an accident of the universe, nor is it a gift granted us by an even more intelligent, more powerful being. We humans simply have more evolved brains than other animal species. That fact does not support the argument that some greater being created us.
I appreciate your reply. However, I wasn't trying to put words in his mouth, I was attempting to follow the basic atheistic premise to its logical conclusion. IF the universe is un-created, and IF all that exists is simply the result of random physical phenomena...then how could anything of VALUE ever be produced? The logical conclusion to atheism, as I read it, is that nothing has meaning...how could it? A long series of meaningless acts and occurrences can never produce meaning...meaning doesn't exist. Therefore, any argument promoting atheism seems destined to be self-defeating, in my opinion.
The problem with this argument is simply that atheists do not need to include a construct such as God in any equation or notion of the universe and life. Atheists by definition are able to explain the universe and life without including God. But theists cannot, for whatever reason. They need God. Atheists do not.
When somebody proposes a theory or says that something exists, it is on them to prove it, not on their critics to disprove it.
I'm also not sure how not needing to use a construct such as God in one's life makes that person's life (and whatever they do or say) meaningless. Please explain why you need God to have meaning. Are you unable to find meaning elsewhere?
While I find it hard to believe, who's to say that another theory won't take the place of evolution as an explanation of where we come from some day? I think it's kind of arrogant for scientists to say evolution is a fact. As for religious people who only trust their scripture, that's about as arrogant as you can get.
Any new theory that comes along has to not only explain observations the current theory cannot, it must also explain all the observations the current theory HAS covered. Thus Einstein's Theory of Relativity improved upon Newton's picture of a mechanical universe, but we still use Newton's Laws of Motion for speeds well below c and gravities well below black holes (in other words, for all practical purposes).
One other thing we can be sure of: If a new theory DOES come along to supplant evolution, it'll be discovered by scientists, not theologians.
Well, I suppose someone might come up with an alternative theory about the earth being round. And I guess you can say that its pretty arrogant to state flatly that it is round. I mean, look around you- its obviuosly flat.
He does not say that evolution cannot be refuted, he merely says that it thus far has not. No scientist will claim a monopoly on truth. There might very well be a theory that one day supplants evolution as an explanation for biological life, but it will come from discovery of evidence, not religion,
We might become extinct by our own creation: Artificial Intelligence machines that one day can store and process information and "think" in ways that human cannot. Some people say that AI can never be like humans. That misses the point, because they don't need to be like humans. If AI machines can get to the point where they want replicate and continually improve themselves, then humans are no longer needed. The pace of evolution of AI is measured in years, not thousands of millions of years for biological life forms. This evolution will continue to where humans will be like ants in comparison. And then... watch out.
Correction: ...thousands OR millions of years...
Well when you do see God you won't get a word in edgewise. You will get an express ride to hell though! Enjoy the ride!!
Well that is a loving god....like me or I will destroy you?
It's not "like me or I will destroy you." It's "worship me only or you will be turtured forever in hell."
He sounds very loving.
Derp! Eva budddy tht dont gree wit me goin ta hell!!! BERP!!! HERRRRRRP!!!!
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, has stated, "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." It's loaded with tons of non-science and personal venom. I'd like to read his biography however, because something has happened in Dawkins' life to make him this angry.
Mr. Dawkins, when you die you will not meet God. You will however meet His enemy and will immediately understand what you do not understand now. There is still time to avoid that experience.
Who is in charge of Hell? If Satan is in charge of it why would he punish you?
You really just don't understand anything, do you?
Wouldn't Satan welcome Dawkins there? Give him a cushy job? Your religion makes no sense. Not surprisingly.
I understand your point, but I think you misspeak. He WILL meet God but will then, upon judgement, relenquish him to the adversary.
Why would god's enemy (I assume you are talking about satan) punish you for NOT worshipping god? Aren't they enemies??
So let me see if I understand this. A person who leads a virtuous life, but who doesn't believe in your god, would deserve to be punished forever, with no chance of forgiveness? Yet a person who murders and steals but then shows remorse before they die, they would deserve eternal paradise?
there is no fiery hell, why would God send you to be tormented forever when the bible clearly states that death is the debt that is payed for being sinners? Think about it, HE would be punishing you TWICE.
Can anyone explain to me that if we got here by evolution and evolution never stops then why aren't there still monkeys evolving into men? I would sure have liked to be a fly on the wall as it came down to last monkey evolving into a man and saying good bye to all his monkey friends. From what I've seen monkeys have more monkeys and they grow old and die as monkeys just the way they were born. Been to a lot of zoo's and never once have seen a 1/2 monkey 1/2 man working his way through evolution. Why did evolution stick it to them and leave them as just monkeys?
True enough – the monkey didn't lose out in any evolutionary battle... since he's still here!
The above post can be read as: "I don't understand evolution, so it must not be true."
OEM you have no understanding of how evolution works. You really should learn about it and then you will realize why your question is very dumb.
we didn't evolve from moneys.. we have a common ancestor with monkeys. you can easily find the answer to your question by searching for 'human evolution'.
You clearly have no idea how evolution works. Perhaps you should have been taught it as a child.
Yes. There is a man by the name of Richard Dawkins, a biologist, that writes books that would answer your questions. You should check it out. He explains it quite understandably.
I cannot agree more with this...if evolution is true (which it is not) we should be more worried about 1/2 monkey 1/2 humans rising up and taking over as the dominate species.
Timmy is exactly correct. I don't understand Quantum Mechanics, but you don't see me trying to tear apart the theory simply because I am uneducated about it.
That's because zoo's haven't been around for millions of years and I'm pretty sure you haven't spent millions of years in a zoo. And because "evolution" is about "evolving" from one thing to another, well, wherever we humans spun out of, it was, I guess, the same principle for the various types of monkeys. Our DNA is 99% the DNA of an Orang-Untan (or Chimpanzee, one or the other, don't remember)...
No wonder America is ranked 27th in the world in terms of mathematics and sceince. Evolution takes millions and millions of years, and in the process, millions and millions of species extincted.
Sigh. OK, here's my attempt to explain it to you.
Let's go back, say, 5 million years. At that time, there were a host of primate species, including many which you would probably call "apes", even tho they wouldn't really look like any apes which exist now. Now, let's watch what happens to a particular lineage of one of those apes, generation-by-generation. Keep in mind that the great majority of lineages die off eventually. We're looking at a lineage which turned out to survive until today. Let's say there were 300,000 generations during that 5 million year period. We're looking at pictures of each of those 300,000 animals/individuals. The very last picture is of yourself.
Shocked, you ask "But which of my ancestors was the first human?!" You flip thru the pictures, one by one. At no point does it seem there is any significant difference between any nearby relatives – say, within 100 generations. And yet... and yet... it is undeniable that there are huge changes which have taken place over the 300,000 pictures! You find that it is impossible to say which was the first human! You're certainly human now, and your 300,000'th ancestor was certainly an ape of some type.
Follow another lineage, from that same 300,000'th ancestor of yours. This time, the final image is of a chimpanzee. Again, it looks very different than its ancestor of 5 million years earlier. Which one was the first chimpanzee? It's impossible to say.
(This mind game is from Dawkins' "The Magic Of Reality" – which I highly recommend – especially for children)
We need the 10 Commandments but NOT the intolerence and hatred that some believers in God show
Dud, you ever read the 10 Commandments? Only 3 have to do with human-human ethical choices. The rest is about the protection of the priest class' privileges. Oops, I mean, the rest have to do with the priests of a jealous ADAD- The Sumerian GOD OF THUNDER jealously protecting his territory. One of those priests was Abraham, by the way.
If it was omnipotent, what difference would all that stuff matter anyway? Why does it need us to obey its rules of worshipping it? How is that moral or ethical teaching? If it wants us to become enlightened, show us the way like Buddha did. It's all inside you if you want it. Otherwise, remember it doesn't objectively exist.
Again, check yourself before you wreck US selves. You
I'm no religion-ist, however, having actually read the Decalogue, I only find one that could be (wildly) construed as an attempt to enforce priestly power: remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. More reasonable assessment finds it is an admonition of mindfulness, as is the one regarding graven images, rather than an insistence on obedience to other persons.
There are two that refer to (this) god specifically: thou shalt have no other gods before me (an ironic acknowledgement of polytheism) and thou shalt not take (His) name in vain.
Which leaves six of them that are intended to instruct humans in ethics: Honor thy father and thy mother; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; and thou shalt not covet.
The true source of the words certainly is not a/the one and only god, but there is wisdom to be found in them. People who incorporate these values into their thinking and endeavor to fulfill them in their daily lives will, it seems to me, have less to regret regarding their journey when it comes to an end. In fact, I'm counting on it.
Punishment for disobeying 7 of the 10 commandments is death... seems reasonable to me!
We don't need a list of 10 rules to tell us how to behave. It's innate common sense. As ALL great masters and your own mother has stated: Would you want someone doing that to you?
Some people just have to wait unitl they end up in Hell to finally admit they were wrong.
Have you spoken to any dead people who have gone to Hell who have supposedly learned this truth?
I have. In 1997, one of my Marines died for 40 minutes after being electrocuted, and when he was successfully revived, he was babbling about scary demons, blackness, and the cold. Interesting, because before he was a hard-core atheist, but after his mishap, he was in church every Sunday, and attended every Bible study he could. He made it clear he didn't want to go back to whatever place that was, so he changed his ways. Could it have been a trick of his mind? Sure. However, the experience totally changed his views on religion and the after life!
So this guy died and was brought back to life! I thought that only happened to one other guy in history... and many more that crawled out of their graves according to some fairy tale! I have no doubt he had some sort of weird experience that was far from pleasant and wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy but it hardly proves anything 'godly'.
As those who will die, only to find out they were wrong. For there is no heaven nor hell, nor will you care. Therefore the fear of death is needless. In short Richard, don't fear death, but enjoy life, it is yours to enjoy.
And people like you must fantacize about looking down at those being tortured without any end, saying "I told you so on a internet message board!".
If this guy can actually look into a mirror and say " yep I came from a monkey" Then his brain is not fully developed. Maybe he is mildly retarded. Poor fellow.
John, the sperm in his testicles are smarter than you will ever be.
Take a look around you bud, then tell me YOU look like god. Make sure you pick carefully. Wouldn't want to be surprised when you find out he actually looks like a muslim.
Why would a good person go to hell just because they don't believe in God? I love my children even when they don't listen and disobey me. Why wouldn't someone who has unlimited patience and caring feel the same way?
I think He does feel that way. You would be there for your kids when they need you, and He's always there, ready for us to turn to Him. But what if your child chooses to sever all ties with you, walk away from you, and mock or hate you? You still love that child, but that child is refusing the love and blessings you could offer. I think it's similar for God. When we decide walk away from Him, or mock or hate Him, we take ourselves away from good things He wants to give. At some point we will have to face the consequences of our choice to walk away and realize what potential was lost. Coming to that realization is my idea of hell.
If my child turned thier back on me I wouldn't come back later and torture them for eternity.
And, it's a darn good thing for those people that there's no such place as "hell". At least, not the place described by christians.
The hell of which god and are you SURE you're worshipping the RIGHT one??
Religious people actually won't ever admit they are wrong, because they die and that is it. They don't get the opportunity to realize they were wrong.
I feel sorry for this guy. He sounds like a miserable fellow.
I feel sorry for you for thinking that, but of course, you meant it as an insult to him for not liking your Bible stories.
I feel sorry for anyone who allows a man-made religion do their thinking for them.
This article made me chuckle (And feel sorry for him). Especially when he says, "you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for" – he's right of course. But his answer to "what's it all there for?" is..... "nothing".
That is a narrow view. Not being there because of God does not mean that life has no purpose. It is saying that it is up to us to decide what to do with it. Try doing something positive instead of attacking those who do not cling to draconian views.
Accidents have no purpose – randomness doesn't have meaning.
It is there if you chose to put it there. I find tons of meaning in life without having to staple that meaning to a god. I love, laugh, cry and do all the other wonderful things that life brings us, but I do not require myth to help me out with it. The universe is more mind-blowing than any myth. I'm quite content and at piece with that.
But.. you are a cosmic accident – quickly going at of existence. You are meaningless and purposeless ultimately. (By the way – you spelled "peace" wrong).
I am a crummy speller. Should I blame god or the universe?
By the way SDCinNS you typed 'at' instead of 'out', does that mean you can't spell 'out' or that you made a typing mistake! When trying to be clever... make sure you are!
DAWSON HAS NO FAITH AND WILL TO BEILEVE IN ANYONE BUT HIMSELF. HE HAS NO HOPES OF A LIFE OF
ETERNAL LOVE. AS FOR CHARITY I AM SURE HE IS LOOKING FOR ALL HE CAN GET FROM WHO WILL SHELL
IT OUT TO HIM. A REAL JOB WOULD BE BELOW HIS IMAGINED STATIS IN THIS LIFE.
Taking what you can from those who are willing to shell it out is the role of the church. He is offering something in exchange for money; reason and perspective. The church cannot make that claim.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK!!!!!!
Mercy, but there seems to be a lot of people with that problem. It's called "Look at me shouting in all caps".
Typing in all caps doesn't emphasize your point. If anything, it makes it look like you don't have one.
Dawson, the game show host? He recently died. This is Dawkins.
I mean no offense. I think you are great. But I don't share your view.
Richard Dawson? The game show host? What does he have to do with anything?
" I AM SURE HE IS LOOKING FOR ALL HE CAN GET FROM WHO WILL SHELL IT OUT TO HIM" Why are you sure of that? He doesn't go to church, and therefore he's a criminal. See, it's that kind of insulting meanness that shows religion has done nothing for you. I bet you went to church all your life, and here you are calling someone names. Why the lies? Why the insults? And why do you think old dead god would approve of the way you honor Him?
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Prove him wrong!!!
You are the one making the outrageous claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Exactly! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The burden of proof is not us. Its been said and I have had to live a life of Faith if it wasnt for the Grace of God I would nt be here not to submit this post. It takes a truly convicted person to have faith in something or some one they cannot see. Better I have seen Him and I meet him everyday Face to Face. No I am not a religious fanatic believing only what I have been told. Its about a relatinship. As far as this guy goes he is actually irrelevant he is going around trying to disprove creationist and God and Prove Evolution. If you want to believe you evlove basically from an animal state continue on.
Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact of the universe. To state otherwise is to deny what others know to be true. Logic and reason before myth.
the burden of proof is on u. What if the law changed from 'innocent until proven guilty' to 'guilty until proven innocent'?? a lot of innocent people would be in jail then because of lack of proof. If a prosecutor makes the claim that someone committed murder, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the prosecutor. Otherwise if it was the other way around, everyone, even u, would protest against it, and rightfully so!
So the burden of proof is on u for claiming that there is a god for which there is no evidence.You say 'look around u' as proof of gods existence. this doesnt prove anything. Just because u dont understand how this world came to be doesnt mean that u can say 'god did it'.
Someone got killed, so human systems are for deciding between human situations. But then you would ask – why do we humans kill? Why do we die? Why is there death? Where do we go after we die? Where did we come from before we were born? Our first ancestors were monkeys? Where did monkey come from? If we trace back, did we really come from nothing? So how did nothing come from something?
So in this trial, there are people of faith and they are providing their arguments for Creator God. Who are you then, lawyer for "there" is no God? Or you are the almighty judge that says “there is no god until he proves to be true?”
As almighty judge, have you really considered the counsel for "there is no God theory"? Yes, it is a theory; you will have to really bias if you do not give both sides a good hearing. As much as God is on trial, we humans are also on trial.
You can also have a position "God exists, show me God you exist!" There needs to some humility here. God by definition is "all knowing". Have you tried convincing another "all knowing" person your point, isn't it irritating? Even though you are all knowing, you cannot really get a word through to the other all knowing friend! So someone needs to concede the "all knowing" position and start listening.
I believe a loving God has conceded that position. He came to be limited by time, space and human body to communicate to us in a way that we can understand. Will you concede your "all knowing" position and consider carefully, as any respectful appeal judge will do, differentiating the messages of (1) real "Christian lawyers" (2) "bogus Christian lawyers" and (3) anti-god lawyers. It is a tough job! Good luck and God bless you!
u said, "Our first ancestors were monkeys" No. Monkeys and us came from a common ancestor that neither resembled us nor monkeys.
u said, "If we trace back, did we really come from nothing? So how did nothing come from something?" Yes we really came from nothing. I think u meant to ask how did something come from nothing. This question is not sensible. In Stephen Hawkings brief history of time, he says that asking this question is like asking 'if u kept walking on the earth in a straight line, when would u get to the edge?' As u can see, this question is meaningless as the earth is 3 dimensional and round. This also works the same way for 4 dimensions where the 4th is time. U see, when there was nothing, there was no time either. So the question 'how did something come from nothing' is irrelevant.
"So in this trial, there are people of faith and they are providing their arguments for Creator God. Who are you then, lawyer for "there" is no God? Or you are the almighty judge that says “there is no god until he proves to be true?”" I will be the judge. So u come to court claiming that there is a god. What evidence do u have of such a god? THe onus is on u to show me, hearsay and books written 2000 yrs ago do not prove god as those books r factually wrong. u would need to have hard evidence.
"God by definition is "all knowing"" Oh so then this would be a contradiction as we dont have free will. If god is all knowing, then he has a plan as he knows what is going to happen in the end. Then why do people pray? pray to survive cancer, pray for some material things, etc... If god is all knowing and has a plan, y bother praying. His plan is already set, so y pray for something that is not part of his plan.
"I believe a loving God has conceded that position." the god of the old testament is not loving. He ordered moses to kill every first born male of another tribe, including babies. He decided to kill every1 on the planet via noahs flood (another made up story). How is he loving?
How about "Prove it happened" as the more appropriate request.
None of us are here to prove anything. If you feel that is your cause, continue on my child. God can proven but He cannot be Made. Think about what I have said. Step outside your door right now pray and think. Otherwise, you will remain miserable I sense it in your words. Your have nothing higher than yoursel fto believe. That whats evolution and atheist beleive. Nothing higher than themselves they go around saying prove it prove it. We dont have to prove anything like you dont. One thing about it when tragedy hits the Christian we have someone to turn to. Thats how we can actually believe in Someone and Something the unbeliever dont. God Bless You My Frient.
You prove Him right. You just don't know any god did this. It's faith in the unproven and seemingly illogical – only religion can get away with such unsupported assertions of "truth."
Prove that Harry Potter isn't a real wizard and that J.K. Rowling is under strict orders to lie about his true existence under penalty of some terrible curse. ... What? You can't. Look out for the demented ... oh, dementors (sorry).
The bible also said God created Adam and Eve, who had sons, Cain and Able. It ends there. Where did all the other people come from?
You have just demonstrated how much of the Bible you've read. (Or haven't)
i guess the same way the UK royal family reproduced. lol
In the beginning, Fiddle-Dee-Dee created the universe. Prove me wrong.
The only reason you believe in a god is because some human TOLD you he existed.
you said, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Prove him wrong!!!
Even though the burden of proof lies on u for making that claim, I will take a stab at your challenge and can still prove ur god wrong! All u have to do is read genesis a few more lines further.
We all know that plants need the sun to grow and survive. Science has shown us this as plants work via photosynthesis. Besides being scientific fact, its also common sense that plants need the sun.
But in genesis, on the 3rd day god created grass/plants. And on the 4th day, he created the sun. This is wrong! WHY is this wrong?? Can u explain? If genesis was written by god as u claim, how come he got such a trivial detail wrong?
Hence i have proven ur god wrong.
When it comes to evolutionary timelines, apologists like to trump the excuse that 'a day in genesis is not a literal day, etc...'. But there is absolutely no excuses when the order of creation is also wrong.
But in the end, the bible thumpers will never admit that genesis (hence their god) was wrong. Cause if they do, they religion crumbles. Even after pointing out such blatant errors in the bible, people who want to believe nonsense will continue to believe cause it gives them that warm fuzzy feeling inside. At least thats my take on it.
Very nice article. If only more in the world thought like this. It would go a long way to solving our problems.
Typical pompous, self righteous fool who thinks he knows all.
Except in this case, he pretty much does.
You shouldn't put yourself down like that, KeninTexas.
Seriously, with which points do you disagree? Do you think Dawkins is wrong about certain things? Or is it just painful to hear someone challenge your beliefs?
That's too bad, Ken. Try going to a shrink for those problems of yours.
An amazing irony- actually he doesnt claim to know it all, in fact he emphasizes that no one knows it all. It is the religious, god believers who make that claim. They constantly throw out a god as a creator all from a book that was written by men. Please..... scientist are the one's who investigate and readily admit that they do not have all the answers. Any person claiming to know that there is a god and that life is eternal- in reality whatever your destination after death, according to the god believers, life goes on. It is simply man's fear of the unknown that allows for man's creation of a god and eternal life.
"I'd just written a whole book about ..." Well, I'm pleased that it wasn't a half a book! This guy doesn' think well at all. Even as an atheist one must agree that all things in the Universe are organized, created by whatever force, to move in perfect synchronization. Some force is at work to attempt to keep it that way. It is that force believers call God. No big deal. But if some day some act of coincidence saves his life, or some amazing act occurs in his life, he will be heard to say, "Oh, thank..... uh.... err.... uh....."
You believe that everything in the universe moves in "perfect synchronization"? What about when stars collide? What "force" keeps your god going?
A whole book about X topic, as opposed to a book that is half about X topic and half about Y topic.
It's sad that I have to explain this.
"move in perfect synchronization ..." You mean the way asteroids, meteors, and comets have hit our planet and will continue to do so. You mean the way massive super nova destroy entire solar systems. You mean the way entire galaxies smash into each other ... you have an odd notion of "perfect synchronization."
thank math perhaps, miracles are nothing more then unlikely probabillities occuring, nothing more nothing less
Actually nothing in the universe moves in perfect order. Stars eat each other, planets collide, gases ignite. Nothing moves in perfect order in evolution as well. We have genetic dead ends, useless vestigial organs, and rampant genetic diseases. There's no wizard behind the curtain, but if there was he'd be a pretty inept one. In reality, it's chaos that reigns, not order.
"Even as an atheist one must agree that all things in the Universe are organized, created by whatever force, to move in perfect synchronization."
Or, as Bill O'Reilly phrased it, "Tide goes in. Tide goes out. Never a missed connection. Therefore God exists."
You and he both espouse the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, which basically comes down to "I'm too ignorant, stupid, or unimaginative to understand this, therefore it must be wrong."
"one must agree that all things in the Universe are organized, created by whatever force, to move in perfect synchronization."
I wouldn't agree with a stupid statement like that unless you held a gun to my head, and even then I'd probably giggle. You just make stuff up! How can you not see that someone invented Eden and the talking snake the way you just pulled that "everyone agrees everything is synchronized" out of your fanny?
To an evolutionist...biological evolution most likely began in Africa. Can you tell me where ethical evolution began? Where did the concept of right and wrong come from. If someone murders another or rapes another, does that mean they somehow evolved less than you did?
Come on Bog, you know they don't have an answer for that. Even the article lacks an definitive answer. it probably evolved over thousands of years of evolution...
So, they will respond with, 'science doesn't know that yet, we'll find out later."
That is to say, they'll fill in the "gap" with "science" and fail to see their inconsistency.
That entire article is laughable. We are becoming more moral, we are becoming nicer to each other, more civil...
Um, that goes completely AGAINST natural selection. So, he's implying that we are evolving OUT of survival of the fittest and into something else more civil? Whoops. His very words contradict the very worldview he argues for.
The ironic aspect of all of this is, the values and morals that HE is using is borrowed from the values of.................religions.
That's right. Think about it. If evolution ruled the day and it's all natural selection, then it is cut throat, to the death survival. Then these religious freaks come in a few thousand years ago saying, 'hey we should be nice to other people, not steal from them, not lie to each other, don't murder innocent people.'
Um, that sounds familiar too. Those morals he speaks of, HAD to have come from something, because they were NOT in evolution and natural selection-and it's certainly not even close to being provable that morality evolved.
To go from survival of the fittest to, 'let's start being nice to people' contradicts.
meantcnn @ gmail com
Fail. Evolution works at the population level, NEVER at the individual level. Take Bio 101 and you would understand that. A population that is selfish would likely be less productive than a cooperative one and therefore be at a disadvantage.
It's natural selection. If your tribe keeps stealing my tribe's women, one night we will come down on you and kill you off. Then my tribe, with its 'don't steal women' rule, increases while your genes are discarded. This is so basic kindergarten teachers know it: learn to share or go in time-out.
Ethical "evolution" as you put it is a function of our biological survival. We are pack animals. We are not strong compared to other animals. We are not fast compared to other animals. We are social pack animals (yes, like dogs, like chimp troops, like bees, like ants) We need to work together to survive. Why do you think the harshest punishment of a person in prison (other than death) is solitary confinement. To be alone for a human is terrible. Now imagine you're in a small tribe and you kill a member of your own tribe .. you weaken it, there by making it susceptible to attack from a competing tribe. The 10 commandments are not unique. Every society on earth has rules against anti-social behaviour that harms the stability and safety of its culture. Even stupid rules such as not eating pork have a real origin. Improperly preparing pork for consumption will kill you via bacterial infection. Now we know better ... and you can have bacon!
If I disassemble my watch, put all the pieces in a box and wait a billion years will the watch reassemble itself into a functional useful timepiece? No reasonable person would ever expect that to occur. And in this scenario all the components necessary are already present.
But I am supposed to believe that this planet and all unique lifeforms on it simply occurred without an intelligent creator?
That makes no logical sense. Everything comes from something, even the most minute building blocks. Believing in Science does not incompatible with faith in an intelligent creator.
Belief in Science is not incompatible with faith in an intelligent creator. – Sorry
For god's sake, please google 'abiogenesis' or visit: http://www.talkorigins.org
You can be a person of faith and still gain an understanding of science. If you want to see your god's invisible hand behind everything, that's fine. But stop pretending that known, well understood phenomena such as evolution don't exist.
Educate yourself, please.
Nice cut-and-paste watchmaker analogy that has been debunked since the late 19th century. You clearly don't understand evolution and I suggest educating yourself on it.
Good points. And what about self-awareness. If we waited a trillion years, would the table I am sitting at ever think "gee.. I'm a table!" How can personhood and self-awareness come from non-living matter? (And of course... where did the matter come from?)
If you are going to make an argument against Evolution you should at least know what it is. You are talking about how life began, which is not evolution. Evolution only describes how life changed after it started.
Evolution of a watch? lol, what a moron.
RF – Did you read the entire article? He was not just speaking about the theory of evolution. He makes a case that there is no God. And evoloution starts SOMEWHERE. I am saying that the complexity of life argues for an intelligent creator.
As regard the copy and pasted watch analogy...you could use ANYTHING here. A car a house a pencil! Thought and planning goes into things we accept this as fact.
If complex things can only be created by more complex creators (a baseless assertion to begin with) then asserting that a great creator created us all is not a useful explaination. It only begs the larger question of what super-creator created the creator and so on and so on.
Wow that has to be the stupidest analogy ive ever seen. How about a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and leaving a Cadillac behind? All the components are there?........ Watch pieces? Million years? wow! I just dont understand some peoples thought process. Thing is this joker probably graduated college somehow. Watch pieces. GTFO here.....
Joseph. If you can't communicate with class and decorum please don't try to educate me.
And yes I did graduate college. But I guess according to you hurricanes are in the car manufacturing business?
"Everything comes from something."?????? Where did God come from?
Sweden...God is from Sweden.
Haha. Seriously though, that (like the missing link) is one piece of information we do not have.
"Where did God come from?"
Eternity. Wrap your head around that!
The problem Stuart, is that I can look at science and evolution and reason through it. No, I do not think that something made sure that we can eat this or that. I can look at it saying that our ancestors, needing to eat, developed the ability to digest certain compounds and use them to fuel our metabolic processes. Take milk for example. A large number of people have a hard time breaking down lactose, a sugar in milk. Others come from societies where cows, goats, etc., were more prevalently domesticated for the milk they produced than the meat they were made of. A cow is far more useful alive if you can derive nourishment or value from other byproducts. Ergo, they developed an extremely unique adaptation: the ability to break down lactose as an adult. Baby mammals can all do this, but few species retain that ability past the first few years of life. Our gut evolved to allow us to store the necessary bacteria for a lifetime.
I don't believe that, if there is a god, he is spending his time driving this, assuming you even believe that we do evolve... jury is still out there. I believe if there is an god behind the scenes, all he did was set up the dominoes and get the ball rolling, maybe starting a Big Bang and walking away. And if you played with domino sets like I did as a child, you can set them up, but you have no real control once they start to collide and tip over. Evolution, the need to gain a biological advantage by adapting to your environment, has driven the engine of life for about a billion years... maybe longer elsewhere in this vast universe. Mordin in Mass Effect 2 said it best: Life has thrived by adapting. Can't reach food... walk upright. Can't catch food... make spear. Currently on this world, and there may be many others, we are the pinnacle of evolution, driven this way by countless adaptations written into our genetics and most recently our technology. To think otherwise is to deny reason and rationality.
Would you be surprised to know that I agree with a lot of what you said?
I also do not believe the the Earth is a mere 10,000 years or so old.
I think all would agree that we are at the top of the food chain for a reason. We are self aware, have a conscience and posess problem solving skills that exceed those of any other species. (especially when we work together).
So the human race fact grown or "evolved" and adapted. There are many abilities unique to humans that we sometimes take for granted. But evolution, the process of one life form becoming another over the course of time lacks the definitive proof I need.
Humans needed a way to fly for example, to travel accross vast spans of land and water...we invented the airplane. As much as I would love the gift of flight we will never grow wings.
Anyway, I like the discussion as long as it is civil and respectful.
stuart constructing a plane is evolution. Technology has been our evolution. We came from the sea, we walked on land, and now have landed throughout space. Space was the next lofgical step after land. We evolved to fly, boat, etc.
It is amazing how self proclaimed intelligent people are not able to present 1 intelligent point of view.
They ridicule persons of Faith and at the same time present unproven theories as fact and expect one to accept and to approve the thoughts of their polluted minds. On top of it all, inspite of the fact that they are not at any level of intelligenge or understanding, they want to teach their opinions to others.
It is a bit amusing to me how eager some of those who do not believe in God are to condemn those who do as ignorant.
Dawkins wrote a book on the watchmaker thing too. Read "The Blind Watchmaker."
"Nobody knows. It’s an unwise, a rash biologist who ever forecasts what’s going to happen next."
Prediction is a necessary component of scientific method. If a scientist isn't predicting future results, then he or she is only a history student, not a scientist.
Evolution is a complicated process of genetic selection, and therefore, extremely hard to predict what will happen in the future. But atleast science admits that it is not able to predict the future. Can't say that about creationists who make up a story just because they cannot understand everything thats going on. Its ok to say "i don't know", rather than make up a story and expect everyone to believe it.
I didn't say that to make a "science vs religion" point. Other people are welcome to beat that to death elsewhere. I'm upset that a man who bases his life around science would discard science BECAUSE he "doesn't know" something. I'd love to see what biologists think might happen to humans. The entire point of science is to understand things so that we can predict and innovate. Quit wasting everyone's time trying to prove that there is no God and get busy changing the world with science!
Oh, wait! Mr. Dawkins must not be aware of this: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/sweet-stars-hint-at-building-blocks-of-life/?hpt=hp_t3 Could it truly be, Mr. Dawkins, that life could have arisen somewhere else? Could it possibly be that such life could have evolved to a dramatically greater extent than Earth-based humanity? Could it be that such life-forms could have "seeded" Earth with various life forms? Oh. no! That can't be correct, because you, Mr. Dawkins, know that such events in the history of the universe have NEVER occurred. Right, Mr. Dawkins?
Sheesh, talk about a know-it-all that doesn't...
Obviously you don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is the adaptation of an existing organism based on all environmental factors (inclusive of species behavioural conditions) into new species. Your little rant is about the "origins of life" ... not the "origins of species" Those questions are different.
There has to be an initial life-form in order for evolution to begin. The initial life-form came from "building blocks". Mr. Dawkins seems dubious (if not in denial) that such events have ever happened anywhere other than Earth and that those events could have produced a life-form so advanced that they could have created, seeded, etc. life here on Earth..
evolution is not strictly concerned with how life (or evolution itself) began. Only with how it unfolds. You don't need to have a defined and understood "beginning" to state (correctly) that evolution is a fact.
Gosh you are another idiot putting words into Dawkins' mouth. He has said it before in other interviews that he does not reject the possibility that life on earth could have been seeded by other life that arose someonhow on another planet, but he also stated that the life that seeded us must have then also arise either by being seeded or by natural means. Why go in circles and have to assume that life on earth had to be planted here by some other beings from other planets? Are we going to say the same about them? Evolution is a fact and it tells us that all life on earth has a common ancestor, case closed. Are you one of those who proposes that humans are different ? That only humans came to earth from somewhere else? Well you are wrong, the DNA evidence shows that all life on earth including US share a common ancestor and we have fossils to prove it.
"Could it truly be, Mr. Dawkins, that life could have arisen somewhere else? Could it possibly be that such life could have evolved to a dramatically greater extent than Earth-based humanity? Could it be that such life-forms could have "seeded" Earth with various life forms?"
This is a well-used trope in science fiction, of course, and a cool idea. But where's the specific evidence that life on Earth came from somewhere else? Until you have some evidence, it's speculation, albeit entertaining speculation.
Doesn't pure science demand that an open mind be kept about areas that are not understood?
Im pretty sure he is open minded he just requires the same burden we place on creationists, an ounce of proof not written or created by man. AKA fossils or relics.
"Doesn't pure science demand that an open mind be kept about areas that are not understood?"
Science is a systematic method for developing testable explanations of observed phenomena. As I said, the idea of life having an extraterrestrial origin is pretty cool. It can't be definitively ruled out. For it to be science, there needs to be a testable hypothesis related to it. Do you have one?
Fossils and relics are evidences of the past on basis of which scientific judgements are made. What do creationists have in terms of physical evidence about the past. All that there is are manuscripts written by other men, no physical evidence to speak of.
"You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose – and that means evolution." I find it amazing they were able to formulate the theory of evolution without the theory of evolution sense science cannot advance without it.
Yeah I cant believe some caveman invented the wheel....are you serious? Are you trying to present a counter argument? Fail.
I am not the one who said science cannot advance without the theory of evolution.
Clearly, knowing how something got here is not really relevant to learning how it works and what it can do. Not believing in evolution stops people from learning how things work and what they can do? Fail.
taking what Dawkins said out of context doesn't help your case. reading comprehension fail.
Ok hub. Out of context or not maybe you can explain "how not believing in evolution stops people from learning how things work and what things can do. To say a belief in one theory or another stops people from understanding science? That I admit makes little or no sense to me.
My aren't you a clever little chimpanzee!
Don't you mean "Austrolopithecus" Zeb?
Pray for this man...he is inaccurate and misleading others. You can't say that we have randomly come to where we are by chance over millions of years. In fact, I am a scientist (a 'serious scientist')...and I believe in the triune God. So he can't say "There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact", as I am a serious scientist who does not believe in evolution, but rather I believe that God is the Creator.
You are NOT a serious scientist if you believe those myths. GO BACK TO SCHOOL!
So people like the monk Gregor Mendel, Thomas Edison (who held Bible studies at his lab), Robert Oppenheimer (hard-core Hindu), Frank Borman (who read the Bible from the moon), and Neil Amstrong (who held Christian communion on the moon), and many other respected scientists were not serious because they were devoutly religious? It sounds like YOU need to go back to school!
If you do not believe in evolution you are NOT – by definition – a serious scientist. full stop.
You believe in FAIRYTALES, Brian. "God" is something invented by humans. It (he, she, whatever you prefer) DOESN'T EXIST. Religion is a huge lie, and you are one of its victims.
So you're saying you're a scientist...a "serious one"...and that Dawkins is wrong because of your unverifiable faith? Please. You may work in a science oriented field but you sir are no scientist. You can work in a hospital but it doesn't automatically make you a doctor.
If you do not believe in evolution – which can be observed easily in the short generations of simpler life forms – you are not a scientist, any more than are the people that work at Apple stores actually geniuses.
Please give some examples of this "easily observed evolution".
since google is hard.
which god are you talking about? there are thousands of them that have been worshipped, so it's easy to get confused.
Can we stop with the "random" already? It is not random... it is natural selection. Survival of the fittest. This is the method behind it.
By your use of the word "chance," you show that you do not understand Evolution and therefore are not a serious scientist.
You revealed that you are a lier and don't even know what science is by saying "believe" in evolution as if it were some kind of religion. A free thinking child who takes a basic Science class knows more than you....you fraud.
Creationists say "Not me, but you Lord." "You are the great I am!"
Darwin and Dawkin's followers say "meme" or "ME ME!"
Not even clever. Stupid.
This guy, is now MY god!! He rocks!
And to religious folks who I may have offended on other posts on CNN stories: Calling you things like r3tarded h!llb!llies is not nice and certainly does not help my cause.. of wanting the GOP/religious folks to see the REAL light: You are being controlled.. and bent to the will of your clergy and political leaders. They are all counting on you to do, and more importantly, to THINK, what THEY say, and to not think for yourself. From the Pope on down... and from Limbaugh on down. It is all about control. You see, that is the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals. You are told by your leaders what to think, and our leaders say "what do you think?... give us your ideas.. we are all in this together.. we want your input"... please start thinking for yourself.. and start by thinking about what I just said.
Dawkins: "God, why didn't you reveal yourself to me?"
God: "Why did you ignore me? You think the cosmos 'just happened?'"
personal insults, and you expect people to think your way of thinking is "the best" for humanity? lol
Small people with small minds struggling to express themselves! Explain the human soul and it's nature, and prove that something other than an intelligent God caused the Big Bang (the cause will ALWAYS be unknown, because if using scientific method correctly, atheists would have to include God as a possible variable, to validate their theory...and no self-respecting atheist scientist will ever take that chance, lest they prove themselves wrong.) and maybe we'll believe people like Dawkins. At least the Bible attempts to answer the Big Questions that people actually care about; the biological evolution he's talking about is the equivalent of taking someone outside and telling them the sky is blue, everyone already knows that (even Christians).
Typical. When you loose an argument all that is left is slander!
My first question to God would be to ask why so many of his followers were so bloody cruel and judgmental to others and perhaps suggest he revisit his marketing strategy.
to which God would reply "I told my followers to love your neighbors as yourselves. If they did not do that, were they really following me? And why are you focusing on the bad apples when there are plenty of followers who help the poor and needy every day? Sounds like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe and suiting your views to support that belief, rather than being completely objective."
to which God would reply
You have no clue how God would reply.
its better then your religon's endorsment of slavery, wife beating, and daughter selling
and which religion am I?
I actually doubt Dawkins will be given any time to quiz the Almighty.
This just makes god look petty.
Spot on. So much is missed in life when we see only through our own eyes. "God" reveals himself daily, and this is often taken for granted. I respect Dawkins' views; however, his arrogance is bothersome.
Polemist, the "spot on" applied to your first post. You make good points.
And poly... who created god before the big bang?
Simple question. Please think before answering.
We all need something that explains the universe and helps us make sense of it. And we all need to feel that there's something bigger than ourselves that we're part of.
Some people get these things from religion. Others get it from science.
Atheism is a religion. Agnosticism is not. Those who "believe" in Science are missing the point completely.
Atheism is not a religion – it is simply the lack of belief in a specific god. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Are you claiming that lack of belief is a religion?
Science can be a religion, too. Just look at Dawkins traveling the world evangelizing his belief in science and evolution.
paul42 type folks couldn't be more ignorant, just read their ignorance in writing (even if its innocent).
Paul, your kind denying science while blissfully enjoying the fruits of science (e.g. a modern comfortable life, medicines, military gear, internet, etc.) are the reason that would cause fall of human species. really, you using the scientific invention like internet to easily spew your non-sense feel proud in doing it?
What has religion done to advance the life of Humans, other than produce ignorant like you to deny logic and facts?
"If there were a God that met you after death, what would you say?
If I met God, in the unlikely event, after I died? The first thing I would say is, well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which God are you, and why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?"
He will have a hard time jusitifying to God all the different was God has been speaking to hime when he stands before him upon his death. You can find God every day if you are truley and deeply willing to seek truth. His foot prints are every where from creation to all aspects of life. On day we will all meet our Creator and answer to him.
If everything is God, then nothing is.
Epistemologically speaking, your statement is ridiculous.
Paul, you sound rather arrogant to claim to know the characteristics of God. So you, a lowly worm of a human, know the mind of an infinite being? Wow! Delusional much?
yet another clueless moron GO BACK TO SCHOOL!! But not in Texas.
You develop conclusions and then look for evidence that supports it instead of looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from that. Finding "evidence of God everywhere" is like looking at clouds and seeing images. Comparing science and religion is like comparing apples and Orangutans.
Those two things are living. It's like comparing apples to bicycles.
But Paul, you still haven't answered the question: Which god?
religious people scare me. anybody who puts their faith and path in life in the hands of a "thing" they have never met, saw, talked to, or heard is beyond ridiculous. how about they put faith in THEMSELVES over anything else FIRST? that's like people passing down a story through time saying a guy on a farm in Idaho is the person you answer to when you die – so live your life according to how he wants it to be lived. nobody with common sense would do that today in these times, because science says otherwise and because the human race is smarter than we were 500 years ago. if more people had common sense, this world would be a much better place. instead, people kill for their "gods". very scary stuff.
According to your premise, Dawkins might scare you as he's putting a lot of "faith" in Darwin and his conclusions on evolution....
You handle "unevolved" is a hilarious double entendre. I know how you intended it... but I doubt you meant to illustrate it so well.
evolution is proven, look at MRSA and Influenza, mammalian evolution is a longer process and as far as life springing up from nothing, scientists have been able to show that given the right conditions, amino acids can pop into existance, and an amino acid is all it takes for life to begin
Religion has taught the world a lot: hatred, bigotry, misogyny,intolerance . . . .
Here, here! Any woman who is of any religion is an idiot too because religion has been used for centuries to control and defile my gender. If the STORY of of Eve never existed think of where women would be today.
Sadly, they would probably be in the same place. Religion is merely an expression of what is already inside us.
Religion hasn't taught the world anything. Religion is merely man's attempt to codify what he has taught himself.
The problem with religion isn't its past: it was our first attempt to explain the universe, and it worked for a while. The problem with religion is its future, because by definition it cannot change.
His comment about if God was real was kind of sad. Why didn't God reveal himself to me? Yet he tends to know about Jesus and God's plans in his comments. I feel bad for the guy.
you might want to think before you talk.
Dont pity him. He is intelligent and comfortable in his position.
...But Who gave him his intelligence?
I do feel sorry for him. Wasting his life like this.
You should feel bad for being a clueless moron. GO BACK TO SCHOOL!! But not in texas.
You sound like a broken record Anon.
yeah, knowledge sucks... darkness and ignorance is so much easier
I find it a bit funny and quite sad how many people that either don't understand someone else's point of view or don't agree with it say that they "feel sorry" for them. It's an ignorant statement that says that you lack the ability to understand that even thought someone doesn't believe what you do that they are every bit as happy and live rich and fulfilling lives.
In your particular case you think your road is the only road to happiness, you believe your path is the only correct one. I would say that is sad, but really it's just childish and naive. Grow up, wake up and learn something.
If this scientist doesn't think he can learn anything from something then he is not much of a scientist. Science is about learning from everything around you.
Yes the observable things around you
Should it be the other way that Bible believers listen and learn from scientists like Darkins. Religion is ok if it comforts, encurages, and helps you to live a happy life. Those who have doubt or simply do not believe in evolution and the scientific explanation of the creation of uninverse are simply cheating themselsves because they cannot accept the flaw of their believing system. If Jesus or early Jews had learned about the eixstence of molecules and the changing of earth, universe, species, we may not have the kind of religious beliefs as we see today.
Does Dawins seem pompous and uncaring? Of course he does! Why should anyone have patience with religious nuts? Would you treat an adult with contempt if they thought Santa Claus was real? Belief in the words of the bible is just as silly and laughable. These adherents are definitely worthy of being mocked.
Agreed Seyedibar.. If I know someone is religious I immedialty know the type of idiot I'm dealing with and treat them accordingly. I have no time for their delusions. I don't hate religious people... I feel sad they have such polluted minds.
" If I know someone is religious I immedialty know the type of idiot I'm dealing with and treat them accordingly." So you automatically judge, label, and stereotype people, and now you are openly bragging about your bigotry.
So, you have no ethical stance to be nice to these nuts huh? Think on this. If there is no ultimate "God given" morality, what is wrong (and why) for them or anyone else to just walk and blow your brains out, after all, morality is really just a myth if there's no God. Oh, you find yourself "morally" repulsed to that. You find it incomprehensible for someone to think that? Hmm, maybe there's a reason that people raised differently (country, belief system, etc) will say it is categorically immoral or wrong to say that. Just a thought.
Human morals have changed greatly over time, for example it used to be ok to own other humans, but now that is not considered moral. So did god just change his mind at some point?
Richard Dawkins only speaks of things that he knows. He speaks nonsense because he knows nothing! In order to speak of God, one has to know God. This occurs in the heart,where God makes His dwelling. Dawkins never welcomed God into his heart, so he can no nothing about Him! Speaking of the Creation, what matters is not "in how many days", but "in how many epochs." For the biblical "days" are epochs of unknown length. Which is why we must accept that the Creation has happened over a long period.
Do you have to know all the gods to speak about a particular one, or do you just have to know about the god you want to speak about?
Dawkins asks why God "hid himself". If we had concrete proof of God, we would be slaves to God. There would be no free will. We would not be choosing goodness - or anything for that matter - because we would KNOW that God is watching, rather than believing that there is something greater than satisfying our bodily desires.
Just because evidence isn't direct (although some will tell you the existence of the universe is), it does not foreclose the possibility, or even probability that something created us that is far beyond our meager brains' understanding.
Only a fool would discount the possibility of God (that's from Carl Sagan, who is often wrongly championed as a devout atheist).
Creationists account for like 4% of all people that believe in a higher power. Trying to attribute silly beliefs to all those who believe in a God is childish.
If you knew anything about Dawkins, you would also know that he doesn't characterize himself as an absolute athiest. He acknowledges that if proof of god were presented, he would re-evalute his position like any scientist. No religious, people can make the same claim. They would not alter their opinion for anything.
Interesting stereotype regarding religious people (according to you, all religious people stay religious). Incorrect. (Citation: See humans on Earth).
I know he sweats Hitch and they are (were) of the same ilk. Wait, can I stereotype too?
The point, which he fails to realize, is that direct proof of God (which he needs to believe) destroys the notion of God. We would be forced to be good. Dawkins, like all scientists, wants all evidence neatly dropped in his lap before making conclusions. Maybe he doesn't foreclose the possibility, but many atheists consider the idea of God ridiculous (making fun of an imaginary guy in the sky). To discount possibility of God is childish. To mock others who believe is worse.
It's interesting that you equate "belief in spite of no evidence" with "choosing goodness".
Don't you think your God will be angry that you didn't use the intellect he supposedly gave you?
Where religion is concerned, slavery is a mental state. And it's a choice.
"It just ends?
Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that."
Sad, that someone who is so intelligent can be so ignorant about the Spirit. Our thoughts, our beliefs, our feelings are not in our brain. There is a Higher Intelligence beyond religion and science that Jesus spoke about, that neither the scientist nor the religious can fully realize in this human experience.
meaningless drivel. There is no such thing as a higher spiritual truth. And a short study of world history should be enough to prove to anyone that Jesus and his disciples did not exist in the biblical framework. A short study of comparative religions is enough to show anyone that christianity stole it's stories and themes from many other much older religions. Your god Yahweh is no different than the other thousand gods humans have worshipped. He is no more real than Thor or Zeus or Krishna or Horus or Ishtar. Gods never existed outside the minds of mankind.
...and if by "Chance" (pun intended) there is a God....where would that leave Dawkins.
What are the characteristics of this God? Perhaps its a God who will reward him for using his brain to question and reason and analyze and question that God's existence. Perhaps this God has plans to send the puddin' head creationists and those who refuse to use their brains to Hell. In that case, Dawkins will be sitting pretty. And this scenario is just as likely as any other of an infinite number of god scenarios.
I agree. Only an evil God would give people the ability to reason and then punish them for a sincere and honest effort to use reason to understand the world based on their understanding of it.
In a real bad way.
" I’ve taken a lot of trouble to put together a program of poetry, of music, of eulogies, of memories, to try to celebrate the life of the dead person. " .... since nothing matters and we just disintegrate into dust .... why does he bother ? There is no morality, things just are what they are and do what you want. That's why the democrats are a bunch of idiots. They talk about what's right and doing what's right but there is no right or wrong if there is no God. I'm content to make lots of money and NOT share it with the losers on the bottom. Make your own way and provide for your own lowlife larval offspring.
"I'm content to make lots of money and NOT share it with the losers on the bottom."
Wow, is that what Jesus would do? What a bunch of hypocrites... You people make me sick, if you really cared about your fellow man you would be Democrats. Why? Because they at least TRY to make people's lives better. You know, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, etc etc.
The Republicans have suckered you religious folks into siding with them and in doing so you all have sold your souls to the corporations and the rich – congratulations! They don't care about your God, your family, or even this country – it's all about MONEY with them. Fools...
I've met the poor. They stink and lie and cheat. I prefer the money. With enough money you can shape your own world. Since there is no God...HA. There is nothing but money and the now.
well said loki, but, i'm broke and poor, and i don't lie and cheat. so you are full of s...
Why would a scientist state that it is impossible that a higher (more advanced) being (or beings) "seeded" this planet with life? Couldn't there, possibly, exist a group of beings that have evolved to a far greater degree than the humans on Earth? Why are so many scientists opposed to this possibility when new galaxies, planets, etc. are continually being discovered? Why do they dare to say (thus, implying) that they know everything about every planet in the universe? This would mean that those same scientists know for a fact that there are no more galaxies, planets, etc. to be discovered, therefore, we should cease to look for anymore. This stance and belief cannot be reconciled with science!
The simplest explanation by far that we have evidence for is that biological molecules can form readily (amino acids, sugars) and these can form in space and from simple molecules by electrical and chemical energized processes on planets. So it is easy to generate the building blocks of life in the universe. Amazingly, life can begin from this, but it isn't really that hard to imagine. We have no evidence for space aliens. So, space aliens are not as strong a model from a scientific point of view. In addition, we still would have to ask where the space aliens came from. So it doesn't even address the question of the origin of life anyway. It just puts it off to another place and time.
He didn't say what you are suggesting is impossible. He said that evolution is true, and that god didn't create each and every species like creationist suggest.
For as much as atheists despise religion as a money-making scheme, atheism and atheists do their own version extremely well and without any moral scruples to the obvious hypocrisy.
I don't really think it is a fair comparison you are making. Atheists don't promise you eternal life or anything for that matter. So they aren't really selling anything that is being promised by religions. I do agree that atheists should not impose their will on those who believe any more than those who believe should impose their will on those who don't believe. Those who do believe in God, however, can not just deny facts. Denial of Evolution that should draw strong criticism from thoughtful atheists. However, belief in God, on its own, does not deserve criticism at all. Unless harming others is induced by that religious belief.
Atheists aren't trying to sell "heaven" or "God," but guys like Dawkins are making tons of money selling books by preaching a "feel good" message to their flock: there is no heaven or hell, buy my book and read about how you can live your life without guilt and no fear of judgment.
No hope, either, polemicist.
exactly why do i have to live my life by fear of being judged for what i have done? I do feel guilty for doing bad things, but i dont need a god to tell me what is good and what is bad.
Apparently u need one. I dont. Everyone is not the same. U need to fear a god. THe same god who in genesis built the earth on the first day and the sun on the 4th day (WRONG. We all know that the sun was here first and then the earth formed.). The same god who created plants/grass on the 3rd day when the sun was created on the 4th (again WRONG. We all know that plants need the sun to live and grow). Why is the biblical god so oblivious of simple facts? Have fun living in fear of such a 'god'.
Sun on 4th day... hmmm. I can think of a reason so – so that people do not worship the "Sun"; life exists before there was Sun.
Was there not light on the first day of creation? And the in the New Heaven and a New Earth, described in the Book of Revelation 21:23 " The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp." There is a God who not only creates life, but gives life as well.
If I believe God created, I sure can believe the plants can live before the sun was being created. Is it really easier to believe there is no God and things just happened?
"so that people do not worship the "Sun"; life exists before there was Sun." Wow really? Look up wikipedia please if u havent already learnt these facts in school. Think about it rationally. Here r some facts for u:
– Sun is dated to be older than the earth by 30 million yrs
– The reason the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun is cause the sun was here first
– Plants need the sun to survive (everyone knows this)
– Many stars we see r older than our sun, which implies that they were here BEFORE the earth formed. But genesis again has the order wrong
"Was there not light on the first day of creation?" Yes but from where? Since the sun and stars were created on the 4th day, the light came from where? Again 'magic' is the only answer u have. And magic or 'god did it' doesnt answer anything. It is actually a non-answer.
" The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp." This quote again is magic. There is no sensibility (nonsense) or rationality in what this says. It is more akin to fairy tales.
"If I believe God created, I sure can believe the plants can live before the sun was being created." Yeah if u believe in magic then u will believe in anything. If genesis happened to say that in the beginning the sun and moon were rolling on the earth like little balls and then god soccer kicked them up into the 'heavens' and they stayed there, u would believe that too. And when thinking people ask questions to the validity of such a statement, u can easily say 'magic' or 'god is all powerful and can do anything'. But u have to realize that it explains nothing, absolutely nothing. And if answers like that satisfy u, then there is no point in thinking at all. And there is no point in coming on the forums to try to have a sensible convo with someone with differing views as u cannot provide magic as an answer.
"Is it really easier to believe there is no God and things just happened?" Yes. Several good reasons to believe so. u would have to read some books to get into the details.
@LetsThink123 – Faith = Magic, Really? If those who believe in "magic" cannot really explain anything to the unbelieving; then i must say those of "no god" theory are weaving magical stories and fairy tales of how things happend to be. using wikipedia as reference, sure, but as authority to live your life?
let's use the same standard as burden of proof. are there really so many questions that the creationist & those God believers have NOT thought of? and Dawkins have found new theories to debunk God? Dawkins is just recycling age old anti-faith materials. yes, some scientist now says there's a god particle theory... in the beginning there was a god-particle; faith not requiredt?
at the end of the day, it is not the miracle of creation that is important to me, it is the miracle of a transformed life, having your life, family and friends living in love and hope that matters. if your life is holding up well by what you you believe, good for you – you too have found some magic!
Don't get more down to earth than this. Thanks Dawkins.
Neither Creationists nor Dawkins has anything to teach us.
They are narcissist blowhards.
best statement yet........
Couldn't have said it better. Arrogance is disgusting regardless of whether it is a religious fanatic or an atheist fanatic.
lol, good joke brah! Wait... you were joking right? You people are idiots. Go hump a bible somewhere.
The only true purpose for religion is to offer an explanation for that which our current levels of technology can not (i.e. we now understand weather patterns, climate, etc. – no need to pray to the god of rain or sun). Determining what actually happens to body at the time of death is the one issue that science will have the most trouble deciphering. Until that time (if ever), religion will continue to cause problems. Look at global conflicts around the world. Territorial expansion is no longer the motivating factor for war. The only remaining issues are oil and religion. Solve the oil problem and the only motivating factor for war will be religion.
Scientist here, with your explanation. Your brain IS a CPU/OS ... AND ... a DataBase. The CPU and OS stops operating upon your death – the DataBase (your thoughts and memories, unconcious ones too) are uploaded to the Galactic Internet and stored in a File-Folder (with your name on it). At some point, your file is opened, analyzed, and judged, and then YOU are downloaded into a new DataBase in a new Brain in a new Body. So by these means YOU will be alive again, and, you will be living where and how you were judged to deserve. God is a scientist who knows how to do these things. When the time comes, rest in peace – while you are waiting to be judged, oh, and sweet dreams as well. – This is written. I Am That I Am.
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Avoid Worldly Wisdom
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; [a] 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”[b]
God seemed to know that people like Dawkins would be around....pray for him
Of course the writers of the bible suspected doubters because they knew they were laying down mountains of BS.
Yeah, god wants everyone to be in ididot. It seems much more likely that those verses were added to the bible becuase the people who wrote it needed to keep people dumb in order for them to belive most of what is in the Bible.
You are quoting scripture written by men you nincompoop. Most likely men with mental problems (claiming they hear gods word). Try writing some scripture now and see what happens. You will likely be dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a straight jacket. The mythical manifesto that you hold so holy was not dropped from the sky by god. The bible and religion and the notion of god are all a crock. Live in this world and enjoy it because there is only one life and one reality.
Oh, goody for you.. you found scriptures in the bible that apply to someone. Must have been really time consuming, thanks for the input.
Funny that those passages were written by people who thought the moon was a god (or at the least, didn't know what it was, nor the sun for that matter!) They also thought the earth was flat and that it rested on top of a strong man who stood on a big turtle. Here's what young earthers believe: They believe the earth was created 200 grandpas ago. They believe there is an invisible man in the sky who knows EVERYthing, and that he loves people so much he will make them burn for eternity if they look at their neighbor's boobs, which he created. They are certain it's all true because someone told them when they were little kids.
I can't stop laughing at this one. It is funny because it is true.
Wow, quoting versus from the bronze age. That ought to do the trick.
Yes, pray for the poor man who does his own thinking.
God didn't know, the people whor wrote the Bible did. You are merely proving Dawkins' point.
God didn't know guys like him would be around, but the people who wrote the Bible did. You kind of prove Dawkin's point.
American Evangelicals are the Teabaggers of Christianity. A hollow sham and a hate group. I support pulling their tax status.
Churches tend to feed, clothe and help the poor. If you pull their tax exempt status, they will be less likely to be able to help communities.
Oh well. The Nazis helped people also.
The also have HUGE real estate holdings. That is obvious to anyone who drives down the street and can see. Not to mention the many phony churches that are created in order to dodge taxes. I say tax them like any other organization because that's all they are, an organization. The 'tax the church' crowd is growing.
Some churches are chairtable to a degree, most are not, they spend more money upon theirselves or to push their views. I live in Florida and the Morman Church owns a lorge part of Osceola County SW of Orlando that they use as a cattle ranch, no taxes paid, not sure what the employes pay, supplied housing, no accounting of anything, I suppose the poor kids thay send around the world as missionerys are chairatble deductions sent out to get more money 10% per beliver, have to keep up the priestly class.
Churches that run soup kitchens, etc, are doing it mainly to proselytize and con those they are "helping" into joing their cult and win souls for jeeeeezus. They get a little gold start in heaven. Besides, all us tax payers are having to step up and pay the taxes on their behalf so they are sticking it to us all.
if you are not like those haters, why are you posting this hateful message :) ?
An autobiography and a tour?!?!? This guy thinks he's the Sinatra of Atheists?
It's called educating and enlightening – and if he uses his "celebrity" status to get more people out, isn't that a good thing?
Get more people "out" of what? If you take a person's faith away you damn well better have something better to offer him or her in its place? Dawkins doesn't have anything better to offer only the tired re-tread argument of an atheist. To believe that the human mind, no matter how advanced, can fully comprehend that which is infinite is foolishness.
revbats: Out, and it get more people to come out to learn. Now, could you please enlighten us on the immense psychic trauma you suffered when you learned that there was no Santa Claus and Easter Bunny? It's called freeing people's minds from indoctrination and control – I think that's a good thing!
@revbates And yet, your religion was created by men.
Luck be a Lady Tonight!!
Sinatra was Awesome. How dare you compare!!
Truth cannot be spelled clearer than this.
I think its perpetually amusing how a person(and group) who relentlessly condescends and insults people for being rigid fundementalists, judgemental, etc-are very much the same. Whats the science behind conceit and irony? Or a total lack of self awareness? Oh yeah narcissism.
You nailed it, Carl. Pride is a killer.
Narcissism was all I was thinking about reading this article as well....and other narcissists won't see it....hahaha!
human beings are narcissists. you're all narcissists posting your attention seeking comments, and so am i.
but yeah, that tired old rebuttal "you're the same as us" is also pretty amusing. I mean, we really ARE the same.. the main difference is we hold fast to truth and facts and you hold fast to ignorance and easy answers.
No problem with evolution, Richard. But evidently a much smarter man than you, Stephen Hawkings, cannot explain the creation of gravity. Evolution is not incompatible with a Creator. They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you wish they were. But they are only your wishes, Richard. Nothing more.
The fact that evolution is not incompatible with a creator is not evidence that said creator exists. Evolution is also not incompatible with leprechauns from the Planet Kolob – but that doesn't mean they exist.
You just proved the point that you and Richard are not really concerned about evolution. It is about your intolerance for the other side of the issue which you cannot disprove. And it speaks volumes about your pride in "knowing" what you cannot prove. You cling to your pride and I will cling to my faith.
cling away, wolf – continue to be willfully blind to the world. by the way, you are the one claiming a god exists – the onus is on you to prove it does, not on me to disprove it. Very basic.
creation of gravity – look into the higgs discovery and what it means. it requires a lot of reading, but you're wrong.
and also, just because things worked out on this planet doesn't mean it was handed to us on a silver platter by the flying spaghetti monster.
creationism is an easy way to no have to think about things.
It is common knowledge that more is known about evolution than gravity. That is why it is so confounding that people doubt evolution. While evolution may be compatible with a creator, as the other commenter said, that isn't proof. What evolution is definitely not compatible with is any man made religion or man made concept of god.
Dawkins never said that evolution and a creator were incompatible. His position is creationism is BS.
Wolfpackbob – You are correct in stating that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with a diety.
However, evolution is incompatible with the most common intrepretation of the Xtian bible and the Xtian diety. Evolution requires death to proceed. As a species evolves into something else, what it used to be dies out. This means if a creator is guiding evolution that death has existed even before the fall of man at the garden of eden. And the implications of that? Well, why did Jesus die again? Evolution kind of puts a kink into the whole progression of the story...
Just do us all a favor and keep your creation out of our schools. We will keep our evolution out of your church. By the way, it's a good thing god made Jesus Chinese, don't you think. He was able to save so many more people that way than had he made Jesus middle-eastern.
I get that same feeling from him as 'I'm the Best' does. I too am atheist, and agree with most of his sayings. But he does come across as pompous, and I cant exactly put my finger on why either. I think perhaps its because you get the feeling that he thinks 'wow I am so smart to have come up with this stuff' and so many others who dont agree are just ignorant. I have had these same beliefs for as long as I can remember – as a young child. I have never felt the need to base my whole persona on it. I dunno, I just get a negative vibe from his writings.
I don't think he's being pompous. I think it's more like, he's comfortable in his beliefs and those beliefs come from science, not ancient mythology. So he may be a bit irritated that so many people question science but don't bother to question whatever ancient mythology they believe in. That's how I feel.
Me, too. I couldn't get through "The God Delusion" because of the pretentious tone. I may agree with most of his ideas but the way he conveys them is off-putting, I think, and doesn't encourage respectful discussion about these issues.
Would you enjoy reading a book with undertones of "I don't have a clue", "maybe this...maybe that", or just someone who isn't impassioned by what they want to share so much with others that they actually write a book (many books) about the topic which is the basis of their career.
And he's English. Comes across as arrogant to Americans perhaps due to his dialect.
A Creationist is someone that is so unsure of their Faith that they need to use bas.tardized and out of date science to shore it up.
What I've never understood is that with all of the diversity of life that has evolved on this planet, why only one species has evolved to the level of intelligence of humans. Seems that at least one other species would have.
Primates, dolphins, crows .... all exhibit intelligence.
Yep, and some of them show a lot more of it than this guy. Not only does he see mankind as the ultimate authority, he sees himself as the ultimate example of mankind.
It makes perfect sense. Survival of the fittest. Species that might have evolved into something different that humans with equal intelligence went exinct because the species that led to modern humans were superior in some way that allowed them to advance.
ArthurP – I get that answer a lot when I pose that question. But primates, dolphins and crows can't split the atom,haven't landed on the moon, don't create art, etc. Surely you have to recognize that there is a quantum leap in difference of intelligence between humans and the next most intelligent species. Humans are unique in their level of intelligence.
Yet. Give it time. Evolution takes time.
Give it time. Did you know that crows uses tools and keep them in 'tool boxes' and when one is needed they will fly to their tool box get the tool use it then put it back. (not even most humans do that, the put it back part)
What you call a quantum leap isn't really a big difference. There isn't much that makes us different than most other living things. Ya real special.
Jim Lahey – I think people who try to stick to the claim that humans aren't that different are actually no different than the fundamentalists. They want to stick to a position in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise. ArthurP – The point is, it has been given time. Maybe if we could come back in another million years or so, we will find other evolved intelligent species, but my point is that at least on has evolved in the time given. Why only one? Why not two? Is it really that rare of an occurance?
ReasonableXX-But I dont' think there's evidence that happened. There would have been parts of the world unpopulated by human ancestors that could have evolved separately. But yours is the most plausible answer I've heard.
maybe we ate them all
You're wrong. Neanderthals were a separate species then humans. They were very intelligent – used tools, fire, etc. Humans killed them all. Now we're top dog. What's so implausible about that?
If they had, we would have killed them off. That's what we do. We can't even get along with other races. We probably killed off the Neanderthals.
Wow, some commenters are sensitive! I don't see any sign of "smugness" here. This is a man consistently explaining his perspective. As part of that perspective, he thinks people who hold views that something happens to humans after they die are foolish, and the belief is foolish, and you can see that in his answer. So?
But, eventually the consequences of our bad choices and behaviors have something to teach us unless we continue to insist we can repeat the same behavior and expect a different result, all the while getting the same result or worse for the progression of bad choices.
De'nile isn't just a river in Africa.
de'nile isn't a river at all.
He's highly educated, and has given a great deal of deep thought to the subjects being discussed. Has this society become so trained to think only in terms of 10 second sound bites that the reaction to an intelligent, well-thought out response is that he thinks highly of himself? And if people are less educated than he is, why should the onus be on him to dumb down his comments? Why not have the listener undertake to educate him or her self instead?
I am absolutely shocked how Dawkins - an evolutionary biologist - and other highly educated atheists can say that living organisms are not designed, due to the fact of evolution. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection is the explanation of how life changes over duration of time, but the actual process that creates living organism is a design process. All living organisms are designed by genetic code. Within almost all living cells is a DNA molecule that store genetic code, which is digital information that provides the assembly and functionality instructions for living organisms. The way amino acids and proteins are constructed via this instruction IS a design process.
You can also make a strong case for a deistic type designer who created all the governing rules/forces of nature that ultimately gives way to life.
As for religion, it's completely man made.
Want to know how life got started. Go to night school and study chemistry. That is all life is. An ongoing chemical reaction that started, on this planet, a couple of billion years ago.
When humans get so technologically behind and Romulans conquor planet earth, you can thank intelligent design for it.
I am not surprised while I see people using "Intelligent Design" to give belief system a root. But unfortunately most of them do not see the world around them and does not know how it is working. Do some study with unbiased mind and prepare yourself that you will accept depending on the proof. Darwin's theory standing 2012-1859= 153 years depending on the proofs provided by different scientific evidence and was never able to prove wrong? On the other hand, look at the religious scripts, where you will find full of hatred and it can not be a divine plan.
Obviously you have read "hateful" scripture with an unbiased mind.
Only a fool would deny evolution completely. We can see the natural selection part of it occurring as we speak in the world around us. Only a fool would dismiss all the efforts of the scientists to date fossils and rock formations and throw out their explanations of how it all fits together. But evolution does not prove or disprove whether a God or an alien civilization had anything to do with how life came about or what path it took here. Even Dawkins, in an interview I saw, admitted the possiblity that alien civilizations might have been involved.
Two examples of possible alien interference that I can recall off the top of my head are these:
One. francis crick, the discoverer of dna, was surprised that all the dna found in this world was twisted in the same direction. He said that if life has come about on this planet by itself, there should be an even distribution of dna twisted clockwise and dna twisted counterclockwise.
Two. about fifty thousand years ago their was what is called a brain big bang in which modern humans had a number of changes over a very short period of time to give us modern speech and the capacity for abstract thought. evolution as it is currently explained cannot explain this. http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html.
I have read genesis. It says that God called each creative period a day, not that it is the same as what is currently a day for us on this planet. There are many worlds and suns in this universe that have days both longer and shorter than ours. In whatever place God lives, how long is a day there? For those that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, they need to describe for the rest of us the mechanism of how this was accomplished. Does God or the Alien Civilization create worlds on an assembly line? Did G or the AC create life in a chemistry set before sprinkling it on our world with some kind of salt shaker? To just throw up your hands and say 'God did it' seems weak.
If our technology and science ever get to the point where we can terraform worlds and create and guide life on it, then we can probably answer some of our own questions: like how to do this in decades or centuries rather than millions of years.
I'm sorry, but what you said is bizarre? Designer DNA? DNA is designed by selection. Selection is not random. The changes that happen to DNA are random, but the selection on that DNA is not. It is confusing when people call it "random selection". Selection is a very strong directional force, not random at all.
It's more like an "auto design" process. Evolution automatically responds to changes in the environment and adjusts the organism according through natural selection But it isn't an "intelligent" design and evolution doesn't always choose the best or most efficient solution. Ghekos for example, they don't have any eyelids and have to constantly lick their eyes to keep them moist. It works, but it isn't very efficient, it isn't the best solution. Evolution finds something that works and then stops until something else in the environment changes.
Pretty tame for Dawkins and well thought out...the Dawkins is smug and pompous meme is so played out.
CNN, that headline on the front page is misleading. Nowhere in the article did he say that religion has nothing to teach us. He said that's not where he believes we should derive our morals because there are even more noble reasons. And, atheist or not, it teaches us a great deal about who we are.
Hi Heather, that's true that this sentiment is not explicitly in the article, but Mr. Dawkins states in the video, "I don't think religion has anything useful to teach us."
Thanks for joining the conversation!
Elizabeth Landau, CNN
I like most people hope there's something on the other side but i can't come up with anything that would make any kind of sense given I'm opersting on what god if there is one gave me. My common sense says based on what I can hear or see with my senses that this is immpossile. that being said there's a lot of things on earth and in the universe that man can't comprehend such as something without an end. Is there a wall at the end of the universe? does it go on forever and if it does how can that be? There's a lot that we just can't understand. Until something gives me a better clue i have to say I don't see any evidence of a God of any type. I could be wrong but I only have what he gave me such as common sense to make that call.
Albert Einstein was asked in an interview if the believed in God. He replied that he didn't believe in a "personal god" but something more along the lines of "Spinoza's God." (Pretty much pantheism). That the Universe has an underlying "life energy" that's in everything. It's not intelligent, just a from of energy that tends to organize things. There is a scientific principle – energy passing through a system, tends to organize that system. So if that's the case, then when we die, maybe our part of that energy goes back to the general pool of energy in the Universe. Just a thought...
Debating evolution/abiogenisis with a Fundamentalist/Creationist is pointless because they do not have either the basic education nor the breathe of knowledge of the subject that is required to support their position.
I highly disagree with you Mr. Arthur P. Just some food of thought, chemicals (non living things) cannot produce living things. What you believe is just a theory, and pride is your issue.
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
We are getting close.
CesarP – On the contrary, the right mix of chemicals, temperature, pressure, energy etc. would produce life. That's what happened on the early Earth. Scientists haven't been able to duplicate this process – yet. But they will eventually. They just have to come up with exactly the right conditions and parameters. (They have created molecules that can self-replicate and form cell-like structures.) It's just a matter of time before it happens.
I find it amazing that Dawkins is now mentioning the name of Jesus. Perhaps as he gets older and faces his own mortality he is questioning his own beliefs.
He always has. He mentions how he does not believe in him in his early writings. Nothing new.
Dawkins, Darwin – their lives (and deaths) are both controlled by the Bible.
Their lives and deaths are "controlled" by a book? Explain, please.
huh? How are their lives controlled by a book written by dozens of men centuries ago who's believe in myth is matched only by kids belief in Santa Claus?
This must be a troll: it's hard to imagine any literate person saying this.
The Bible does not control anyone's life. The Bible is the Word of God. God has control of our lives. The Bible can guide us because it helps us lead a life lead by the messages in the Bible. A printed book has control over nothing.
haha!! wrong again!! i control my life (& death).
Which god? Zeus? Manitou? Krishna? Jehova? The bible is just a book of ancient mythology like all the others. It was written by members of a bronze age culture. They were ignorant of science and reality and were trying to explain creation and to give people comfort in the face of their mortality. Just ancient myths and superst!tions, like thousands of others. Now that we have modern science and can understand the Universe and how it works, we don't need ancient myths to do that for us anymore.
And which messages? Numbers, Chapter 31? Or what about the bloody rules of Leviticus.
Worshiping the ancient war god of the Hebrews in this day and age is just pathetic.
What religion has to teach us about evolution is that the information science has brought forth was known anciently! Read the first chapter of Genesis without thinking that the word "day" means a 24-hour cycle. The steps involved in bringing fort the world as we know it are the same evolutionary steps that science has 'discovered". What religion has to teach us that science cannot is how and why to be good, moral humans.
Even if that made sense, where do you get the right to make the determination about what the bible means by day?
If it says day, it means a day like in 24 hrs. People changing the meanings to suit their beliefs is what causes different denominations. the different denominations interpit the bible different, then they fight about who's right.
Right – religion teaches us to be moral human beings. Just like those highly religious and moral fellows who hijacked 4 planes on 9/11, and prayed their way to the incineration of almost 3000 people. Or are you talking about the moral lessons of the bible – slavery, stoning unruly children to death, genocide? Those moral lessons? Please enlighten us.
What he really meant was that Christianity is the only true religion and the only thing in the world that will teach us to be good moral human being. That's why Crusaders went to take back Jerusalem.
And scientists have always acted morally. Forced sterilization of undesirables in the US in the '20s and '30s? Dr Mengele? Henrik Schon? The objective,"moral", unbiased scientist is as mythical as a unicorn. BTW psychologists would classify anyone without emotion as a sociopath or a psychopath, so an objective, emotionless scientist would truly be mad.
What you teach us is that even though the average American has an array of educational, factual resources at their disposal, people can still be ignorant enough to believe in the silliest crap imaginable.
Yes, and by "slave" the Bible means "cherished friend." Oh, and all that "slaying" done by the Hebrews? Well, that really means "doing nice things for our neighbors." And "this generation shall not pass. . ." actually refers to the whole generation of mankind, or something like that. Easy game to play, huh?
If you put every word of genisis in quotes the way you put the word "day" in quotes, then perhaps you could take the whole thing figuratively and find it doesn't contradict what is known scientifically as fact. The problem becomes that the scripture is taken so figuratively that it hardly makes any claim strongly enough to be considered informative or athoritative.
Did you even read the article?
biblical creation teaches us that on one day night and day are separated, and then on a later day the sun and moon and stars appear. but not before the earth appears. in what way is that supposed to be consistent with what science has "discovered"?
You don't need religion to teach you that. Being a good person is something that you do yourself.
That's interesting... what do you consider a "good person" in terms of evolution? In any case, should "goodness" be considered an "higher state" of the evolutionary line? "Good" refers to which standard, which convention? Does it apply only to Earth or it's values are also universal? Which universal higher rule other than the "Ten Commandments" and Jesus Christ love example? Aren't you confusing "goodness" with "situational ethics"?
Dear me. The man sure thinks highly of himself doesn't he.
Yes, he does, However, there will be a day when he falls from his high horse.
"there will be a day when he falls from his high horse" Will you pay someone thirty pieces of silver to betray him, and then nail him to a cross? I hear that's what happens when you question the State Religion.
As you will also soon enough. What's it like to live in fear of the boogeyman?
An individual that is incapable of writing a grammatically correct sentence is acting like they know "better" than the scientific community. Is there any better representation of the average theist?
Why wouldn't he? Are you as brave as he is, for example? You know some Christians will murder him eventually, because jihad is their way.
Yes, he does. I also think he does protest too much. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution and that this life is all we get. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't be wasting one precious second of it writing books about other people's beliefs and holding meetings to disprove what I believe doesn't exist. And if I were a follower of the religion of darwinism, I wouldn't be wasting my life posting comments either! I'd be out there living it up.
Funny, I had seen the term "meme" quite a bit and wondered where it came from, I always thought it was a statement about this generation, sort of an "all about me" phrase. Me me.. what about ME? Turns out I was right.
I'm an atheist, and I've never read his books, but everything I've heard about dawkins, along with little articles like this, makes me think he's kind of a pompous ***. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he's the king of atheists or something. I appreciate what he's trying to do, but stop being so smug about it. Lighten up a bit.
What makes him smug? I thought this article was rather tame for himself.
This article isn't too bad, I'm saying in general. I don't know what it is, some of his quotes and writings (the ones I've read) to me just sound like he's talking down to everyone else.
It may just be the way I'm reading it though.
Dawkins is THE man!
Dude wassup Carl! Hows it going?
Liars, both of you!
What you kids up to?
Dawkins is often smug and condesending. However, athiests like him are necessary because the cause the topics to be discussed and it brings attention to issues.
Christians are the most smug and condescending people on the planet.
I'm not an atheist, so I tend to disagree with Dawkins in general, but I thought the interview reflected his firmly held belief. He is popular, in part, because of his demeanor, but I suppose there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance.
It's not belief. Evolution requires no one's belief...like gravity, evolution begs no one's agreement..it just is.
Your ignorance is frightening.
The mechanism of evolution should be obvious, but biology/archeology is unique among the sciences in that we only have a chance to see either tiny sequences of the mechanism at work, or widely spaced snapshots. The timescale is too long to see the development of a species. So there *is* faith involved in how one understands the total picture.
Especially when it comes to new structures.
You yourself admit you are relying on the second hand opinion of others. If you conclude Dawkins is pompous even though you haven't read his books or speeches and this article is tame, maybe its time to look at how your own biases influence your opinion.
I have read/listened to speeches, just haven't read his books.
I think it's that snooty British accent. Dawkins is the Butler of Truth, and he serves it with white gloves on a sterling silver tray.
But it's still Truth.
According to "Dawkins" or whoever he might be, human being are the product of evolution which is from single cell to double cells, from double cells to ............monkey, .... to people when environment provides such condition to allow such change happen. If that is the case, it will take about 10^10000000000000000000000 years. How many years of the earth?
If evolution is valid, then the earth is becoming old now, the environmental condition might change back to it used to me, then, the conclusion will be or very likely will be human being evolving back to ................... Monkey, ............. double cell, and single cell.
Who will believe this? I think only Dawkins will believe.
OK, you're killing me! You're proclaiming that Dawkins is pompous, but you've chosen, "I'm The Best!" as your epithet??? That completely contradicts what you've just said; besides – just because an individual is confident in their knowledge and is comfortable expressing their views – that doesn't mean they are pompous. Some people are just very eloquent, and if they are intelligent like Dawkins and have spent years conducting research, they can easily communicate their ideas. Besides, he travels frequently and makes a lot of presentations, so it's probably become quite effortless for him to describe complex theories. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left quoting lines from Taladega Nights...it's all relative I guess.
I've had this tag for a while so I didn't even notice, funny though...
I'm not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about, because he does. I've met a good number of people who are very good in their fields, but most don't come off like he does. People are smart, and he has a way of saying things that makes it seem like he thinks he's much smarter than everyone else. I'm not saying he isn't smarter than me in biology, because he is, just don't talk to everyone else like they couldn't possibly understand. That's what makes him pompous.
God is pompous ...
Can someone remind me what exactly evolution has to do with the existence or non-existence of "God"?
He's tired of having to pretend to respect flat Earthers, creationists and other kooks all the time These kooks should be ridiculed for the ignorant imbeciles they are and for trying to drag us back to the dark ages.
That is ironic.. You call people who are open to believe that there is more than you can see as "flat earthers". The real flat earthers are the people who cling to the theory of evolution out of fear that there might be someone in the universe more advanced then us to who they might be accountable.
That is ironic.. You call people who are open to believe that there is more than you can see as "flat earthers". The real flat earthers are the people who cling to the theory of evolution out of fear that there might be someone in the universe more advanced then us to who they might be accountable."
It's telling that you use the word "SOMEONE" to describe your god. Since when is "clinging" to reality all that fearful? There's no desperation in our reliance in Science just as there's no fear when I type these words on this keyboard built by scientific methods. More hiding in the gaps is all believers have to "support" their claims and their god simply becomes everything we don't YET know. For thousands of years, "god" has been quickly vanishing. Eventually...POOF! No more imaginative silliness.
Science will doubtlessly solve all of our problems!
With the ATOMIC BOMB.
bacille said:"Science will doubtlessly solve all of our problems! With the ATOMIC BOMB."
Perhaps. One can predict that it will probably be some religious zealot.
Light Years strives to tell the stories of science research, discovery, space and education. This is your go-to place on CNN.com for today’s stories, but also for a scientific perspective on the news and everyday wonders. Come indulge your curiosity in all things space and science related, brought to you by the entire CNN family.
July 19thAtlas V launch of US DOD MUOS-2 satellite, notable for large "551" config of Atlas
Aug 3rdJapanese HTV-4 flight to ISS on cargo supply mission
Aug 14thSpaceX launch of Canadian satellite in the first launch from their new Vandenberg facility, and first launch of upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle
Aug 28thDelta IV Heavy launch of NROL-65 spy satellite
SeptemberSoyuz TMA-08M flight returning Expedition 36 crew from ISS to Earth (Kazakhstan)
Sept 12thOrbital Sciences maiden flight of Cygnus cargo vehicle on Antares rocket to ISS
Sept 25thSoyuz TMA-10M flight launching Expedition 38 crew to ISS
Dec 9thSpaceX Dragon launch by Falcon 9 v1.1 on CRS-3 cargo supply mission to ISS
recurringfirst powered test flights of Scaled Composites' SpaceShipTwo commercial vehicle, to be used by Virgin Galactic for sub-orbital tourism