September 6th, 2012
09:52 AM ET

Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'

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.

Post by:
Filed under: CNN Ideas • Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (3,789 Responses)
  1. OutsideTheBox-LookingIn

    Evolution is the Free-Will of Mother Nature, given to Her by God, the Creator of Nature (bio-chemistry).
    When God still had Nature in His laboratory, he controlled it, like we do with 'chemicals' we process.
    When God decided to unleash Nature on Earth, he allowed it to excersize its Free-Will.
    Oops, sorry Mother, you are not an it. My bad.
    To Be, Alive, or Not To Be – That was the Question.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
  2. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • ScottCA

      There is no debate. Evolution is accepted by every reputable science organization.

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY&w=640&h=390]

      September 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • OutsideTheBox-LookingIn

      One of the lady PhDs explained how theory was the most important 'element' of science. The Big Bang Theory claims that the universe is expanding, and that the mass (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter) is headed outward from its origin, some point in space where the big bang happened. One problem with that – today we have 'pictures' of galaxies that are criss-crossing each other and colliding. Bang that.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  3. UtahProf

    Just because one has a belief in God does not mean that one cannot believe in evolution or vice-versa. Darwin believed in God.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      This isn't about God(s) vs evolution .. it's about reason & probability vs the existence of God(s).

      September 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
      • OutsideTheBox-LookingIn

        Horses can easily hurt people – what in tarnation makes a horse allow a person to ride it – especially after sticking a metal bar in its mouth – and why do they stand there to have us put their shoes on? Why do horses work so hard for us? Why did it take 500,000 yrs to evolve from cave men to modern man, and bring us to this modern era? Why did it take moden man 10,000 yrs to understand electricity. Why do galaxies collide when the Big Bangers insist all mass created at the Bang is moving outward from the point of origin? How much wood can a woodchuck chuck, and why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?

        September 6, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
      • UtahProf

        "Probability" is a mathematical concept. I'd like to see the dataset you used to demonstrate the non-existence of a higher power so please share it. In truth, less than 15% of people world-wide do NOT believe in a higher power. I know this mass delusion we all have drives you, and the rest of that 15%, insane. Personally, I am hoping that if I just "don't believe" in the 15% that you all will go away.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        UtahProf (if you are a prof, which I highly doubt) you know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, whereas it is possible to prove the existence of something. Believers make the claim that something – god – exists. The onus therefore remains on the believers to prove their claim. there in NO onus on non-believers to disprove the existence of the claimed god.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
      • max3333444555

        because horses have been domesticated, like dogs and cats and cows

        September 13, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • deeperinfo

      Might that be: one can agree with a theory based on available evidence and also believe in God.

      I have found many that confuse 'conclusions' with 'beliefs'...

      September 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
  4. deeperinfo

    Is it possible God made Evolution?

    September 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Adam

      You can add the words "...because God made it possible" onto the tail end of any sentence. It is just that this is absurd and unnecessary, and if we are to regard parsimony and simplicity in out lives, then one need not do so at all. And we can be content with science, without saying "science is true .... because God made it possible."

      Science is true. It is by definition true. And any effort to combine this with any sort of metaphysical or theistic claim is merely the effort to reconcile that which one knows to be true, with that which one wishes to be true. We could also say that "Satan made evolution," but we don't. It adds nothing to the conversation. And in this, the only world we are certain of, we should not waste our meager time with petty conversation.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  5. David Hall

    Dawkins,your a fool.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Wordsmith

      Wow

      September 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • ScottCA

      And still no evidence to support a single point. Religious delusions hide in semantics and the imagination of the delusional. Religion predicts and has no baring on the natural world.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
      • ScottCA

        Typo correction:
        And still no evidence to support a single point. Religious delusions hide in semantics and the imagination of the delusional. Religion predicts nothing and has no baring on the natural world.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      David, if you are going to post such splendid arguments, you may wish to use the proper grammatical form: "you're", which is a contraction of "you are", as opposed to "your" which is the possessive.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • Wordsmith

        Yes, but you overlooked the interesting lack of spacing between the comma and the improper word. I couldn't understand how one could make such a well thought out and succinct argument while at the same time incorporating two basic errors in such close proximity. It left me almost speechless. I was only able to squeak out, "Wow!"

        September 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Byzantion

      said the uneducated illiterate peasant .. is your name by any chance Muhammad? and did you merry a 9 year old child?
      I don't wanna insult you but if so then I understand why you hate Prof. Dawkins 😀

      September 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
  6. Wordsmith

    With the overuse of the term "viral", would it be acceptable to state that this discussion has gone viral?

    September 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
  7. Quoting

    Evolution still cannot explain the origin of life.

    "Fossil and biological clues have led scientists to estimate that cells originated on this planet about four billion years ago, but exactly what catalyzed their emergence has remained elusive."

    Evolution does not and will not be able to explain the origins of living organisms.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      You're right. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, only what happens after. That in no way negates the validity of evolution. Nor does the fact that evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life prove that god exists.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Evolution does not and will not be able to explain the origins of living organisms." No duh, genius. Electrical engineering won't explain it, either. Try Biology.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
  8. enemyofdogma

    Dawkins can't prove that there isn't a higher consciousness and he never will.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • nojinx

      Yes! Let's collect all the notions we can imagine that cannot be proven, and start believing them to be true!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      I cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, and I'll never be able to, therefore he does.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Smug Believer

      You can't prove God isn't sitting the lap of a larger God, who is sitting on the lap of an even larger god, and so on up to the Top God OokaBallaKonga-HonkTweet who made everything.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  9. blame bush

    All deities are fiction.

    Dawkins is right, listen to him.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
  10. Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

    Could the ID crowd out there please explain why an Intelligent Designer would design the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe the way it exists today? Here's the breakdown:

    The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

    So why has your Designer given the giraffe a 15 foot nerve that loops down under the heart and back up the neck, when a direct route of a few inches would have sufficed? Less material, less chance of damage to the nerve, shorter distance for nerve impulses to travel. Okay, ID crowd, have at it.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Smug Believer

      "So why has your Designer given the giraffe a 15 foot nerve that loops down under the heart and back up the neck, when a direct route of a few inches would have sufficed?"

      We are not allowed to question God's methods. So there.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
  11. Skier

    Truthful and wise, but a very sad comment concerning the "caveman" mentality of Americans when it comes to religion. Religion maybe possibly be the worst "invention" that civilization has come up with.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      I will stack it up next to the self-cancelling faucet and ... hmmm ... no, darn it, you're absolutely right.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
  12. chuckawala

    Love him, or hate him, you don't know him. Meet the real Barack Obama.

    See 2016 Obama's America

    http://www.bigscreen.com/NowSh...

    September 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Surprisingly leven-handed film for what's basically a political hatchet job on the prez, but the "2016" part is totally misleading. What you have is a filmic version of author Dinesh D'Souza's bizarre hypothesis that Barack Obama's primary motivating drive is anti-colonialism — which D'Souza evidently thinks is a BAD thing — but it spends essentially zero time talking about the next 4 years.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
  13. Steve S

    Ancient civilizations rationalized a GOD/GODS, to explain the unexplainable.
    Even in the 21st century, we're still searching for answers, to explain the unexplainable.
    But the idea of a Supreme ,All-Knowing Being, is more and more becoming the realm of the religious fanatic and intellectual challenged.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
  14. deeperinfo

    The author needs to learn more about religion as his comments are shallow and require a leap of faith rather than using strict logic. The author inserts emotionalism into his scientific analysis.His conclusions are therefore suspect.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
  15. MrHighMighty

    Dawkins is a perfect example of an intelligent man using his skills to try to hide from his inborn knowledge and conscience. He's only fooling himself, at his own peril.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      You seem to know a lot about Mr. Dawkins. How is this so? And aren't you judging him? Doesn't the bible warning against judging others, "lest ye be judged".

      September 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
      • MrHighMighty

        @Ethel, thank you for your questions.

        All I know about Dawkins is what I read in this article. From that, I know he is an educated, eloquent, intelligent man. I know he denies the existence of a Creator. I know he rejects the Creator's offer to spend eternity with Him.

        And I already knew that everyone is born with the knowledge that nothing can exist without a Creator. Dawkins talks a lot about logic but he never explains the logic of his core belief that something came from nothing. That belief alone is contrary to everything science has ever proven, and defeats all of Dawkins' arguments at their beginning. If science ever proves that something comes from nothing, then Dawkins can rest easy. Until then, he will continue enduring the internal torture that is so obvious in his diversionary rhetoric.

        Now regarding your comment about Jesus' message about judging others, I'm not sure why you are relying on Scripture for a point, when based on your other posts you don't accept it. But anyway, in that passage, Jesus goes on to explain that the instruction about judging pertains to the manner of judging. We are not to judge in a hypocritical or other unfair manner. But we are expected to judge who is our brethren and sistren, and who are not. Based on the weight of Dawkins' statements in this article, and on what the Holy Spirit has shown me in Scripture and my life, I believe my judgment of Dawkins is very fair. And I'm sure my judgment means nothing to Dawkins. But I have to wonder why it means something to you.

        If you believe like Dawkins that you are nothing more than a random collection of stardust, that came out of nothing, and is going back to nothing, then that's all you are and ever will be. To me, that seems like a dismal existence. And if you believe there is no Creator who has invited you to spend eternity with Him, then don't worry, He won't force you to be with Him, but He is knocking on your door right now.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:10 am |
  16. Andrew

    Psalm 53:1
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
    Romans 1:21-22
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    September 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Just ancient lies written by people who had political goals.

      You can learn a lot about religion from history. Religion is all manipulation for political and economic gain.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&w=640&h=390]

      September 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Lilith

      DANG, every reasonable counter argument has been destroyed. I have no choice but to repent my evil ways and renounce my Atheism! Darn that book and circular logic!! There is no defense against it.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
      • ScottCA

        Lilith sarcasm and intellectual wit are lost on the religious. They will think you are being serious.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
      • Lilith

        Very true ScottCA, but it tickles just a little bit everytime.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "... but whosoever shall say, Thou FOOL, shall be in danger of hell fire." —Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:22

      So, till we meet again, Andrew.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  17. ScottCA

    Just as it is insanity to believe in the 6ft tall green monster in my closet without evidence of its existence, so is it insanity to believe in god without evidence.

    intelligent adults can out grow their belief in imaginary friends and fairytales.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Hulk

      Grrarrgghh! Hulk smash ScottCA!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
  18. Punchmaster

    Pride, fear, and emotional investment are the only things that could keep a reasonably intelligent person religious in 2012. It's a never-ending game of dodging contradictory scientific facts and jumping through laughable hoops of "logic" to keep it going. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about your mortality, I suppose...

    September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Quoting

      Evolution still cannot explain the origin of life. Where and how did the material that makes up a living complex cell come from?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
      • nojinx

        Great question, let's find out!

        "But what tools do we have to do that?"

        Just one: SCIENCE!

        September 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Good point Quoting, therefore it must be GOD. Always a classic!!
      BTW .. Evolution does NOT try to explain the origin of life, only what happens after.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
  19. Here is your answer

    Gathering
    Of
    Dumb

    September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
  20. southernwonder

    does that mean it would not make any difference if jerusalem become's israel's new capital? we have people here who have donated a whole bunch electon money to romney to consume us over what dawkin would regard as a non-issue.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
  21. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    Test the current social meme on religion .. post a generic Atheist message (like – respect each other, there is no God to do it for you) on FB & see what kind of responses you get or how many "FB friends" you'll lose. But yet posts about God(s) or Jesus are continuous and have an air self righteousness.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • rocinante

      I suspect horses would worship the Great Providers, bald monkey that occasionally show up with sweet things and yummy oats.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • nojinx

      Most people don't care. I constantly post about my interest in atheist acceptance movements and never have an issue or a lost friend. Some of them are die-hard born-agains. I think we just accept each other.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        Excellent for you. You must have a more accepting FB community than I or maybe it's the region or age group. I've been mercilessly attacked when I've disagreed with someone's religious "facts".

        September 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
      • nojinx

        Yes, that is true. I live in a more educated demographic and do not have to deal with religious dogma in my everyday life. It just isn't a factor on my coast, I suppose.

        September 6, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
  22. TamTam

    To all the commentors that have professed your belief in god(s):
    After only a few minutes of reading the beatdown you are taking in these comments, your god(s) has/have spoken to me and told me to come forth with the word! He/she/it/they said that the time has come for him/her/it/them to make an earthly appearance to reward you for your courage and "faith and resilience" (there was a problem with the signal here – it could have been "cake and brazilians", I can't be 100% sure). However your assistance is required to help complete the journey. If you truly believe then you should also be able to believe that all you need to do to help is post your full name, social security number, mother's maiden name and a picture of you poking a bear with a carrot. That's it! He/she/it/they will wait patiently for your faith (cake?).

    September 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Brian

      BLESSED ARE THE CHEESE MAKERS!!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        What's so special about the cheesemakers?

        Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
  23. One one

    Would an intelligent design believer please explain the specific mechanism(s) by which ID brought about the universe and life on earth ?

    September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Blind faith

      God did it! That's all you need to know, now burn in eternal FIRE you Atheist dog!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Troll. One hopes.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
      • Blind faith

        Blatant sarcasm 😉

        September 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
  24. chris

    Interesting that a man as intelligent as Dawkins would not see that we can learn from everything. Every "ism" has something to teach, we don't have to accept the teaching, but that does not make it important to learn about.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Faith requires one to believe in something even in the absence of evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This suppression of the minds ability to logically reason leads to belief in untruths that send ripples of distortion into every area of examination and study. This in turn leads to political and social decisions based in misinformation. The end result is the suffering of people.

      Examples are 9/11 hijackings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Aids being spread due to religious opposition to the use of condoms, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, Nazi's thinking the Aryans were gods chosen to rule the world, etc… But who cares about evidence in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Byzantion

      He states in his interview that we can take religion as literature are you saying that people don't learn from literature? I think Prof. Dawkins just expects so much understanding from somewhat intelligent human beings but you are right there are some special people who just need more explaining 😀

      September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Communism and fascism have something to teach, 'tis true, but that doesn't mean they're worth learning.

      Lysenkoism had something to teach, but it was dead wrong.

      Mormonism undoubtedly has something to teach. Have you spent a lot of time trying to learn it?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
  25. DJR

    Whoopie! A man given a soap box that he is greater than GOD. That to explain what he cannot explain does not mean there is a GOD who did explain it. Why the sunrise is beautiful, that a tree has so many uses for mankind. who keeps the oceans from overrunning all the land like a tsunami. It's always great to see a man who has no idea why pharaoh fell to a man and a stick. Or how a woman well past her years of menopause gave birth to a child.Or most recent, the hubble, a computer and math, 1trillion planets looked at and none (that's 0) have the ability to sustain life. Let me explain GOD to you, Should GOD deem that you see and believe in the universe and it's vastness, HE could do so, even if we are inside a large closed clam, a pearl of GODs' Real physics. The answers individuals such as Dawkins give, eases his heart when he thinks of how mankind is so worthless, when given the choices we are allowed to make.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      DJR: you posed the rhetorical question: "who keeps the oceans from overrunning all the land like a tsunami?" Umm, why don't we ask the people of J-apan that question? Or perhaps the people who live around the Indian Ocean – you know, the ones who weren't killed on Boxing Day 2004

      September 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • Wordsmith

      You are in error with your first sentence. Dawkins never claimed to be greater than God. He claims God does not exist. One should not start an argument with such an illogical conclusion, unless your intent was to set us all up for the rest of your illogical post.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "A man given a soap box that he is greater than GOD."

      Heck, you don't need a soapbox to be greater than zero. ANYONE can do it!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • max3333444555

      everything you asked was silly

      why doesnt the water run up onto the land. gravity. something abundant throughout the universe

      why hasnt life been found on all the planets viewable with a telescope? you cant find life that far away via telescope. so far we have visited 1 planet (earth) and sent machinery to another (mars).

      you asked some other questions too. they were just as silly

      September 13, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
  26. Sophie

    I don't get what the fuss is all about. I was raised Christian and I also learned about evolution. Science is one thing and religion is another. You can have both, you don't have to deny basic science to validate your beliefs. Take your kids to Science class where they teach Science, and on Sunday, you can take them to church and teach them about God.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • nojinx

      Validating your beliefs in technically impossible without science. That would technically be called "delusion".

      September 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Wordsmith

      What book should one use to teach children about God?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • ScottCA

      To argue on the side of religion against the process of rational and logical deduction of the natural world, is to paint yourself asinine, for you doom yourself to be proven wrong. A small thing called reality keeps getting in the way.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Olaf Big

      Sure, if all you want from Science is how to make a microchip work that's true. But if scientific method becomes your way of thinking, eventually you will ask the question: "What do I need God for?".

      September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Just as it is insanity to believe in the 6ft tall green monster in my closet without evidence of its existence, so is it insanity to believe in god without evidence.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
      • Olaf Big

        Not if you have intellectual daring of a three year-old.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
  27. charles_darwin

    Thank goodness for people like Dawkins who have the balls to stand up and speak the truth!
    How anyone can dismiss science and call evolution an unproven theory but cling to a myth based on no scientific fact whatsoever simply amazes me.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Dawkins is a hero who will be remembered by future generations in the same manner as those who stood up and risked their lives and gave their lives to fight against religious ignorance and bring us out of the dark ages and into the enlightenment.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
  28. Don Jones

    1 Cor. 3:19

    September 6, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      1 Watermelon 2.19
      4 Tomatoes 1.99

      Need anything else?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
  29. Wordsmith

    Young Earth Creationists are funny. 🙂

    September 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  30. Wordsmith

    I engoy reeding the responses from so many peoples who think they are smrt, when there spelling if so horrible. If you cann't even spell basic words correctly, nobody will believe your as smart as you try to sound.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • GhostCoyote

      *enjoy, *reading, *their, *is, *can't *you're

      September 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
      • Wordsmith

        😀

        September 6, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        Damn, I missed *smart

        September 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Poe's Law on display once again.

      Thanks for the (belated) smiley.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
      • Wordsmith

        You made me look up Poe's Law. I hate it when I learn something new!

        September 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
  31. Roelof

    Since the Big Bang theory is just as trustworthy as any other. Maybe Dawkins should read the Job 40:15-18. Due to the translation, one might think it's about a elephant or a hippo. The description is more likely describes a Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, or Brontosaurus kind.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  32. AlphaCentauri

    Without God, there would be no atheists.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • charles_darwin

      There would just be evolution!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • nojinx

      Prove it.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Roelof

      Or with God people have free choice. When you would be God, you would tell people that can't swim, don't jump in deep water, because you drown. Now.. some people don't listen. They jump in, blaming God for jumping in.. what would you think? Now you send a boat, thinking, ok it's sad I gave the free choice. They can hob on. Some people refuse, what would you think? Some people don't want other people to hob on.. what would you do? You're challenge is to save everyone you can. Shouldn't people bring the news, that there is a ship? Atheists don't believe in God, no believe – no proof, no evidence. Believe – action – result. Dawkins believes everything exists out of nothing. Big Bang exists spontaneously (out of nothing). Nothing doesn't exists without an opposite.. something. Not only that makes Dawkins his theory questionable or invalid, it also says something about his perspective. Nothing comes first, after that something, while Christians believe or anyone who believes there's something, lead a much more happy life. Has to do with the reflection of what people believe. Plato ones wrote that at the end of a shadow, you'll know that there's light. Dawkins is trying to tell with his perspective that the light exists out of a shadow, because he can see the shadow, but not the light.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Well, we ARE without God, and yet we still have atheists, so your reasoning is faulty somewhere along the line.

      Atheists are useful because there are PEOPLE who believe in God, despite the utter lack of evidence, and won't shut up about it — indeed, often insist that everyone has to kowtow to them because their delusion has given them political power.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
  33. dred

    All who are educated , trained and use science in their daily lives must never forget...science discovers, but never created what it discovered. You may manipulate the discovery to bring forth new and reproducible phenomenons, and so appear to be clever and wise, but never forget...you were never responsible for what you discovered.
    So the questions always remain....what or who is the origin of what I discovered.
    For a creationist to say an aethist is wrong is ignorance.
    For an aethist to say a creationist is wrong is like wise ignorance, and an insult to the process of discovery upon which all sciences are based.
    Mutual respect for one another, to allow every creature to contrubute it's full share to this wonder we live in, is true science when the principles of Love and Faith are adhered to.For it is faith , that leads all scientists on the early steps and love that keeps them in the perseverance of that journey.
    Mr. Dawkins , himself expresses his faith that there is no God...faith because he has no proof, just theories and conclusions based on observation of available data. Now , how often has this method been proven wrong time and again.
    He pursues this course of his faith out of love...as evidenced by his perseverance.
    Yet other creatures , who may have contributed to Mr. Dawkins evolution, and therefore existence once wrote.."Without faith , a man cannot please God." ( Saul of Tarsus), and "God is love." ( John, son of Zebedee). Without realising it, Mr Hawkins exists in the realm that others before him defined as a state pleasing to God.
    I was an evolutionist until I found the alternate evidence for the extinction of the dinosaurs in a relgious book, so now I am a creationist...but who knows, as I continue my journey, what I will be.
    As some one once said,"I am who I am, I will be who I will be." Do you know who said that? Mr Dawkins, may you be likewise.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • nojinx

      "science discovers, but never created what it discovered."

      Correct. To think that anything was "created" at all is an assumption that requires closing one's mind to the other possibilities.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "Mr. Dawkins ... has no proof, just theories and conclusions based on observation of available data. Now , how often has this method been proven wrong time and again."

      Well, there's always the alternative — believing things WITHOUT observations or data. I will lay heavy odds that that approach has been proven wrong far more often than the scientific method.

      But, to make a subtler point, the fact that you are looking for PROOF shows that you don't understand science at all. Only math, based on abstractions, permits proof. Science, based on reality, contents itself with the best available explanation at any given time, and it's always held tentatively, subject to being revised by later findings. Such revision has, in fact, happened countless times in the history of science. It's a basic part of how science works. I should note that NONE of those revisions has been inspired by religion, which, as Dawkins notes, has nothing whatsoever to offer in the real world.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • max3333444555

      "all you need is love" (The Beatles)

      September 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  34. Terkura

    Where does our morality come from? Morals like our bodies are ever evolving adaptations for survival. My view is that physical slavery has been replaced by a more mental sort of slavery not because society has become more 'moral' but for two reasons. Firstly, all species aspire to preserve their kind, albeit in a sort of hierarchy which ensures that those who are more like us are more likely to get our sympathy. Secondly, any species, human or otherwise that is perceived as being destructive to its own kind is likely to be perceived as a threat and as such have its own survival threatened. The mental adaptation that gives rise to morals changes fast because the moral choices we make daily determine our day to day survival. In shifting away from physical slavery society respected the first commandment of the SURVIVALIST 'Thou shall not be seen as being a cruel or destructive force to your own kind'.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • nojinx

      Good point. You can see how the natural morals we develop as a species (and which other species also develop) can be claimed by religions as being something beyond our natural state.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
  35. MrHanson

    People around the world doubt evolution. South Korea has a strong anti-evolution movement. There are Darwin skeptics in England, Spain and other parts of Europe. One of the largest creation organizations is in Australia. Atheists are sadly misinformed to believe that creationism or ID is only an American movement. You state no facts about Russia, the Middle East, Africa, or South America, but expects readers to just accept your sweeping Generality.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • ScottCA

      There are ignorant people around the world who do not understand science.

      But evolution is accepted by every reputable scientific body Science correctly predicts events in the natural world. Science is why you can type on your computer right now and have electricity at home, and when you get ill science will save your life with religion. Religion predicts nothing and has no evidence to support it at all.

      Just as it is insanity to believe in the 6ft tall green monster in my closet without evidence of its existence, so is it insanity to believe in god without evidence.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  36. Evan

    I liken Dawkins to an adult who finds out he can make a fortune lecturing to rich kids on why there is no Santa Claus.

    Dawkins speaks of a "meme" that encompasses something beyond the gene, and yet he cannot fathom a life force that encompasses something beyond the physical collection of genes that comprises each intelligent life form.

    In a nutshell, Dawkins knows nothing. He is a pompous and ignorant individual in every respect except one: helping the gullible part with their money to hear him give them startling revelations about how they are nothing more than a collection of cells made of genes. Do they carry on after this living matter disintegrates? No. Dawkins has rule out that meme.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      So Dawkins is peddling the truth .. how's that any different than the Religion Industry peddling it's "truth" for billions?! Difference is, Dawkins has evidence on his side, religion has folklore.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  37. Fig Newton

    I believe that there is something after life – something – due to the law of conservation of energy.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • nojinx

      So I suppose you think there is something before life also, based on the same theory?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
      • Evan

        That is a logical assumption.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Why is it that energy changing means it must mean an anthropomorphized afterlife? That's where the problem lies .. interrpretation of wishing it to be so.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  38. 15grains

    Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • nojinx

      Just remember to live the right "good life" exactly as you are supposed to with no deviation.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • rocinante

      The brilliance of what 15 is saying is that the concept of "just" encapsulates that.

      In other words, live the life that YOU feel should be deemed a good life. Then, when you die, if some god condemns you for your life, you still have the personal satisfaction of having lived the best life you could.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
  39. Uh-Huh. Right.

    Bring up the words "evolution," "creationism," "Darwin," or "Dawkins," open it up for comments, and STAND BACK.

    If you never thought you'd see a human head indistinguishable from a head of LETTUCE....
    🙂

    September 6, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  40. Nokat

    Thinker Richard Dawkins can't figure out what the birds and the bees already know.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  41. Doodlebug

    This > "Which God are you, and why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?".

    The name of God is never important you know – it is about the faith. And he had never hid or concealed himself, he is always there, if we are willing to let him in.

    I remember when I was a small child and TV's were coming out. We then thought we knew all there was to know – how right.. we were in things. Yet – we were wrong in many, unknowing to the concepts of many others.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Tom Cruise

      Are you stupid? Your comment makes no sense at all. "GOD is an alien" Scientology rules!!!

      September 6, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Larry Niven

      I like your TV analogy ... but it reminds me of those who thought there were little people in there. Believers are like that for me, you know the ones who overlook the science behind what makes a television work and claim it's magic.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Byzantion

      So when was the last time you let god inside you then? you sure it was not your Priest who was lying next to you? 😀 just joking but you were begging for it x)

      September 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • nojinx

      Scientists a universally willing to "let god in" yet he makes no attempt to do so. Kinda ruins your theory there.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  42. Jeff

    Another self inflated person who likes to put down other people with a different idea then his.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Concerned Mom

      Right on Jeff. Dawkins is terrible. Such a hateful man. GOd is not pleased.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • GhostCoyote

      I agree wholeheartedly. It does not, however, matter which side of the argument he is on. They exist on both sides.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • Larry Niven

      Jeff, didn't you just do that yourself?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • nojinx

      He is trying to prevent the damage that religion can do. Something is keeping you from seeing the good this man is trying to do. Why is that?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  43. Concerned Christian Mom

    Mr. Dawkins, God is forgiving. However, he cannot forgive your ignorance. You will burn in hell.

    September 6, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • GhostCoyote

      Your statement only adds fuel to the fire. While I do consider myself a Christian (some hardliners or literalists would argue that I am not), judging where only God may judge gives your opponents ammunition to redicule you and decry your beliefs as immoral and cruel. You are certainly free to have an opinion about the state of Mr. Dawkins' soul (or lack thereof depending on your perspective), just know that your voicing of it has an impact on how the other side responds to your beliefs.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        Of course I'm adding fuel to the fire. I want to see him burn!!!

        September 6, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        Lol, fair enough. I'll give you that one.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Concerned Christian Mom: So what you are saying is that you would look forward to, and enjoy and relish a fellow human being roasted alive in continuous horrific agony for all time, simply because he has a differing viewpoint that yours? Think about it – have you ever burnt yourself? Just a quick burn – you know how much that hurts. Now multiply that by infinity. And you wish that upon a living sentient being? Seriously, what kind of sick, twisted demented f@@k would wish that upon another person?

        September 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        When you use that fancy math word "Infinity," are you talking bout a countable infinity or one of a higher cardinality? Frankly Aleph null is not high enough.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Byzantion

      If Hell is reserved for all the hot girls and greatest Scientist in human history who would want to be in heaven then? think about it .. you will have alot of fat ugly women around you 😀

      September 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        2 words: Lolo Jones

        September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        Are you trying to make a pass at me you pervert. Just cuz im fat doesn't give you the right to harass me.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        CCM – you get upset if someone infers you're fat, but you're okay publicly stating that you want to see someone be burned alive forever? You're not fat – you're not human

        September 6, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        He won't be alive. He'll be dead and burning. If you're so smart explain to me how the dead "burn alive" in hell?

        September 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Olaf Big

      Hmm... God will forgive murderers, rapists, and child molesters for what they do, but he will not forgive Mr. Dawkins for his views on evolution and creationism? Kinda petty and mean spirited. Are you sure you like this God, concerned Mom?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        Well Olaf (thats a pagan name right?) I do. I'll see in in hell with him...from heaven.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Byzantion

      Furthermore must be great to belong to a religious cult in which " your god " is someone who tortures people in eternal fire a megalomaniacal being you believe in .. a Religion of hate and torture. You should be ashamed of yourself .. just a pitiful and ridiculous life you must have.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        I'm ashamed to live in a country with "scientists" and sinners like you.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • Terkura

      Forgiving mum, your God is indeed a horrible thing if he burns his own. Would you burn your child if they denied your existence where they never met you? what breed are you?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
      • Concerned Christian Mom

        If he burns you its fine. You are satan spawn. Vote Obama out he is a secret Muslim.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
  44. ScottCA

    The over whelming evidence in favor of evoltuion
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  45. chan

    There is a loving Heavenly Father that loves all his children even the ones that do not believe in him or his son Jesus Christ. I have seen both and never will be able to deny them. The Father has taught me many secrets in heaven and allows me to know what will happen in the future and what disasters will come to pass. People that die and do not believe in him still go to Heaven and say. "I did not think this place existed."

    September 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • bff

      Convince me

      September 6, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • ScottCA

      For you to claim that with absolutely no evidence at all to substantiate that claim outside of your own imagination, is highly immoral and worthy of derision

      Just as it is insanity to believe in the 6ft tall green monster in my closet without evidence of its existence, so is it insanity to believe in god without evidence.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        Your Schroedinger's Cat logic (or Schroedinger's closet monster as it were) means that the only real logical stance is that of agnostics. There is no proof that God exists, and yet there is no proof that some sort of afterlife or next plane of existence (Heaven, reincarnation, etc) absolutely does not exist. Absence of evidence or our inability to understand it does not negate its existance. Therefore, athiesm requires faith to perpetuate as well (possibly not as much faith as a recognized religion such as Christianity, but some nonetheless), and agnosticism is the only true logical path to take.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
      • nojinx

        Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs in certain things, namely things without evidence.

        I am both an atheist and an agnostic. People who claim to not be agnostic (theist or not) are simply conceited and are drawing conclusions they cannot support.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  46. ScottCA

    There is no debate.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnuLqfOBCc&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
  47. ScottCA

    Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker on Human Evolution
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfm-q7oBr3Q&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  48. MrHanson

    Try challenging the Mad Hatters of the Darwin Party, with their ubiquitous attack dogs, though, and you will be subjected to the most vile hate speech today. Example: “Creationists shouldn’t comment on science, it is hilarious to see. Evolution is a well tested, well known fact which obviously for everyone with two neurons to rub together no more hinges on cell origins than the fact of general relativity hinges on mass origins; their ‘problems therefore gods’ is not even good theology.” That’s actually pretty mild for the genre.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • nojinx

      That is just people. You will find that on any side of any debate. People who bring it up are demonizing, usually because they lack their own intelligent contribution to the subject.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        nojinx, I like you and your even tempered logical commentary without stooping to taking potshots at the opposite side of the argument. Thank you for not flailing about blindly for either side of the argument, but rather standing by a position because you have thought it out, and not because its what your parents or professors taught you.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Please point out the "hate" you claim to discern in that quotation. Is there a call to burn crosses on your lawn that I somehow missed? Were you being told whom you could marry or what kind of jobs you could hold, and I somehow overlooked it? Were there racial or ethnic epithets being hurled at you that slipped past me? Pray, where IS the hate?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
  49. ScottCA

    Faith requires one to believe in something even in the absence of evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This suppression of the minds ability to logically reason leads to belief in untruths that send ripples of distortion into every area of examination and study. This in turn leads to political and social decisions based in misinformation. The end result is the suffering of people.

    Examples are 9/11 hijackings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Aids being spread due to religious opposition to the use of condoms, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, Nazi's thinking the Aryans were god's chosen people to rule the world, J@panese atrocities committed in the name of their god emperor on earth, etc… But who cares about evidence in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Quoting

      Biblical Faith is different from Natural faith. I do require evidence to believe in Jesus and after studying the NT for 7 years I have the evidence I need to believe in Jesus. Its not blind faith.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
      • nojinx

        Given the lack of public agreement with your evidence, how do you know your evidence is not somehow misinterpreted?

        Have you taken your evidence to a research team for scientific verification? If not, how do you know it is valid evidence?

        September 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • nojinx

      "Faith requires one to believe in something even in the absence of evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

      Coincidentally this is also the definition of "close-minded."

      September 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
      • Quoting

        Faith is not blind acceptance, and faith is not an irrational embrace of unproven tradition. Faith is trust. Trust and belief that someone will hold true to their word. And trust is built on reputation.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
      • nojinx

        Trust is built on experience with the person one is putting one's trust in, and is not compatible with religious faith, which requires one to close one's mind to lack of reasons to put faith/trust in the religion.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
      • Quoting

        Evolution supposedly is the result of long sequences of random mutations each filtered by natural selection. The random nature of this basic mechanism makes evolutionary events random. The theory must therefore be judged by estimating the probabilities of those events. This probability calculation has, however, not yet been addressed to justify the theory.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
      • nojinx

        "This probability calculation has, however, not yet been addressed to justify the theory."

        The theory does not need the mathematical specifics worked our to stand. The key is the evidence that has been gathered in support of the hypothesis stands, so the theory is solid for now. If someone could use the math to determine that the theory is incorrect would be something, but the fact that we don't know the exact probability of something does not make it non-random or non-existent.

        September 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
  50. Allen

    Many times in my life I have put myself into positions where at some awkward point I said to myself (or so I thought) something to the effect; 'if I only had a such and such, or if that thing were just a little closer I could reach my goal, only to have this thought (Prayer?) fulfilled, enabling me to get'er done.
    I have also had relational situations arise which seemed impossible to resolve, but by drawing back and simply saying, " I wll trust in you God" (And meaning it!), watch the good come quickly.
    I am glad for those of you who know of what I speak and sad for those of you who don't, whom will scoff.
    I have absolutely seem evidence of God acting my life. But I have only been able to read of science's ever changing theories.
    Haven't heard much abut our atom accelorator lately have we?

    September 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • bff

      Don't be modest. Give yourself the credit for this. You did it, not some sky fairy.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • nojinx

      Haven't experienced gravity? Motion?

      How do you explain the fact that you seem to experience things that virtually no one else on the planer does, and which would likely get you locked up if you claimed them publicly?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Haven't heard much about the atom accelerator? You mean the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? No, haven't heard squat about it since a couple of months ago, when it solved the greatest scientific quandary of the 21st Century. You mean "What have you done for us LATELY?" Dude, ask that question of Jesus. Last time HE did anything for us was a couple of MILLENNIA ago, not a couple of months.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
  51. nebula

    The Stars and their family sings of God's praise and Glory all the time, but God does not delight in them. But when Human sings of God's praise and Glory, God takes delight in it for Human does it by free will. For Gods word became flesh and his word became light unto all the nations. He committed his free will to the way of God and lived to love and serve. That is why God raised him above everyone. Some people say God is not relevant in this modern age, some say God is an alien from other stars, but God looks down upon him who in all humbleness calls unto him " LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO FOR YOU ALONE HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE".

    September 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • End Religion

      "The Stars and their family sings of God's praise and Glory all the time, but God does not delight in them. But when Human sings of God's praise and Glory, God takes delight in it for Human does it by free will."

      except that god demands your worship and obedience. how's that free will again? we have the choice of worshiping or eternal torture via waterboarding in a lake of fire. not much room for free will there, if u believe.

      "For Gods word became flesh and his word became light unto all the nations."

      How did his word become light unto nations? The concept of a nation didn't exist in the beginning of the world. Did nations just spring fully formed into being as well, with borders and flags and such?

      "He committed his free will to the way of God and lived to love and serve."

      Is this the part where you repeat the lie over and over to assert it as truth? If he had free will he wouldn't be forced to serve.

      "That is why God raised him above everyone."

      Made him taller? Only tall people are godly? I'm lost here... explain some more for me. Pretend I'm 7 and use lots of religious sounding words.

      "Some people say God is not relevant in this modern age, some say God is an alien from other stars, but God looks down upon him who in all humbleness calls unto him "

      How does god look down on us all. If he's looking down on me in the U.S. then wouldn't he be looking UP to people on the other side of the globe? Is your god looking down on all the other gods, or are they above him? Maybe they're east or west of him.

      "LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO FOR YOU ALONE HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE".

      well... that's just silly. I mean you just typed "words of eternal life". I just typed it too. Doesn't that pretty much prove your lord isn't the only one who has those words? can't pretty much anyone have the words? anyone who knows english, which is somehow considered the language of a god that was created when English didn't exist. but that's probably a story for another time.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
      • Brian Sarntee

        End Religion, I want to stop debating for a moment to genuinely commend you. First of all: I really think you are spot on in most of your logic and reasoning, especially in regard to your responses to some very poorly presented arguments by religious people. Second of all: I totally love your sense of humor in all this! I think your response to "nebula" was pretty darn humorous!!! I'll be honest with you, MOST of the "religious" people I've met in my life, are among the least intelligent and most senseless and unreasonable people I've ever known. But please understand, I don't say that to be mean, or to be judgemental, or to be arrogant, or anything like that. After all, I would rather have a world full of people of very low intelligence, but who were perfectly unselfish, and loving, and trustworthy. Religion as a whole is HORRIBLE! Religion is to blame for nearly EVERY war ever fought. And it has produced people who are illogical and unreasonable and quite inarticulate in their attempts to debate anything of substance. Religion has really "dumbed-down" the world throughout man's history. Religion has been a blockade to both progess and peace.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
      • Brian Sarntee

        End Religion, here's the thing: I LOVE SCIENCE! In all its forms: physics (especially partical physics), astronomy, chemistry, biology, you name it, I love learning about all of it! I love to use my brain in every possible way, and I simply cannot understand those who don't have such an insatiable desire to use their brain to its fullest capacity. So I think you and I may actually have a great deal in common. But the difference is, I do believe in a being far superior to humans who created all life and the universe. I also feel that all scientific discovery is compatible with that belief. Believe it or not, there are many highly intelligent people who believe in a "God". I believe that the ONLY kind of religion that could actually be real and true would be one that is in total agreement with everything we can discover and observe using scientific methods. I believe in some very logical explanations for everything that is WRONG with humans and this world. I believe there does exist a religion that is a force for GOOD in this world, and that ENCOURAGES humans to make FULL USE of their brain power to learn and discover and grow and invent and innovate and engineer and construct, and on and on and on...

        September 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
      • Brian Sarntee

        So to be honest, I share your hatred of religion! ALL religion, with just one little exception: Jehovah's Witnesses. Did you know the Bible actually foretells the complete and total DESTRUCTION of all religion? Revelation describes a "harlot" who "sits" on "many peoples and crowds and nations and tongues". And it describes this harlot as "riding" on top of this multi-headed "beast" that respresents the human governments of the world. It describes how religion has controlled people and governments, and has abused the population, and lived in "shameless luxury" that is has siphoned from the people and governments and business. But the Bible describes a time when the nations will finally TURN on religion and DESTORY it completely for all time! It even describes the aftermath when the "kings of the earth" and the "merchants" will actually mourn over the downfall of religion because it had helped the governments excercise control over the population and helped greedy commercial interests. Does that not describe religion most accurately???

        September 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
      • Oynaq

        Brian please help me out here, I have been searching. I can not find anywhere that the Dalai Lama said that Buddhist should follow the Chinese Government or any government and also where he told Buddhist they need to buy Dove soup? So I guess since you said his religion is helping the government control people and the commercial industry make more money it must be true. I just can't find it. Can you direct me in the right direction?

        September 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
      • Brian Sarntee

        End Religion: Have you perhaps seen "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"? There are many intelligent scientists who feel that there is evidence of an intelligent guiding force in the way living organisms and particles the material universe are constructed. Have you ever read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of the "Intelligent Design Movement" and I do not endorse ANY particular human's books or writings or videos. I only bring these EXAMPLES up to make the point that many, like myself, feel that a logical scientific case can be made for belief in a Creative Being who actually constructed the universe and living things. I totally disagree with the concept of those like Dawkins who believe that "science disproves God", I believe science and religion are MEANT to be COMPATIBLE, one helping to explain and deepen the understanding of the other.

        September 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
      • Brian Sarntee

        End Religion: I believe we will SOON see the goverments unitedly TURN on religion and DESTROY it, and I believe the UNITED NATIONS will be the instrument that the nations will use to carry this out. Perhaps the global financial crisis will be one of the catalysts to prompt this action? Perhaps also the desire of the United Nations to finally be able to accomplish world peace, the primary goal if its charter? Regardless of WHY or HOW, I feel that I can assure you it WILL happen. So WHEN it DOES happen, seek Jehovah's Witnesses for direction on what you can do to survive the destruction of the rest of human civilization in its current form...

        September 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  52. nebula

    The Stars and their family sings of God's praise and Glory all the time, but God does not delight in them. But when Human sings of God's praise and Glory, God takes delight in it for Human does it by free will. They call him a messenger which he was not. for he was the message of God's word. For Gods word became flesh and his word became light unto all the nations. He committed his free will to the way of God and lived to love and serve. That is why God raised him above everyone. Some people say God is not relevant in this modern age, some say God is an alien from other stars, but God looks down upon him who in all humbleness calls unto him " LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO FOR YOU ALONE HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE".

    September 6, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Nebula: lovely that you believe that, but please recognize that the majority of people do not share that those views and beliefs. So, please ensure that your religious views are kept private and personal, and don't intrude on government.

      Thanks

      September 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  53. ABM

    Mr. Dawkins,

    1) Religion has taught me a lot about how I want to live my life, totally independent of the existense/nature of God. Who are you to say otherwise?

    2) Your views mean nothing to me.

    3) We'll all find out someday. That's the beauty of this thing called life ... when it ends, we (soul, spirit, whatever) either continue OR we don't. My belief and opinion, and your belief and opinion, won't have any bearing on the answer whatsoever. It will become fairly obvious. If we don't continue, what did my belief/hope matter? If we do continue, and you continue to deny (calling it a dream, mirage, illusion, etc.), who's the fool?

    4) Why do you berate and belittle believers? I respect your belief. I disagree. But what you believe is, to be blunt, inconsequential. Those who mock don't come across as overly confident. It's beneath you. It betrays something, not quite sure what, but the need to ridicule reveals an insecurity. You overcompensate, like all bullies.

    5) When you do ask God those questions you posed (hypotheticall of course), don't be surprised if he/she/it says: Because I'm God, and you're not.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      You calling him a bully is pretty funny.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      ABM: If a group of educated adults all claimed that the Easter Bunny was real, and was the magical purveyor of all things egg-shaped and chocolately, and indoctrinated their children in this belief, and attempted to influence their elected officials to pass laws to conform with this world view, would it be reasonable to vigorously question those ideas and the people who promulgated them?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • nojinx

      1) Religion has taught me a lot about how I want to live my life, totally independent of the existense/nature of God.

      But it was not a requirement of doing so.

      2) Your views mean nothing to me.
      I do not think he will read this.

      3) We'll all find out someday.
      Actually, we may not. Given the infinite number of possibilities, what we could find out is anyone's guess. Experience tells us nothing happens but expiration.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
  54. Selendis

    I tend to believe that anyone that speaks in absolutes, is biased. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They are simply not in the same level. Religion is about spirituality. And you do not even have to have a single god or gods to be spiritual. And whether or not you have issues with the idea we are cousins to monkeys, it is a fact that we share the same dna with everything we know. monkeys, bananas, stars. You would think these basic ideas would unite people instead of divide.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  55. TJ

    After listening to Dawkins speak... I know with all certainty the man is pea-brained and truly a fool. There is not enough space in this forum to put to rest his nonsense – it would take a book to upstage his silliness.

    In the shortest of terms, Dawkins reminds me of an insect in the woods, who has never laid eyes on anything larger than itself – so protected in its little world that it have never experienced any higher life form. Little does that insect know that beyond the realm of the woods are species considerably more complex, more powerful, and extremely more intelligent than itself. As that insect goes, so goes Dawkins, and all his ignorant followers... just bugs for squishing. They are nothing more, and their lives mean nothing more.

    Just as ridiculous is the fact that Dawkins and his Dawkinites put stock in the science of the day... that fallible practice called "science". This is the same science that has stated it is impossible to obtain animated matter from inanimate matter. In short, science has NO idea how life itself began. This is the same science that flip-flops more times than a cornered politician.

    It seems that Dawkins fancies himself as the most intelligent species there is... He basically sees himself as a god. Problem is, any god you can understand... is no god at all. He's just a man.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Wow, TJ – what a post! You have said absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever. Why don't you refute Dawkin's assertions, on a point by point basis, and provide your evidence for same.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • ToWit

      I think what Dawkins is saying is that while we cannot rule out the possibility that there exists an underlying intelligence (of a spiritual nature – call such God or whatever) that is responsible for the laws of nature by which all life has evolved through natural selection, the belief in a God who created all the species at once is (i.e., not by the process of nature’s laws whereby complex life forms evolved from simpler forms through natural selection) is not credible.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
      • ToWisdom

        Credible? Who said that God created everything in a single moment? Days 1 thru 6 were what? Was each 'day' an 'epoch' of some 5,800 years, as some claim? or 5,800 millenia (5,800,000) sun-cycles (yrs) as others claim? Are you using the word credible with its 'modern day' meaning or the 'olde english' variation. Do you rely on the Bible, stories censored by Consantine's Assembly 300 yrs A.D.? or your own 'soul' for 'explanations'. Are you not connected to TheForce? Why not? Is time today the same as it was in the past, did the Earth always rotate in 24 hrs? Is the pattern of stars in the constellation Orion, the Warrior, visible from every in the Galaxy, or just here on Earth where there is constant Warfare? Why do only we sub-angels, many of us sub-human too, see this symbol of warfare in OUR night sky? Its up there – go look – is it credible to think Orion has meaning or credible insist, with no proof whatsoever, that it is mere happenstance?

        September 6, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "After listening to Dawkins speak... I know with all certainty the man is pea-brained and truly a fool. There is not enough space in this forum to put to rest his nonsense – it would take a book to upstage his silliness."

      Yeah, we know how you guys come by your "certainty", and it has nothing whatever to do with reality. How do you suppose this "pea-brained fool" managed to hornswoggle his doctoral committee and whoever does the hiring at Oxford, where he was Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008? And what, precisely, are YOUR credentials for being able to pass judgment on his opinions?

      September 6, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
      • ObiWanWotan

        I'm working on that book, even though there are many others already published. I hope to sell lots of copies of my book, because I have worked manual labor jobs, and engineering jobs, and I would rather collect $millions sitting back while my book becomes a best-seller. Beats working for a living, and I speak from experience. Best type of book to write too – who can prove me wrong? I'm tired of moving mountains and turning dirt into planes, trains, and automobiles – Im tired doing the works of gods – I get no respect (sound familiar, and I'm not referring to a comedian), and, as a Senior Project Engineer, I can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle for my wife and kids, so, I hope I can sell lots of books – other people do – why not me?

        September 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
  56. gigi8

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmjszpC_8Q&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • ScottCA

      The fact that this video is payed for by a religious corporation clearly shows that it is not supported by a single scientific body of reputable standing. It is just more religious lies, as always.

      Religious con-men selling more snake oil to the ignorant.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
  57. RJ

    Would love to hear him talk. Being from a small, rural town you get so inundated with the god fearing, bible pounding crowd. I have to drive over 100 miles just to meet with some fellow humanists.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  58. Keith B Rosenberg

    Since atheists have no scientific proof that a creator, supreme being or some reasonable facsimile exists, Atheism is as much a faith as any religion.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • nojinx

      That makes no sense. Why would a lack of belief in something be a religion? Is the non-belief in Santa Claus a religion? Is the section of the population who does not believe in Vishnu a religious group?

      Please explain your logic.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        If a religion is defined as a set of beliefs based upon a certain premise shared across a community of peoples, and athiests actively believe that there is no God(s), there is no greater purpose or meaning to life, and there is no second plane of existance, then athiesm is a religion. You're thinking of agnostics that actually do not believe anything, but are open to possibilities on either side.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • nojinx

        "athiests actively believe that there is no God(s), there is no greater purpose or meaning to life, and there is no second plane of existance, then athiesm is a religion."

        Multiple mistakes in there:

        Atheists do not actively believe there is no god any more than you actively believe there is no Flutterby My Little Pony hovering around the moon. The number of things we (both you and I) would have to actively not believe is infinite and would cause incapacitation.

        "no greater meaning" is a meaningless statement. Greater than what? how great does our meaning have to be to be taken seriously?

        Your argument makes anything a religion.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Nope. Atheism is specifically a lack of faith. It doesn't require belief of any kind.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
      • LinSea

        Sure it does. Believing that there is no God and that nothing exists beyond the physical world/universe is still a belief. And no matter what paradigm a person uses to try to analyze and understand the world, they put their faith and trust into that belief system. Some will only trust in their understanding of whatever scientific knowledge is currently available; some will only trust in their understanding of a higher being, but I think most people try to find a balance between the two viewpoints.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
  59. GhostCoyote

    I would say we've plateaued as a species in terms of evolution. All previous physioligical modifications were a direct result of easier access to food or technology (tools and their use) as opposed to 'previous versions.' Modern society, and Socialism in particular, (universal access to healthcare, urbanization, social advancement) kills any remaining environmental forces that would remove the less adapted from among us and allows them to reproduce. thereby passing on the genes. We as a society may yet advance and get smarter, but that wouldn't be a result of an increase of brain size or efficiency, but rather because of the successive layers of technology we stand on. Heaven forbid (no pun intended) that the technological house of cards we stand on should fall.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      The human species is getting, on average, taller and more intelligent, slowly but surely. Darwinian selection happens every night of the week at the local bar.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
      • GhostCoyote

        Taller yes ( as a result of society, similar to an increase in breast size, which has nothing to do with survivability). Intelligent.... Maybe. I'll believe we're getting smarter when shows like Jersey Shore aren't just cancelled, but never happen at all.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • GhostCoyote

      As an aside, it should be noted that in fact the most successful (and therefore arguably the smartest and most 'adapted' in society) have a much lower birthrate than those that are saved by the social safety net, further tipping the balance away from an evolutionary advancement towards larger or more efficient brains.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
  60. Really?

    Newton, Pascal, Einstien, Galileo and many more scientific pioneers all believed in God. Todays scientists stand on the shoulders of these men. Evolution and creationism can co-exist. But it's all or nothing with most. Such a myopic view.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • nojinx

      Eistein was a vocal atheist.

      The fact that others in the past have believed in something without reason does not validate their beliefs, regardless of other credentials. If you practiced that in everyday life, you would be constantly ripped off by charlatans.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Evolution and creationism can co-exist as COMPETING IDEAS within a single society (witness our own) but not as equally valid explanations for how the real world really works, since they contradict each other rather severely.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
  61. NetNinja

    I just want to know where the half monkey humans are. Did we evolve from apes or fish or birds? I believe the other species on this earth have been here far longer than us so why haven't they evolved into more inteligent beings?
    How about primates, I would think they would be at a point in thier evolutionary journey that they could at least speak?
    I guess I am still just a dumb ape unable to comprehend why we are unique, So could or should assume that we are all evolved from one genome? Or did asians evolve from the asian ape and russians evolve from the Siberian ape?

    September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • GhostCoyote

      Other species are not less evolved than humans, only evolved in a different direction to adapt to a different set of pressures. They have adapted their bodies to solve certain food-finding and environment-surviving criteria such as bird beaks evolving to access certain food sources. It just so happens that the manner in which human ancestors evolved in order to better access food or survive predators was to utilize the brain to develop technology (using the environment to survive, such as using rocks as clubs, breaking them to make sharp things, or creating fire from friction.)

      September 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • nojinx

      IF you study evolution you will learn all the answers you just asked for. Some of them you actually asked in the asking:

      " I believe the other species on this earth have been here far longer than us so why haven't they evolved into more inteligent beings?"

      They have. Look in the mirror.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Did we evolve from apes (yes)
      or fish (yes)
      or birds (no, wrong branch)

      For details, read "The Ancestor's Tale" by one Richard Dawkins. It's modeled on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and depicts a voyage back in time along our evolutionary pathway. Other species rejoin us on our journey back toward the primordial organisms. Quite thrilling in an academic kind of way.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  62. SO!

    Evidently Dawkins is brainless has nothing credible to teach us himself. There is much to be learned from religion if you approach it with an open and inquisitive mind.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Colin

      Such as?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • Quoting

        Such as how much God loves us by showing us what he will do for us. Becoming flesh and suffering as we do and laying down his life for our sins. He was showing us how much he loves us and taught us to be like he was.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • nojinx

        What leads you to believe that to be true and not, say, the Koran or the Hindu myths? Or any other, for that matter?

        How many faiths did you try before you chose yours?

        September 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Colin

      @ Quoting – you realize original sin of Adma and Eve is a myth, right? Where does that leave your "he died for our sins" premise?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • ScottCA

      The null hypothesis is that there is no god. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of god, the null hypothesis holds as the logical position. To depart from this position without evidence is to delve into fantasy and insanity.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
      • Quoting

        So where's the so called evidence of millions of transitional fossils Darwin said their would be? Theirs no evidence of macro-evolution, only micro-evolution.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
      • nojinx

        "millions of transitional fossils Darwin said their would be?"

        Reference, please. I think Darwin was reasonably intelligent and would not have made such an idiotic claim, knowing how fossils occur and basics of geology.

        This sounds like fabrication, so I am asking for a source.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
      • ScottCA

        Watch the video on evolution I posted for the evidence. Not only are there fossil records showing evolution in history, but evolution can be witnessed in organisms today that breed fast enough to produce the hundreds of generations necessary. Both so called micro and macro evolution have been witnessed in the lab.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • Quoting

        But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859).

        September 6, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
  63. karl

    "Even a simple person can know God quite well. It is not necessarily the case that a broad acquaintance with the scientific and historical knowledge we now have will make some capable of understanding God better.

    You can drown understanding in facts. Anyone who fails to perceive the mystery at work within the facts of nature or of history is just stuffing his head and his heart with a lot of thin
    gs that may even make him incapable of any breadth or depth of perception.

    A great amount of scientific knowledge can, one the one hand, lead to someone's being no longer able to see beyond the facts, so that he is hemmed in by facts. Because he knows so much, he is now only capable of thinking on a factual level and can no longer bring himself to make the leap into mystery. He sees only what is tangible. And, from a metaphysical point of view, in this way a person becomes more stupid. The other side of it is that sometimes, precisely by the breadth of our vision, in that we can see so many glimpses of divine reason in reality, this really does add breadth and scope to our image of God, and we stand before him with greater reverence and even with humility and awe."

    49 from God and the World by Joseph Ratzinger

    September 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
  64. OldMo

    Even if every living thing down to the tiniest microscopic cell was killed off we'd still make a comeback. All we need is rocks, water, lightning and X number of billion years. . .right Mr. Dawkins? 😉

    September 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      It would probably be only a hundred million years or so, not billions, before the ball got rolling again, and chances are vanishingly small that the next intelligent species to arise on Earth would look anything at all like H. sap. but yeah, essentially you've nailed it.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  65. Steve D

    Lots of people seem to misunderstand waht is or isn't scientific. Science requires that a fact or claim can be systematically disproven. The fact or claim is considered scientificaly true if multiple attempts to disprove it fail to do so.

    The claim that God created everything or guided evolution isn't scientific because it can't be disproved. No matter waht anyone measures or observes it is possible to say "God made it that way." It may be true or false, but there is no scientific way to disprove it so it can't be scientific.

    The claim that evolution is driven by random mutation without the input or influence of God is also unscientific. There is no way to disprove it. Like the example above it is possible to look at any mutation and declare it random, and like the exampleabove there is no way to prove or disprove the claim.

    There is abundant scientific evidence to show that life evolved over a very long period of time. There is abundant scientific evidence to show that the mechanism of evolution is changes in DNA which are then filtered through a process of natural selection. Some changes thrive and others die off. There is no evidence to claim that those changes in DNA are or aren't either random or the act of a suprememe being and no such evidence is possible at this time. Therefore, the question of randomness or divnity in the changes found in DNA isn't scientific.

    People seem to think that becasue it involves DNA and that seems so inherently scientific that anything said about it must be science. Science isn't determined by the topic but by the method applied to a question. If the method can't be applied, then it isn't scientific regardless of the topic of the question.

    Whether or not a God had a hand in the process of evolution isn't a scientific question and no one can claim science offers an answer or even an insight on an answer. When Dawkins says otherwise, he isn't being a scientist.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      He doesn't claim that science can disprove the existence of a creator. Quite the opposite. It's the fact that a creator can't be disproven that renders the topic meaningless in the realm of scientific discovery. You theists always find ways to put words into Dawkins' mouth, don't you?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  66. Colin

    Evolution is one of two theories I despise. The other is the va.ginal birth of human beings.

    It is OBVOIUS to me that storks bring babies! I have never seen a woman giving birth, but I have seen a lot of storks, especially on margarine containers. If you ever go to the beach, you will lots of storks carrying babies. They look just like pelicans because they carry the babies in their mouths. If women gave birth to babies, there would be no need for a navel, but that is how the stork picks the babies up from HEAVEN.

    There is no REAL evidence that women give birth to babies. It is just a THEORY. If they did, why is it that men never give birth to babies? Why just women? Where do boys come from? It makes no sense. There is also the problem of the missing link, because there are only ever midwives and never “mid-husbands.”

    If women gave birth to babies, why are there still women and babies? And why is it you never see a half-woman, half-baby!! Explain that evolutionists and va.ginal birth believers! Bet you can't.

    If you look at a stork, it is INTELLIGENTLY designed to carry babies. Why would that be if it didn’t deliver babies? And what about twins and triplets? What, do some women have 2, or even 3 uteruses? That is stupid. A stork can EASILLY carry two or three babies, but a woman couldn’t.

    Why is it that for every 50 boys born, there are 50 girls. What, can a va.gina count? Ha, how stupid. But a stork could. And, what about all the GAPS in the birth record. Va.ginal birth proponants try to trace their geneology way back, but their are always gaps in family trees.

    You evolutionists are so dumb. Your think babies JUST HAPPENED in their mother’s womb. What, do you think they just appeared out of yucky, slimy blood and stuff ? Fred Hoyle once calculated that the chance of a baby spontaneously appearing in a woman’s uterus was the same as a storm blowing through a junkyard and creating a Boing-747. That’s harder to believe than that the stork brought them! Not only that, but one time I took a peek at my mother’s va.gina, and it was so small and babies are SO BIG.

    You might like to think you came from a mere zygote, but I KNOW I came from a glorious stork.

    My father insists that I was born because he slept with my mother. I derisively call this the Big Bang theory, because he cannot tell me what happened BEFORE he banged her. And what caused the Big Bang? It must have been a stork.

    You might ask, ok “what caused the stork?” Well the stork was always there.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
  67. ScottCA

    Douglas Adams on Religion
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FlGGKZJ1E8&w=640&h=390]
    I am sure Dawkins, would appreciate a few words being added from Douglas Adams.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  68. mchofman

    You're an idiot, Richard Dawkins, and you're spewing atheism all over the place.....as are most of the people on this site. And you are one year closer to finding out if you're right or not.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      You're not one of those "the end is nigh" idiots, are you?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • nojinx

      Actually, if it is a "not", then he won't find out. No one will.

      As an atheist, I like to say "upon our deaths, none of us will find ourselves disappointed."

      September 6, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Religion predicts nothing in the natural world. The use of logic to rationally deduce the natural world, predicts events with great accuracy.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
      • ScottCA

        The use of logic to rationally deduce the natural world, is otherwise known as science.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
  69. Really?

    Because things evolve that disproves a creator? Fools.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • ScottCA

      It explains that complex things develop from simple things and there is no need to evoke a god to explain anything. In fact evoking a creator only complicates tings.

      Occam's Razor does the rest.

      Envoking god to explain the existence of the universe does not answer anything, it just compounds the original question with many more complex and unnecessary questions. The initial simple question of "how was the universe created?", becomes through the evocation of god: "How was god created?","How did god create the universe?", "How does god make immaterial souls interact with material bodies?", "how does god control events in the universe when everything in the universe appears to evolve complete fine by itself following the laws of physics?", etc.

      Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. In this case the simplest answer is that there is no god.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      It's impossible to disprove a creator. That's why it's folly to believe in one.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • nojinx

        Good point. If you believe in something because you cannot disprove it, you have no way of avoiding belief in anything unprovable.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
  70. rgill

    "Dawkins: religion has nothing to teach us" I don't see that claim anywhere in the article. Don't you just love bait and switch? Not. CNN does this constantly.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • rgill

      Ok, I take it back. It's in the video link.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  71. ScottCA

    Evidence for evolution.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  72. robert hoppel

    The main reason that religion is a hoax, run by charlatans who are after your money (so they can fly business class to their girlfriend in Florida) is that in every corner of every continent we have had a different religion, each claiming to know it all and at the same time rejecting the explanations from other religions. It is man-made fairy tales for the stupid masses. Especially in the USA, keep them dumb and keep them fanatical about their particular brand of voodoo.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • CosmicC

      I reject this completely. Their goal is to fly first class, not business.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  73. K

    Everyday so many people dying because of fire, water, wind, earthquakes etc. How much more it wlll take you people to understand the reason behind this.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • bff

      Help me understand, please???
      What is the reason?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • CosmicC

        The Most Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster created the beer volcano first and was drunk when He created the rest of the universe, furthermore the str1ppers distracted Him. That's why bad things happen.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
      • Confused

        Because of the ever-increasing human population on this planet, more and more people are getting in the way of those things that have always happened and will probably continue to happen.

        Too bad a lot of the outdated religions so many people follow happen to encourage people to breed like rats.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  74. m

    it would take me a lifetime to read all these comments. I like the one if a a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. Like with religion or at lest the sense that there may be an afterlife, if there is evidence of that in Neanderthal graves 100K ago, i.e. evidence of flowers put in a grave and no one records it is it still considered religion or some rudimentary from....but which one? If Neanderthals believed in a god what would it be envisioned as since they lived 10s or thousands of years before any true religion was recorded.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • CosmicC

      If that tree falling in the forest fell on a mime would anyone care?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  75. Confused

    Too bad God wasn't here.... He could straighten this out in no time.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  76. Chrissy333

    Intelligent Design was a term coined by the Theosophical Society to describe how the Sumerian Annunaki "seeded" the earth. It is an occultist term in origin and should not be used by Christians because it is misleading. The occultists and Theosophical Society believe that ancient technologically advanced beings known as the Annunaki genetically altered and breeded with primative humans to produce a slave race to mine gold. The caduceus (serpents intwined around staff) was an ancient Sumerian symbol that some think represents human dna. This symbol is used by many secret occult societies. Francis Crick who helped design the structure of the model for dna used this symbol and was a member of the Theosophical Society. He also popularized the term "Intelligent Design". Christians use this term without actually knowing what it means and where it came from!

    September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  77. Matthew

    Many people think they are smart and know a lot. Dick Dawkins and myself would be included in that group. The problem with Dick is that he has faith that everyone that disagrees with him is stupid. He oozes an arrogance that is insufferable. If we really understood 1% as much about how genetics really work as he professes we do, it would be wonderful. Unfortunately we understand much less than that. Mr. Dawkins, and his disciples, would have us blindly accept that they have complete understanding. They are charlatans masquerading as scientists. He shares much in common with some of the most venal televangelists that he claims to abhor. The way I see it, Mr. Dawkins and the Young Earth Creationist seem to operate from the same dishonest playbook. Shame on all of them.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Tim

      It's a shame there's no 'like' button. The guy can believe what he wants, he's abrasive and arrogant so that he can make a few bucks selling his fiction. Exactly what he claims to abhor.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      I notice that people call Richard Dawkins rude, abrasive, arrogant, pompous, condescending, etc. because they can't disagree with his facts or his logic, so they're stuck assailing his personality. If you think there's a problem with the theory of how natural selection explains the fact of evolution, go ahead and try to make your case. Don't just throw irrelevant insults around.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
  78. caesarbc

    everyone should be agnostic, because there is no way to prove, nor disprove, the existence of God or Allah.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • nojinx

      Or Vishnu or Shiva or Marduk or the infinite number of gods we have or could imagine.

      Agreed.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Actually, there is, because the attributes claimed for the Christian God are mutually incompatible. You CAN'T have a God who's so smart he can hide something, because he's omnipresent. You can't have one who's so knowledgeable he knows everything that ever going to happen, because then he couldn't change anything and wouldn't be all-powerful. Even omnipotence all by itself is self-contradictory, because God can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. As for all-loving? Well, if we're to believe his self-appointed PR team, he's the dude responsible for ringworm, the tse-tse fly, and cancer, to say nothing of tornadoes and plane crashes. And those are his FANS!

      September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • nojinx

        You have a point, but an impossible definition only eliminates the definition of a god. The Muslim/Judeo/Christian god could be morally ambivalent in actuality. So some concepts of a god can be logically argued to not exist, but that is only from aspects of their defined nature.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
  79. Katrina

    It's funny how accidents can put everything together in such a magnificent, specific, precise order. I'm looking at this computer in front of me knowing that it didn't magically come together. The creator of the computer put it together in such a manner using plastic and metal materials, electricity, codes and data. It couldn't be!! It just crawled up onto my counter top and started functioning. I would have to say that there was "intelligence" behind it all.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • CosmicC

      If you think biological beings are neat and orderly you clearly don't know much about the details of their inner workings.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • nojinx

        Tell me about it. My appendix almost killed me. Is that intelligent design? Sounds like someone failed Carbon-Based Life Form Creation 101.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • nojinx

      So I guess you have reached the problem of the infinite regress: if everything requires a creator, who created the creator?

      If not everything requires a creator, why do you think there is one?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  80. Joe

    More clicks CNN! More clicks! Hurry up and post some divisive issue where a few vocal minorities can argue back & forth endlessly as there is no possibility of a conclusive answer. Then you can demand a few pennies more from your waning advertisers. People, please stop asking 'how high' when CNN says jump. (yes I realize my post counts too, i thought i'd make it my last one)

    September 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Bye

      September 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
  81. MikeR

    Does anyone remember that South Park Season 10 Episode 12: "Go God Go"? It may serve as an insist to what what what of the alternate futures might hold...

    September 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  82. CosmicC

    Where Dawkins seems to miss the boat is the social science side of the equation. Cultural traits evolve in much the same way as biological traits do. A trait that provides an advantage in self-propagation is much more likely to take prominence over one that does not. The formalization of religions provided a structure for passing on such survival traits, thus propagating religions. The laws of a given religion can be seen as those that are either necessary for the survival of the originating culture or neutral in that respect. Believing in treating each other well is embedded in most religions because without it religions, and possible the cultures believing in them have died out.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  83. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxr9jxF6mg&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  84. How about this...

    Here is an idea, we let the religious people gather the wholeness in their lives when they embrace their god, and let the atheists take the explanatory power of logic and leave each other alone.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • CosmicC

      That's great in getting along at the personal level, but when we talk about legislation we need to see a clear delination between science and atheism. Atheism is a belief system, in some ways like a religion. We cannot mandate whether or not people believe in god. If someone does not believe in evolution, they're going to fail biology in school and that's as it should be.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
      • nojinx

        Incorrect. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, systematic or otherwise.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
      • RichardSRussell

        NoJinx has the right of it. Calling atheism a religion is like calling "off" a TV channel.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
  85. Rich

    Until Dawkins agrees to debate William Lane Clark he will continue to be tainted. He is a coward .

    September 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • memestryker

      Science debating folklore? Really?!

      September 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
      • nojinx

        Craig has a hard enough time getting the pod casters to debate him. His arguments are a joke, no one wants to bother any more with WLC.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Dawkins writes books that lay out, over the course of hundreds of pages, the evidence supporting his conclusions. Craig is welcome to do likewise. Then you can take the time to read and consider both and see which makes a better case. Isn't that a more reasonable approach than each getting half an hour of spontaneous sound bites? (Oh, that's right, appealing to "reasonable" probably isn't going to ring your chimes, is it?)

      September 6, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
  86. memestryker

    I disagree that religion has nothing to teach us. Practices like meditation, prayer, fellowship, helping others, and ethics are some of the fruits of religious practice. I strongly agree that it is a mistake to "teach the controversy," because there isn't one. There is one theory: Evolution. Young earth creationists are simply believing in a particular cultural doctrine, which contains some wisdom, history (written by the winners), folklore, myth, and other prose passd down over thousands of years. The Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Tao Te Ching, Koran, and other ancient "sacred" texts all have this in common. There is wisdom to be gleaned, as well as explanations for what seemed mysterious at the time and cultural indoctrination. There is no controversy to teach. Evolution is a well-tested theory that is proven time and again in laboratories worldwide. Religion brings us comfort and teaches us our culture's moral lessons. Totally different animals.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • How about this...

      I agree

      September 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Religion may be ABLE to do that, but it certainly isn't NECESSARY to do that.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
  87. aaronstoler

    Reblogged this on Thoughts from the forest and commented:
    An interview with Richard Dawkins. Well worth the read.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  88. David D

    The worst moment for the atheist is when he sees a spectacular sunset, tastes the nectarof fresh fruit or hears the cry of a newborn baby...and has nobody to thank.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Chris

      I've never once in my life as an atheist had that thought cross my mind....ever. How about you just enjoy life, and accept the fact that maybe there isn't some spectacularly perfect father figure in the sky who coddles you with sunsets and rainbows.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • LuisWu

      The worst moment for the religious person is to see that sunset or hear that baby and to atribute the cause to an imaginary, invisible, supernatural man in the sky. How utterly pathetic.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • memestryker

      Atheists experience the appreciation of natural beauty, too. They can be thankful that something *is* without having a supernatural being to "thank." They just don't believe that these are provided by a deity. And people are easily indoctrinated by their cultural teaching. It seems to offer a survival advantage.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      I'm an atheist, and MY worst moment was when the orthopedic surgeon told me "no more basketball" after I got my artificial knee installed. I'm sure it would have been SOOOO much better if I'd prayed to have it healed by magic.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
      • David D

        But you didn't pray. So, no way to know if God was prepared to grant you a gift if you simply asked for it.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
      • RichardSRussell

        Oh, I know how prepared God was to grant prayers. I heard the recordings of the phone messages from the people in the World Trade Center and United 93, and I rock-solid guaran-dam-tee you that they were both way more religious and way more sincere than I would've been, for all the good it did them.

        September 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • David D

        The problem is that you "guaran-dam-tee" that all the people in the World Trade Center were "more religious than you. Perhaps they were. Perhaps not. The problem is that you don't know. You have jumped to aconclusion. Evolution does the same thing. Jumps to a conclusion and calls it fact.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  89. sandy

    I just want to know where Dawkins thinks all those muons and bosons and quarks came from. Answer that question. What makes them vibrate, who's plucking the strings that makes up the music of our universe? Until he answers that for me, he is a just another self-satisfied windbag.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • LuisWu

      So where did this extremely perfect, invisible, supernatural being in the sky come from??? Did he magically "poof" himself into existence? Grow a brain.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Madtown

      LuisWu
      So where did this extremely perfect, invisible, supernatural being in the sky come from
      -----–
      We don't know. No one does. Nevertheless, quarks or other particles likely had to at some point come from somewhere or something.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Ever hear of "pair production"? It's where an electron and positron spontaneously spring into existence and then, picoseconds later, recombine to form ... nothing again. Happens all the time. It's probably happened a million times within your own body while you've been reading this. And it's one of the consequences of the quantum underpinnings of our Universe that clearly work but which NOBODY understands. But it DOES provide an answer to your unspoken question: Can things spontaneously spring into existence from nothing? Yeah. Happens ALL THE TIME!

      September 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
  90. MaryEllen Beltner

    HA!!! Aren't you in for a BIG Surprise!!!! LOL

    September 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  91. Paul

    Jesus is the way, truth and life.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Jesus is A way. So is heroin addiction. Dubious which has caused more total harm to humanity.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
  92. LuisWu

    I saw a comment a while back where someone said that maybe people are reincarnated forever and it's a way to prevent becoming utterly bored with infinite time.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  93. Chris

    What's the difference between a religious person and an atheist? An atheist believes in an infinitely complex universe that came from nothing, and a religious person believes in an infinitely powerful God, who created an infinitely powerful universe, who also came from nothing. At least scientists and atheists have an understanding of how and why the universe works as it does, no one truly knows the why of its existence. Making up a fairy tale father figure to help yourself come to terms with death isn't a valid solution. It cheapens the reality of the human condition.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  94. Quoting

    What changed the Apostles minds? From being in hiding, running scared after Jesus' death. To then going and preaching in the cities not caring if they were arrested, mocked, or beating. What gain did they get out of it? Their would have to be some kind of gain if it was a made up story. But their was no personal gain. The apostles saw the risen Jesus and after that were changed forever and went out preaching the Gospel.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      not "changed" forever ... "deranged" forever ...

      September 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Michael George Erdmann

      ...physical, emotional, conceptual, and ascensional.... gains in growth, maturity and transcendence

      September 6, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • Chris

      Your assuming the apostles in the story ever existed. What your saying is like saying if Zues isn't real than who was Hercules' father? You missed the point entirely that both characters are fictional.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • LuisWu

      He was a martyr and as such, his life and deeds were blown completely out of proportion as usually happens with martyrs. He probably existed, but he was nothing more than a man with ideas that were ahead of his time.

      A lot of things in the bible can be traced back and shown to be historically accurate. The trouble is, the primitive cultures of the time tended to see everything from a religious viewpoint. E.g. they would see a flood and say that god was angry so he sent a flood, when in fact it was just a natural occurrence. They had religious explanations for just about everything. Today we have scientific explanations for most things. We're too intelligent to require myths and fairytales to explain things for us. Did you know that the Jews are STILL writing the bible to this day?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
      • Quoting

        The time was to short for Jesus' story to become legend. Paul meet with Peter about 12 years after Jesus' death and thats where he was told the story of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. The main point of Christianity that Jesus died and rose was their at the very beginning. That was not legend, thats what they believed from the start

        September 6, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
      • LuisWu

        @Quoting – just goes to show you how stupid they were.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
      • Quoting

        Evidence speaks for itself brotha. Something happened to them. Skeptics try to say they had a mass hallucination of Jesus or that he didnt die. But they saw him and after that they went and preached what he taught them, They weren't doing that 3 days prior to that. They were in hiding, afraid of being affiliated with Jesus.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
      • nojinx

        But why do you believe that to be true? What method did you use to verify it?

        September 6, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Quoting

        @nojinx

        I've studied the NT for 7 years. Looked at all the arguments for and against Jesus. Compared them and to me the only conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead. I suggest you read some books by Gary Habermas and N.T Wright if your interested. Like I said the Apostles had nothing to gain from a lie, nothing.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
      • nojinx

        How many and what other faiths did you study? Why did you settle on your current faith over the others, where similar claims have been made and supported as you support yours.

        " Like I said the Apostles had nothing to gain from a lie, nothing."

        That is not evidence that they did not lie, nor is it evidence that they even existed. More importantly, why do you think the passages reporting this are not themselves a lie, or that the writers of the version of the bible you are working with (thousands) did not include liars among them?

        September 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
      • Quoting

        Nojinx...email me...mhinson1440@yahoo.com...im at work and dont have the time to answer your question in depth at the moment. But email me and I will answer your question on why I believe Christianity over other faiths

        September 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      And whose word do we have for it that it all went down the way you summarized it? You're quoting from your Big Book o'Horrors again, aren't you? As if it's even CLOSE to being a credible source, when it's absolutely riddled with preposterous claims. One of my faves is the zombie apocalypse that nobody except "Matthew" noticed, NOT EVEN MARK, LUKE, or JOHN: "(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
      (53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." —Matthew 27:52-53

      September 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
  95. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  96. David Wilkins

    Hundreds upon hundreds of "serious scientists" are skeptical that Darwinian evolution is an adequate and scientifically sound explanation for life. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php

    September 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • nojinx

      Fortunately thousands upon thousands of scientists think those hundreds of hundreds are deluding themselves out of desire to affirm their world-view.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Actually only slightly over 800 in the entire world and they are only doubting small details of the theory, not the entire theory.
      There are more scientists with just the name Steve (1225 to be precise) in the US that agree completely with evolutionary theory than scientists in all the world that disagree with small details of the theory of evolution.
      http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      September 6, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Google "The Steve Project", in which the National Center for Science Education set out to match the number of doubting scientists with an equal number of scientists who endorse evolution. But they decided that, since they had such an overwhelming advantage right out of the gate, they'd handicap the race a little and only take endorsements from scientists named "Steve". It took them less than a month to top the 800 religious zealots you cite, and the list has only grown since then.

      So, if you're REALLY the kind of person who thinks this kind of thing is decided by majority vote, you should go with the winning side.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
  97. diehardcard

    It amazes me that such an intelligent man can so willfully limit himself intellectually. He might be a brilliant scientist, but he's a terrible philosopher.

    September 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • DPD123

      Hello, he is NOT a scientist at all.
      He is a writer – making a pile of money stirring up a lot of hate and promoting his religion – atheism

      September 6, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
      • nojinx

        Dawkins is a biologist. Look it up.

        September 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Religion, by definition, is intellectually limiting.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Byzantion

      Do you know Pope Urban VIII ? He probably said the same about Galileo Galilei think about it 😀

      September 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      Funny, I'm sure he feels the same way about you, minus the 'brilliant' part. Do you imagine that he should exempt scriptural sayings from scientific investigation on the grounds that they "have to be true or else Lord Gawd help us all?" Muslims consider you with the same curious pity that you give them: "How can you be so deluded?" We look at you both that way

      September 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  98. Franco

    Dawkin's asks which God? Well there is only one true God and that is the God of Abraham and the father of Jesus. I do not understand why there is such a conflict, all the other God's are just not real and I do believe that the

    September 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      The proof of God was complete in 1927, so Dawkins' question is reasonable. No Thiest has proven ownership of the sentient being outside the universe that makes the universe real.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • max3333444555

      the bible itself contains "proof" of other gods.

      September 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
  99. James

    I am an atheist. But if there were a God, I would say that God created evolution.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Beyond Evolving

      It's the secret recipe that our Albert Einstein said...^_^

      September 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Olaf Big

      Right, the reason creationists don't use this argument much, is once you embrace evolution and start reading more about how it works, you eventually come to ask yourself: "Beautiful! Now, what do we need God for?" Atheism is not something you need to hammer into your brain, it is a natural intellectual consequence of good education.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  100. lolCAT

    Dawkins should read more Feyerabend. Paul Feyerabend.
    Maybe that can cure his evident mental block.

    I'm just really scared what will happen to people wo think that Dawkins "is right".
    Of course from a biologist perspective it may seem that religion is all about the creation story, but to say all of religion "knows nothing" just because the folks who wrote the bible didn't know about metagenomics is not just silly...
    it's a propagandistic simplification of the situation in order to make it appear in a way Dawkins wants.

    In that respect, it is much more fruitful to analyze the *wants* of Dawkins than to embark on a hopeless warfare to defend the "6000 years ago..." story.
    This is not about "creation vs. evolution". This is about "you" and "me".

    September 6, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer