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. ScottCA

    The unknown
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GW7_1b_oHQ&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
  2. maddog

    Dawkins- God is dead
    God- Dawkins will be dead soon

    September 6, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Thanks for displaying more of the lack of morality in religious people.
      Dawkings you Rock!!! Keep up the battle for reason over religious ignorance.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc&w=640&h=390]

      September 6, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      We'll all be dead so, so in the meantime, let's get busy living the best lives we can, because this life is all there is

      September 6, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
      • ScottCA

        Well and intelligently said, Sir.

        Atheism places infinitely more importance on our lives for the very fact that we are willing to admit this is all we have evidence of having. There is no evidence of an afterlife, so we better get things right now and live well.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
      • JFCanton

        How many people does that work for, though? Most people are hopeless on their own; the behavior of the poorer portions of our society demonstrates that every day.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
  3. ScottCA

    Morality
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdBJL1c7xUI&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
  4. MAddog

    Dawkins- God is dead
    God- Dawkins will be dead soon.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Nietzsche said that. Dawkins asserts that God is fiction. Big difference.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  5. George

    This man and his followers aren't atheists because of scientific evidence or conviction. They do so because they are rebellious against God. There are not mere athiests, they have a strong anti-God sentiment because of their rebellion.
    And such rebellion is not a noble one, such as that of a people couragiously revolting against an oppressive government, it is rather that of a wayword immature teenager rebelling against his/her gracious, loving parents

    September 6, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • ScottCA

      There is no God outside your own brain.

      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.

      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.

      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 9:34 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      George, do you believe in the tooth fairy? No? okay, you don't believe in the tooth fairy. So what's with your rebellion against the tooth fairy??

      September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Aezel

      George doesn't reject Zeus because of logic or science, it's because he's rebellious against Zeus. Release the kraken!!!!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I have no belief in Santa. Therefore I am rebellious against Santa.

      i have no belief in the Easter Bunny. Therefore I am rebellious against the Easter Bunny.

      I have no belief in Giant Invisible Fuzzy Pink Unicorns. Therefore I am rebellious against the Giant Invisible Fuzzy Pink Unicorns.

      Get the point?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
  6. ScottCA

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

    There is an immense amount of evidence to support evolution. There is not one single piece of evidence to support intelligent design. Every single scientific body on good standing accepts Evolution. There is no debate.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
  7. No More Duhkins

    DAWKINS HAS NOTHING TO TEACH US. SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE AN APP THAT ERASES ALL REFERENCES TO HIM WHILE SURFING THE INTERNET. PLEASE. I NEED MY BROWSER TO PROPERLY EVOLVE.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Religion hides in ignorance. Science predicts correctly events in the natural world. Religion predicts nothing and exists only in your imagination.

      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.

      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 9:33 pm |
    • Aezel

      Somewhere there is a lonely trailer park, missing you.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
  8. ScottCA

    Steven hawking explains how the universe was brought into being.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
  9. What???

    Where do you get your moral reference? Is it learned, and why is it important if evolution is the plain on which we operate. In nature the strongest reproduce and the weakest, the sick and the defenseless are moved to the fringe of the group and are left to fend for themselves. Seven Hawking is an example of a moral framework humans generally operate from. He would die if he were any other animal but human. Why? Because the norm in the human existence is we deal in and from a moral framework. We didn’t get it from nature because nature doesn’t forgive nor is she merciful. If he were in the wild he would become a sacrifice for the whole. The loss of one for the collective is better than the whole for one in the evolutionary framework. Civilization is just a state in which we are in the framework of evolution. So the question must be asked if there is no eternal consequences what reason is the need for a moral objective?

    September 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      The moral objective is that what is better for the individual is what is better for the group, generally speaking. Humans developed larger groups, and had to learn behaviours that would allow the group, and the individual, to prosper. There is no need for the threat of eternal consequences in order to understand that, as a general rule, killing another person is not moral.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Modern improvements in our collective quality of living have led to greater empathy. In the "old days" of cave-dwelling/hunter-gatherer existence when food was much harder to come by, a man like this would be abandoned while the tribe was trekking to another cave or field, etc. Don't be so myopic!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
  10. George

    Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to indicate that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal which refers more to a “moral fool,” e.g., someone without morals. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “immoral people do not believe in God.”

    September 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • Aezel

      It says it in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales written by barbaric goat herders so it must be true right?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • EndTheFed

      I prefer Dr. Seuss to the Bible. He's actually a much better author than that "god" fellow. There's lessons and morals AND illustrations. You can't beat illustrations.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
      • atDissenter

        "No, you can't teach a Sneetch..."

        September 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      So, George (may I call you George?). I assume you believe that the bible is the word of god? And you;re telling us how to interpret the bible? in other words, you are god's mouthpiece? You know what god was thinking?????? Wow! You must have a giant brain!!!!!

      And a bigger frikken ego, dude!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Psalm 137:9
      Happy is the one who seizes your infants
      and dashes them against the rocks.

      What do you make of that, George? Duh, George, which way did he go, George? Which way did he go?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  11. jonathanpdx

    Poor Mr Dawkins. What he does not understand about religion would fill a universe. So he mocks it and tries to make it irrelevant. What he does not understand is that perfect religion and perfect science are one. God does nothing that is not scientifically perfect, but man has not the capacity to understand. All man can see is his own tiny patch of mortality, and he toils at it endlessly, never bothering to look up at the wonders that surround him.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Aezel

      Actually it's pretty easy to understand everything there is to know about religion. That's the most laughable part about religious fools like you, you think you are in on some great secret, when really it's all of the bright minds of the human race that are laughing at you in your complete ignorance.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Unless you're some sort of theologian, he probably knows a lot more about religion than you do.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  12. EndTheFed

    I'm an atheist, but Dawkins is the hole on the back side of a donkey. He lashes out at religion in the way that they have lashed out at him. He is a reactionist, or as the English call it, a muppet. As an atheist, I have no desire to prove anything about religion. They live how they live, I live how I live. Religion doesn't control the world, greed does.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
  13. dieter

    it is a complete mistery to me how somebody as smart as dawkins can claim that he has proof that god doesnt exist. i am not saying that god exists...bu if he does, by definition, he stands outside of the laws of science and nature that he created. an ant in an ant farm will never be ale to proof that humans dont exist, no matter how smart the ant is. the other point i would make is that there is a vast and serious school of thought that demonstrates that our memories, thoughts etc are NOT stored in some place in our brains....and that to the contrary our brains function as mere receivers and transmitters connected to a deeper reality. this is the holographic theory of the universe and has been backed up by scores of physicists and neurologists. dawkins seems to be incredibly narrow minded.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      He's not saying that he has proof that there is no god. That's not possible. He never asserted that. The words people put in his mouth. Geez.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
  14. CHRISTIAN BELIEVER

    God is real! enough said

    September 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • Aezel

      No, it's not. That's the point. Things aren't real because you say so. Put up evidence or shut up.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      God is fake!!

      See, I can do that, too. It's just as convincing. I even added an exclamation point, making it even more convincing.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • Linus

      The Great Pumpkin is real

      September 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
  15. CHRISTIAN BELIEVER

    Alright everyone God is real get over it please ... I mean it takes more faith to believe in evolution the idea of nothing evolving into something like huh? As I heard before the chances of you taking a watch smashing it and putting into a bag and shaking it for millions of years and seeing if it ends up all together and on time is up against astronomical odds and its takes so much faith to believe in that,Put as much deep thought you want to put into it even if you are a great mind and have studied science it will alawys take faith to truly accept what you find.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • Linus

      Okay, everyone get over it – The Great Pumpkin is real.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • From One

      I encourage you to search for BART EHRMAN, biblical scholar who has studied ancient transcripts of the bible.
      Also, search Cassiopeia Project-Evolution. This is a 50 minute video on evolution, which can still be fairly hard to grasp, but nonetheless, is one of the most straightforward offerings on the subject. Thank you.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
  16. Klaark

    I say we let the Creationists and Bible thumpers have their own schools all in the south. Then in a few generations when the southern morons have gone back to banging rocks together to make fire we can eliminate them and the burden they represent. Republicans, conservatives, an creationists are all miserable sub-humans who don't have a right to be alive.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
  17. capers

    It's about time CNN has athiesm featured and I'm thrilled it isn't lumped into that "belief blog"! Bravo for the creation of Light Years CNN

    September 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • William

      To bad that Dawkins is agnostic.....

      September 6, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • Aezel

      William, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. If you knew anything about either one this wouldn't be news to you.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
      • William

        Sure they are......agnostics are epistemological failures.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
  18. George

    This man and his followers aren't atheists because of scientific evidence or conviction. They do so because they are rebellious against God. There are not mere athiests, they have a strong anti-God sentiment because of their rebellion.
    And such rebellion is not a noble one, such as that of a people couragiously revolting against an oppressive government, it is rather that of a wayword immature teenager rebelling against his/her gracious, loving parents.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      PUKE! Where do you get your sickening BS from?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Aezel

      Yeah, just keep telling yourself that somehow your imaginary bulls**t makes more sense than what the brightest minds the human race has ever produced have learned by producing solid evidence.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Tell a raped, pregnant 12-year-old in Tehran that she's not being oppressed. I'd like to see you do that without throwing up on yourself.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      George, are you rebellious against leprechauns, or do you merely not believe in them?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
  19. Phishkiss

    I',m a christian and I lurves me my science. I agree with him on some scientific levels but not on religious ones, however, the fact that he answered the question "If there were a God that met you after death, what would you say?" seriously and didn't just say " there is no God so I can't answer that" at least shows he has a good character and is at least open to the idea and/or has thought about it, even though he nor anyone else can prove it, and does not shy away from the very idea that he could be wrong, shows me he does not have severe ego mentality like some hard line atheists.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      G B Shaw had an answer. He said that if he died and god reproached him and asked why he didn't believe, he would respond, "not enough data, lord."

      September 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • 21k

      he was just being polite.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      He was answering a question about fiction. If he had been asked what he would do if he woke up in Alice's Wonderland one morning, he would have likely had a similar, and probably more colorful answer.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
  20. From One

    I encourage you to search for BART EHRMAN, biblical scholar who has studied ancient transcripts of the bible.
    Also, search Cassiopeia Project-Evolution. This is a 50 minute video on evolution, which can still be fairly hard to grasp, but nonetheless, is one of the most straightforward offerings on the subject.

    Evolution and Abiogenisis can be difficult to understand for the average person. God is easy. The easy way out is never the most satisfying. Use your brain. I lost my religion long ago. It felt good to let it go and it still feels good. I am not mad at god, nor my parents, nor my innocence in believing for all those years. If you want to have faith, have faith in your fellow man... just make sure you know a good lawyer

    September 6, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  21. livefromcstat

    There are better, more productive things to be done in our lives than arguing over religion. Just live life happy, be kind to everyone, and do your part to better the world. Doesn't matter how. I choose to follow Christ and his teachings, but what makes you happy you should do.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      As long as you keep your religion out of my government and don't abuse children by raising them using religious fundamentalism, I've got no problem with that.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • atDissenter

      That's usually said by people that benefit from the status quo.

      September 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  22. William

    Consciousness is separate from reality. A better understanding of ourselves and how we perceive reality(through reason) is what needs to be debated here. He is not an atheist CNN! Dawkins is agnostic.

    The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be. ~Leonard Peikoff

    So it would be fair to say that Dawkins is far worse than creationists.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      I'd like to see you call Dawkins an agnostic to his face. He'd crush you without having to copy/paste from Wikipedia.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
      • William

        You know, your right. Because you CAN NOT win against a straw-man argument like his. He is not the atheist-in-chief, he is a 6.9%'er. A man who hangs on to that .1% of Plato(mysticism). For such an intellectual, he should know that teaching people to reason should be the way to turn them from religion.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
  23. Hawkin' Dawkins?

    I don't think evolution is a controversial issue, I think Richard Dawkins and his boring, overblown, party-line atheism is the controversial issue. This guy reminds me of Joseph Goebbels. Nice 'objectivity' here, CNN. Why don't we call this the Fallacious Liz and Thom Show. Let's see - poisoning the well, straw man, ad hominem, begging the question, red herring, guilt-by-association - how many logical fallacies can we find here? This article is pure hyperbole!

    September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Do you ever read the Belief Blog? You would find plenty of evidence against your fallacious argument if you did!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • atDissenter

      You complain of ad hominem attacks after calling Dawkins a Nazi.

      Nice double standard there!

      September 7, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
  24. Daniel

    Very interesting comment by Dawking.

    I don’t think there’s a simple source of morality to which we turn.

    That includes Dawkins morality (or right or wrong about anything) also, Which means Dawkins deniying his own statement on morality. Basically he is saying mine is one of the source of morality also.

    Truth is exclusive and absolute , if it is not we are playing with words. Need to find what is the absolute truth. It may not just mean only we have to base on any religion but there are absolutes in truth and morality if there are not question your own question. The truth will set free not religion, in the name of religion people used, abused. I saw in the church not some where else, just because so called religious people are doing wrong thing doesn't negate the absolutes.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      I beg to differ (if I understand your broken English correctly). There are no absolutes in morality. For instance, murder is wrong EXCEPT when in self-defense, for example.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
  25. glenview0818

    Does God know about this guy?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
  26. eliezer

    I’ve read Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, and it left me totally stunned by the amateurish arguments that a renowned scientist presents to attack the morality of the Bible. Dr. Dawkins seems to be blinded by a visceral emotional drive to destroy religion. But his incomplete, distorted knowledge of the Bible which he attacks is no credit to his reputation.
    I would suggest he read my book, WORLDS IN COLLISION, printed on Amazon’s Kindle. It includes a refutation of his frivolous arguments. But there are many more that are not included.
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084HGSNO/

    September 6, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      spam

      September 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • 21k

      why would any thinking person waste their time reading the bible, especially if they know it is all made up crap? please find some other reason to knock him.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
  27. Vad

    And Nero laughed as Rome burned....Although Rome lasted a lot longer than we will.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
  28. Allen

    I think you are a fool if you think a "rock" can evolve into a human being. In order for an evolution of a species to happen there has to be a species first. How did that first strand of dna ever come into existence, and if somehow that were to have happened how was that developing life form finding nourishment? No, evolution explains nothing about life in the universe.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Nobody ever said a ROCK evolved into a life form, dolt! Rock not alive.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
      • Allen

        Very feeble thinking process. DNA somehow finds a way to form from rock, mud, dirt, water? You are going from an inorganic to organic. How did that happen? For the evolution to have happened there has to be a species first. For any species to even created it takes two strands of dna. Even virus need host dna to help replicate their own. NO anyone who understands how life forms, knows that while evolution may explain how humans came from bacteria it does not explain how life was created.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
      • 21k

        allen, if you were god, and wanted to make people, why would you then create some single-celled organism billions of years ago (or at least 6000 years ago, right?) and wait for us to show up? why not go right to people like the bible says, so they could start slaughtering each other right away (caine, or able, right?). don't try to mix the bible with reality , it just makes you sound more foolish. take one or the other.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        Assuming you believe in an eternal creator "god," there is likewise NO explanation for the cause for a "god" to exist, since as we know from science, every effect MUST HAVE A CAUSE. Therefore, "god" could not have just always existed! Don't just be satisfied to fill in the gaps with a "one size fits all" "god" pseudo-answer! Keep asking questions! That's what science does!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
      • Allen

        I am not arguing if there is a God or not. I am just pointing out that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic theory on how species even exist. I believe I have read somewhere that even Darwin became skeptical of his own theory.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
      • Allen

        21k I don't believe my post had any reference to God. Your post belies your bigotry.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • 21k

      organic chemistry, look it up. viruses continue to adapt ("evolve") as we speak.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
      • Allen

        Even a virus needs another host dna strand to replicate itself...Today, in the science field there is no established process whereas a protein can come into existence on its own. The catch 22 being that dna needs a protein to replicate and a protein needs dna to replicate. Until that is answered life could not have "evolved" from a mud puddle.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Just because you have few facts and little understanding does not make the thing you don't understand false.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
      • Allen

        That is true, but hanging your hat on Darwinian principle of evolution is no more feeble than creationism.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Allen

      The book "Darwin's Black Box" would explain it more than I can. It would explain the gap in biochemistry (as of today's science) that can not overcome biochemistry.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  29. Bobby Uppot

    "The Heavens declare the glory of God" says the Bible. I believe the Bible.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      why?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      A phrase concocted by ignorant people thousands of years ago. Yep, they must be right, especially since human knowledge has not been expanding exponentially ever since. Don't believe any new knowledge. It is all fake. Lightning and earthquakes are still acts of an angry "god" as they must have purpose and vengeance attached to them in order for them to make sense. RIGHT!

      September 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  30. MAUCH

    Very well done. They asked that atheist his opinion about religion and he told us his thoughts in an uncompromising yet courteous way. The only stridency that that one may imagine as occurring is that he criticized god. Well maybe it's about time that god get over it and stop being so thin skinned.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • Frank

      Interesting, easy to talk under grace.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
  31. Frank

    Christians know nothing? This from a man who proposes a THEORY as FACT!!!! EVEN Wikipedia says that it is "the THEORY of evolution". BOY he is soooo smart! WOW! Everyone rewrite the history books...Darwin thought and Dawkins bought it! STOP THE PRESSES!! THIS IS REAL NEWS CNN< WOOW!

    September 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
  32. Caihlyn

    Just a thought. Believing does not make what you believe exist...if what you believe does not exist. When all facts are laid bare, believing will not make what isn't there....there.

    To say this another way: The act of believing does not change the reality. If I were be believe my dog's fur is bright pink, and it really is tan...believing it to be bright pink will not make it bright pink. If the facts do not support my beliefs then my beliefs are wrong. Reality will always be what it is...regardless if there are people even in existence to believe anything at all.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • Frank

      Unless your color blind!

      September 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
      • Caihlyn

        The object in question would be the color it is regardless of what the person seeing it sees. A red flower will be a red flower, even if a color blind person is looking at it. The color of the light reflected off of the flower will be red. The inability of the person seeing the flower as a red flower, is due to a disability of the person's eyes, not a change in the color of the flower.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • Frank

      No one is sure of the colors we see. FACT!! Go read about it. Further, the point is that in your scenario there is NO authority but the ones involved in the debate. GOD is an authority. He is the ultimate standard by which everyone measures Good and Righteousness. MAN, what do you know about him?? He is a LIAR and a Thief! I though you as a women would understand that.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Frank, do you own a gun? One would hope not, 'cause you're sounding nuttier than a jar of Planters

        September 6, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
  33. 21k

    humans have been searching for our origins since they could think. having a deity as the maker of all things is handy, because it allows us to stop thinking for ourselves. the math is too hard for most people to try and comprehend evolution, which is really just another word for adaptation. religions were created to keep tribes under control:"better do what i say or the big guy will be mad!"; again, intellectual laziness. when i reflect on a god that the creationists say is responsible for everything, i think about why he would create hitler. oh yeah, the old free will argument: hitler's free will to murder millions was more important to god that the collective free will of those millions to live in peace. that tells me this god must be something that i would never want to spend eternity with. maybe heaven is really hell: you are stuck for eternity with a monster that would not stop the holocaust. no thanks, i'll take darwin and the big black void at the end.

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

      Yes, if you believe this theory as fact, you have stopped thinking indeed. IT IS A THEORYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      September 6, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
      • 21k

        francis, zeus brings up a good point. if you would stop believing in gravity for a moment, we would be rid of you. go ahead, give it a try, maybe about 5 minutes minimum.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • 21k

      just like all religions. i have never met ja-sus, so he does not exist.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Frank: Einstein's Relativity is JUST A THEORY. Are you saying it is not VALID? HUH?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Frank

      Theories are theories...facts are facts. Evolution is NOT GRAVITY!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
      • 21k

        ha-ha, you better bone up on your religous beliefs frank. most of your people say that if you can't see it , it is just a theory- so evolution is a theory because we did not witness it. well you can't see gravity can you frank, only it's effects. like the effects of evolution (adaptation) that are probably going on to cells, and bacteria right inside your own body.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        Frank: You need to learn some freakin' PHYSICS! Einstein's Theory of Relativity may fall short when we're talking about subatomic particles and such, but it unequivocally AFFIRMS Newton's Laws of Kinetics and applies to a HOST of scenarios so as to evince that it is MOST DEFINITELY FACT, even though it may just be a KEY to the "BIG PICTURE," which is what physics still strives to discover: the as-yet elusive Grand Universal Theory of Everything! Read, dumb @$$! And LEARN!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Frank, you have NO IDEA what a scientific theory is. Please go to your web browser and type "scientific theory" in and try to comprehend what you read, hard as that may be for you.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Frank

      THEORIES ARE THEORIES....FACTS ARE FACTS! You have not proved any theory as fact no matter how much you run your mouth and spout your fury. You are completely undone when it comes to grasping this FACT!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        What's long and hard on Frank?

        Grade three

        September 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  34. Bill

    Being an atheist, and preaching your beliefs to others, makes it nothing more than your own religion. Congratulations on your Catch-22, enjoy your faith!!

    September 6, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • 21k

      will do bill. if i have to call my non-belief in an imaginary deity "faith", i can live with it. sounds like it all cancels out grammatically anyway.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • Frank

        Except you have NO HOPE! You will be on your death bed at the current state your in and reach for something but have exactly what you hoped in today-NOTHING!

        September 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
      • 21k

        frankie, baby, i will have the comfort that i did not live a lie, like you do.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Frank

      You have still have NOTHING!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Frank

      Your deficient, broken (like the rest of us), and you will stand before a Holy JUDGE. You are under condemnation and condemned to an eternal death, dying without dying. A "sentence" that you are waiting to serve. You will die without HOPE without Jesus Christ. Know Christ...Know Hope! NO Christ, NO HOPE! Repent while you can!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Hey, Frankie – do you hire yourself out for Hallowe'en parties? Specializing in trying to scare people? Boooooooo!!!!!!!!! You will be judged by the throbbing Turnip of the heavens!!!!! Repent!!!!!! Woooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Get a life.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Frank

      All mouths will be stopped and every knee, INCLUDING YOURS, will bow and confess EXACTLY what I am saying one day just as God promised. You mock to your own demise as a fool headed off a steep clift.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        My knee will confess???? really??? Where in the bible does it have talking knees? Talking snakes – sure! But talking knees??? i missed that part!

        Overheard at Frank's Grade 8 graduation:
        Frank's teacher: So, frank, did you enjoy grade 8?
        frank: Yes, ma'am – the best 4 years of my life

        September 6, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
      • nojinx

        Praise Shiva!

        September 6, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
  35. dsss2320

    The Bible has already explain to us we human were created a little lower than the angels
    The beings we are trying to discover have been coming and going and still do. We have allowed
    The movies to determine how they look. Angles have appeared in human form for our comprehension
    So panic and fear would not overwhelm us, these messengers have been given there instructions from
    On high….they only execute them its all in the Bible..and it still goes on…Keep wasting money and time on rock samples its far more important to feed the hungry, care for the sick and teach people
    To be civilized.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Sure, dude. Just bury your head in the sand of your ancient text. Man's knowledge base has not been increasing exponentially over the milennia - it has remained static, in fact, it is exactly the same as when your ignorant, ancient goatherds in the Middle East wrote your biblical text on stone tablets. No need to keep asking any questions since all questions are already unequivocally answered by your gap-filling "god", right? HA HA HA!

      September 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • Frank

      Man you have buried your head in the sand. WAKE UP!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
  36. pakicetid

    Reblogged this on Pakicetid's .

    September 6, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  37. Jack Razo

    The article starts off with "...that evolution happened..." Dawkins argues that evolution is happening, it's an ongoing process. Just a correction that needs to be addressed to the writer Elizabeth Landau.

    Thank you,
    Jack

    September 6, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
  38. JGANUKEAPELSD

    Obama and Romney eat Baloney and you are what you eat! JGA Phillip Anthony Biondo for President 2012 of the Fraternity Party! Free College like k-12. Free Healthcare. All safe drugs over the counter. Evolution, big bang, god of Universe. Fraternity party: Lets all move to california and secede from the union. I'm suing the supreme court Apes for freedom of Religion, I suffer from severe depression because drugs, primarily thc, psilocybin, mescaline, lsd, and dmt are illegal, in fact I commited suicide. I work for God so don't tell me it's not freedom of religion.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  39. FoundTheTruth

    I am 57 years old. I have always struggled with the idea of God, if He is, what and why I believe. Recently, I came across an intriguing book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Norma L Geisler & Frank Turek. You are all welcome to your conclusions, I now know what I believe and why beyond a doubt.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  40. Mac

    Have been waiting years to hear him speak in person, finally get to do so in October in Berkeley. So damn excited! He is my hero on so many levels. Next on my list is Neil deGrass Tyson.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  41. pakicetid

    Give the guy credit, he made me leave my religion, ISLAM

    September 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Good to hear! I abandoned my Christian upbringing for reason and logic.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
      • Frank

        And you have become a complete? Boy, I'm convinced!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
  42. JGANUKEAPELSD

    Duh.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
  43. WhoIsTellingTheTruth

    if life is cheap as dawkins puts it, then why the talk? why not just let it be. why claim that others know nothing if all is nothing? why make something out of nothing? dawkins is a prophet of godless religion. do we just accept what he says with blind faith?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Do we just accept the religious freak's point of view, which requires a "god" that always existed? Who or what created your alleged "god" since every effect must have a cause, as proven by science?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
      • WhoIsTellingTheTruth

        never accept blindly whatever the sales pitch, and don't blindly believe the salesman because he is out to gain something. but then you ask yourself, what do i get if i buy and what do i loose if i don't. since you can't know it all, you will have to decide by lots of research but still, taking the final step in faith. sometimes that final faith really depends on your trust of the salesman, other times friends who found what you are looking for. yes, i agree completely with your stand against religion, but what are you for, and how are you going to get it? if you live according to dawkin's delusion, then there is really no point about a meaningful life and existence. what would one gain from dawkin's theory? on the other hand if one is facing the realities of life, one has no choice but to turn to faith and other living people of faith for help.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        Hmm...what do you gain from accepting that there is no "god" and no "eternal punishment"? FREEDOM! That doesn't mean that we abandon MORALS, since MORALS are merely products of human existence, of experience, of empathy. I am able to extrapolate and put myself in "another man's shoes," therefore I am able to understand that murder and theft are morally wrong (in most cases). No phony fairy tale religion is needed to teach those stories. Get over it!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
      • WhoIsTellingTheTruth

        You want freedom to believe what you want to believe, so do I; so there is really no getting over it, right? People who can’t stand religious freak who can’t stand people of differing views are really “very religious” people themselves. Dawkins can talk cheaply attacking God in America; try going to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

        I know it feels really wonderful if I can get away with anything I do. But is it really wonderful to not have punishment for other people who committed murders and injustices, especially people who harm you and your "loved" ones? Your morals will be deeply offended by it. So, for freedom to exist, each of us must have limited freedom. However, there is this absolute freedom : the one in the delusional ward, the one who freely believes he is god, the one who believes he is a dog, etc. The point is there is no absolute freedom. Freedom has its limits and consequences. Morals limit absolute freedom.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • pakicetid

      He is asking the exact opposite, he is asking you to accept the reality with knowledge. not by faith.
      and some one has to tell guys like me the reality, I was deprived of reality all my life, it is not allowed to think about this in my society, well see he made the difference.
      you mean to say if you know there is no god, just shut up and don't mess with any ones life and let then die in that slavish environment?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Frank

      HOLD THE CART MAN. ZEUS knows everything. He can prove it. STOP the Presses! Zeus has proved that there is NO God. Just like he proved theories as facts. HAHAHA!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Frank: I am just as unable to prove there isn't a "god" as you are to prove there isn't a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"! Grow up! If you can't observe something, why worry about it! At least EVOLUTION has EVIDENCE in its favor!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
  44. LouAZ

    Why isn't this in the Belief Blog ?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
  45. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    Religion, especially when viewed as history, teaches mankind that it used to know next to nothing and that its collective knowledge base has been growing over time. It teaches that once upon a time, primitive man was supersti-tious about natural events for which there was no obvious, elementary, non-scientific explanation - for instance, lightning strikes used to be viewed as "god" acting out in anger, presumably at something some man or woman had done. Then along came science, and causes for such events are now explained.

    Yet, unfortunately, religion still persists, because simpletons who follow such fairy tales have to believe in some gap-filling explanation for all the things that we still do not understand. Oh, well, "god must have done it." No matter how much we learn about cause after precursor cause, etc., there will apparently still be religious dolts adhering to supersti-tion.

    Maybe one day we, as a race, will be rid of this relic called religion. Then we can really start advancing! Just imagine! Do I hear a refrain from John Lennon?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • It's All Mythology

      There is nothing 'historical' about organized religion other than it has a history of thought control. Open your mind up just a little. Man created God.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      It's All Mythology: I think you misunderstand my point, sir or ma'am.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • WhoIsTellingTheTruth

      History is a type of lens that helps us look back with some clarity. But is what we “see” the whole story, part of a story or a distortion, given the limitations of historical records? So we all need to decide if history is telling the truth, part of the truth or a lie. Humans have committed atrocities in the name of religion but if you care to note, within that particular religion, there are people who stood up against such atrocities. So the problem is about a particular human who seeks to be god of that religion. Therefore, history records the acts of human beings and groups, who acted out their particular belief. We can learn a lot from history, and learn a lot more from a good history teacher. So who would you turn to? This is where religion comes back into play. The founders of religions can give us very good insights on what happened, where we come from and where we are going to. Whatever answers you get requires faith. We can either believe in “Dawkin’s Delusion” or find a living personal God who can help us, fix our past, walk with us today in our need and take us to a better place tomorrow and after we die. We can’t just imagine and live a life of hallucination, we need to practice our faith, whatever you believe.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Does the lens of history not allow you to see that we as a race once only knew how to communicate verbally, then "evolving" to a primitive written language on stone tablets, then on and on to mass-produced paper, then on and on to digital computers? This suggest that we once did NOT know how to communicate in any way whatsoever! What kind of a "monkey wrench" does that throw into your religious belief?

      If your "god" was so merciful, why did "he" not just give us the ability to communicate effectively in the first place?! Why did "HE" not communicate to US EFFECTIVELY in the first place?!?!?!?!?!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Frank

      Bologna! You think your the first one to spit in the wind of GOD (religion in your mind)! You think your the first infidel in history. Your pride is unfathomable and your arguments are archaic. You know as much as the first with no more than your experience to argue with.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Hey, Frank, when you said:"Your pride is unfathomable and your arguments are archaic" you left out the part about "Your mother was an 'amster, and your father smelled of elderberries! Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

        September 6, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Frank: Atheism is the DEFAULT position! A child has to be TAUGHT about any alleged "god"....an alleged "wizard behind the curtain" controlling everything.

      No one ever said "There is NO god" until someone first said "There is a god".....and in particular a "god" that allegedly punishes everyone that doesn't believe in him......needless to say WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
  46. PhD

    The theory of evolution has many holes that have not yet been explained. Experiments to construct organic molecules out of the primoridal soup were NOT repeatable. Additionally evolution has not yet explained the formation of the cellular plasma membrane. As a result it is not beyond reasonable science to fill in the holes with other testable ideas including God, panspermia or others.

    "Religion has nothing to teach us." How about humility, Dawkins? Shutting doors will inevitably keep us from finding the answers.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • It's All Mythology

      Man created God.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
      • PhD

        Still a testable hypothesis worthy of consideration, that may be completely true.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • pakicetid

      religion does not teach us humility (all the wars and fights and blood any one ?)
      it is humility and fear which creates religion
      it is always the other way around with religion.
      I respect your faith, but it is only a dialogue. don't mind please.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
      • PhD

        Even the best teachers don't get through to everyone.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      "other testable ideas including God," If there are testable proofs of the existence of god(s), why hasn't anyone ever proven there are gods? Or not.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
  47. dsss2320

    The fool says in his heart there is no God, Science is only discovering what God has already created
    and have become unthankful and prideful on the way, as He gives us a glimmer and revelation into
    Things that can better humanity we seek more on things and social behavior that can only destroy
    us, we have kept looking to Science for answers so He can be discredited but the more humans look
    to Science and Philosophy it points to the Creator “God”

    He is to great for our little weak minds, So let us humble ourselves and seek His face and worship him
    In thankfulness. You would never want to export this mess down here anywhere else so he has given us death, judgment and an eternal destiny prepare yourself to meet your maker. “You have a choice”
    Look beyond the flesh and experience a new revelation one that requires faith a step beyond reason
    And discover the one who came from a place we are trying to discover, yes and his name is Jesus Christ
    “He came to seek and to save all that are lost” all of us who are unable to find our way to God our creator He came to show us the way…Experience His Love, Grace, Mercy, Forgiveness and Reconciliation
    through the Gospel.

    Open the door to faith in your mind and Spirit and let the Savior in. We are not animals we have a soul.
    The Dog is still barking, the horse is not driving a car but we humans have come a long way by his grace
    In science and technology but our social behavior when it is not governed by His Spirit and Word has lead us to a Social demise. As we leave this temporal place we carry nothing but the relationship we have with Him……..Don’t Let The Devil trick you. The wages of Sin is Death…

    September 6, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • It's All Mythology

      Allakazam! Hocus Pocus! Abra Cadabra!

      You religious nuts crack me up.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Belief in certainty is not certainty, anymore than belief in leprechauns is leprechauns.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
  48. It's All Mythology

    Man created God. It really is that simple.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
  49. wigsnot

    Either intelligence created matter, or matter created intelligence.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  50. Jackie Treehorn

    I've always heard that science teaches us "how" but only religion can teach us "why." The problem is, I have yet to hear any religious answer to the "why" question aside from "God works in mysterious ways." That's the best that a million years of religion can do?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      A million years of religion? Man has not been around that long, and since man made religion..... Oh, you get the picture.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
  51. John

    Dawkins said that maybe aliens started life on earth in an interview with Ben Stein. What a clown

    September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      "Aliens" or "God," what's the difference? No one has ever seen, heard from, or otherwise witnessed either of these alleged enti-ties. What's your argument?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
      • pakicetid

        Well Said, you stole my words 🙂

        September 6, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • Frank

      In your opinion, Zeus! Jesus Christ himself revealed himself to man and proved his power and deity to all those willing to look with their eyes and see at that time. These witnesses then transferred this information to you and I through the Bible so that we could believe.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Hey, frank: Jesus walks into the Inn, puts a couple of spikes on the desk, asks the innkeeper: Can you put me up for the night?

        Ba dum bum!
        I'm here 'til Thursday – try the veal!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        Sure, frank....in word ONLY...as translated and edited by the opportunistic Roman Catholic Church.....through up to 3 different languages.......and not originally written down until many decades after the actual death of Jesus. Some "eye-witness" account, let me tell ya!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
  52. dawawa

    Why democrate has to put the "God" thing in the platform ?????

    September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
  53. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

    I hate it when stupid people transform meanings of words (including suffixes) into something absolutely irrelevant. Why is it fashionable to use "-aholic" instead of "addict", especially since the latter has fewer syllables and is therefore easier to enunciate? What the h&ll is a workaholic or chocaholic since there is no such thing as workahol or chocahol? Stupid humans! Why is it still called a steamroller when steam power was abandoned a long time ago?

    September 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
  54. pakicetid

    This guy is the reason I left Islam @ age of 32 , 2011 December.
    My life is so much better now. I might be of few Pakistanis in the world to do this, but it fees so good now.
    Free from chains and horrors of religion & Islam.
    I owe this to Mr. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in Part.
    Read his book once, it will change your life.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
  55. speakout77

    RICHARD. YOU'RE THE EMPTY CHAIR AT OXFORD. You can attack strawmen but wont debate William Craig at Oxford.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • Lilith

      How many debates does Dawkins need to have? He's done dozens.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
  56. Andy

    Explain the incestous Adam and Eve story...even the Catholic church stays clear of that fable.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
  57. Chris

    Religion is a crutch for the weak minded.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
  58. oldwhiteman

    I completely disagree with Dawkins if he says religion has nothing to teach us...it teaches us that religion is bad for humanity.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Nicely put

      September 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
  59. Andy

    Ignorance in a grand scale, we find ignorance also in the knowledge of geography, incredible for a "developed" country as the U.S.A.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
  60. Tyler Sprague

    "Science created man, man created God, God created illusion, illusion created war. "

    – Myself

    September 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
  61. William

    Richard Dawkins is a hack agnostic. Religion is like love, which the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy says, "to avoid it at all costs".

    September 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • William

      Use reason to keep our emotions in check.....that is what we can learn from religion.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
  62. Caihlyn

    What is the motivation for over 2000 people leaving comments here? Evidently Richard Dawkins is a troll magnet. He wrote a book, that many consider controversial or disconcerting; therefore many respond to his statements with a wide variety of comments. Humans love to argue and disagree and one-up each other...a hot topic like this gets attention.

    BUT, it makes no difference what he believes any more than what any of you commenting here believe. Believe anything you like. Don't believe anything at all if that suits you. We know, as Americans, that scientific literacy is low in America, so what. America will not lead the field in scientific advances, other countries will...as long as we are willing to accept that, this argument is a non-issue.

    As long as some people, in some country, value science and continue discovering the physical facts of the universe, humanity will reap the benefits of new knowledge.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      So ignorance, stupidity, and scientific illiteracy are just fine and dandy with you? Let's all just wallow in our own crapulence, as it were? I mean – if you look around the US, there is a lot of that, but should people aim higher?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
  63. Paul Martin Writer-Director

    My typing error folks I meant Dawkins.....of course the World is much older than 10,000 years ! And while we are at it the majority of American women, so I understand also believe in astrology and clairvoyancy...which makes gypsie fortune tellers and the likes...very happy and rich...lol !

    September 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
  64. James PDX

    Modern civilization all but eliminates the possibility of Darwinistic evolution. The weak are potected and allowed to reproduce while the smart understand the problems in life and with overpopulation and choose not to reproduce. I believe this is referred to as the beginning of an Idiocracy.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
  65. lu57

    Creacionism is a stupidity! There is no sense in believe in it! Science has proved that Darwinism is the most logical way to explain how we get at this time the way we are! There must be a limit between religion and science: we do not have time enough to discuss these things, we must to look forward and find out of space that our origin must be further thant we think. Life comes from outter space! The universe is plenty of life! Our planet is far older that we can imagine! Continue believing in creacionism is ignore technology, modern medicine, science!

    September 6, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • Ed

      A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

      With that said, freinds, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Stay blessed and Keep enjoying everyday life.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
  66. Paul Martin Writer-Director

    Hawkings is brilliant scientist ! HIs theories and findings are based on facts not fairy tales like religious doctrines manifested by humankind to brainwash and control the masses for thousands of years ! We should takje him very seriously because what he says does make SENSE !

    September 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • Angel

      And yet Scientists would have you think evolution is the end all be all of the argument when the science isn't even 100% and theories are unproven yet used as facts,how is that any different from 2 preachers,biblical scholars,Rabbis having a dispute on the meaning and understanding of scriptures?

      September 6, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        No, Angel, it's not the same thing at all. Evolution is extremely widely accepted by the vast, vast majority of the scientific community as the best current theory to explain species differentiation. creationism is a fairy tale.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
      • James PDX

        One difference is that we can continue to learn and gather more information that can support evolution. The same cannot be said for religion, especially when god chooses to stay aloof and hidden.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
  67. Angel

    “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” – Albert Einstein

    September 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • James PDX

      Einstein was an agnostic, in case you didn't know.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
  68. Sam

    Even if there is no God, I still prefer most of the masses believing that there is one to be scared of, and that there is a Heaven and Hell. Look what people do right now even though they have faith in some religion and some version of God.

    September 6, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      No, Sam, look at what people do because of, and in accordance with, and in furtherance of their religious beliefs. 9/11, for example – those hijackers were praying to their god for their missions to be a success, and their god came through for them with flying colours

      September 6, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
  69. Sam

    Most of the replies sound like they came from the Muslim fanatics in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Just change the words from Christianity to Islam and Jesus to Mohammad. You'll see what I mean. This is scary...

    September 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
  70. Walter

    I completely agree that religion is pointless. That's why people need to start relying on themselves – not a deity, nor a government. If you are too poor to support yourself, do not procreate! Neither God, nor your elected leaders are going to be able to feed and clothe your children.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
  71. Ed M

    Religion is the primary means to teach morality before one learns philosophy.

    Dawkins is silly.

    His belief in the NON-existence of a Deity is an unprovavble as the belief IN a Deity.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      One does not need religion to teach morality. In fact, many religions are highly immoral

      September 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
      • Ed M

        Historically, religions began teaching the basic moral values before any other method arose to question the meaning and development and destiny of the world and the worth and nature and scope of the humans in it.

        Since Xenophanes and Cratylus and Epictetus and other philosophers recorded their non-mythological analyses of the Cosmos and Life, a counter-method of discussing, debating and imparting morality became possible.

        Religion has a great value at the foundations of our species, and to overlook its dual power: 1) as a restraining and humbling force upon the rapacious id (our given animal/predatory nature) and 2) as a leavening effect that helped give us a sense of a "higher aspect" of human nature, is to scorn a lifeboat because it has a few leaks .

        With a subject that plumbs the Meaning of Everything you need to realize and admit its dangers and failings, but not dismiss its profundities and poetry and the fact that it is a primal streak in our Being and History.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        "the basic moral values"? And these would be . . . genocide? Slavery? Rape? Murder? Incest? Gays are inferior? Blacks are inferior? The infidel must die? Witches must be burned? Use of Condoms is a sin? Condoms cause AIDS?
        THAT morality??????? Are those the basic moral values?
        Morality arose as a result of increasing human social interactions – when humans started to realize that it was better for everyone in the group of they didn't kill randomly each other. You do not need religion to live a moral life.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • James PDX

      Agreed. False assertion. Religion does not make morality more palatable, especially since the holy books of most religions are rife with hypocritical immorality.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  72. Gail H

    Mr Dawkins, God has not taken great pains to hide away from us! The Creator of the universe, The I Am that I Am, Yahweh, God, has spent every day man has been on this earth taking pains to REVEAL himself to us. The entire Bible is the story of God's great love for us, His quest to fellowship with us, and His desire to have a relationship with us. Even after we rejected God and embraced sin, God loved us – His creation – so much that He would rather die for us than live without us, so He sent His son to save us. God is just waiting for us to seek Him....

    September 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Gail, what are these "great pains" your god is taking to reveal himself to us every day? If he's trying, he's bloody incompetent! And why did he have such an easy time directly revealing himself (if you believe the bible) 2000 years ago.

      Why doesn't he show up and raise a graveyard of the dead and make them whole and alive? Or take 100 amputees and regenerate their missing limbs. Easy stuff for god, right?

      Do you know why we aren't seeing that? Because there is no god.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • James PDX

      Gail, that's just a silly argument. How is he taking great pains to reveal himself when he could simply appear or just imbue us with knowledge of his existence? Not even a good try.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Gail, the only reason you see god is because you are delusional. That's what it's called when you see things that are not there and for which there is no evidence. Except that society makes an exception for religious delusions, you would be hospitalized.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
  73. sharky

    I believe in evolution, but Dawkins is just a massively huge Zealot and fanatic. He is an egotistical pompous git.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  74. hugh64

    Dawkins sinks himself with a single throwaway remark he made in an interview a couple of years ago in which he eloquently explained the immutability of the laws of physics as the single lifeline we have towards understanding the universe and its machinery, but then, in an aside, said "although why the laws of physics should be the laws of physics is unclear". I largely tend to follow him when he tilts at religion for its irrationality and contradictions, and I agree with him 100% about Darwinism, but in bashing the more obvious follies of organised religion he chooses easy targets and doesn't spend much time at all addressing the more philosophical questions relating to existence itself and how what is, is.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Because he's a scientist and not a philosopher; he deals in facts and not suppositions. You're not paying attention.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
  75. FedUpInSeattle

    As a conservative Atheist I found it very disappointing how hurtful and mean my fellow atheist can be.
    Whether it’s the hurtful auto sticker/emblem showing a creature eating the Ichthys symbol or more commonly known as the Jesus Fish symbol or Bill Nye proclaiming "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really," and goes on to claim that if you believe in God you will grow up ignorant and unable to achieve scientifically. I have heard every argument from fellow atheist of why it’s OK to be so mean to the Christian community and it always is the same answer. “Because Christians are so mean and hateful, so they deserve it” Well my parents are Catholics and they are very kind and giving people because of their religion. My daughter attends church with friends and has volunteered many times helping the poor. I have even given donations to her because I believe the help that is provided to the community and even kids in Africa through her church is very good. Do I attend church with her, NO, do we spend time debating who is right, NO! Even as an Atheist I do believe a man named Jesus existed, do I think he was sent from God, No but who am I to shove my beliefs down someone else’s throat? No one knows the truth. If some Christians are mean and hurtful to other religions and none-believers, then hopefully a good Christian reading this will help them see a kinder way.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • sharky

      A scientific friend of mine, that is highly intelligent, especially in the marine world, he is a bible thumper, does not believe in evolution, but does believe in adaptation. He was probably the nicest man I have ever met and did not try to impose any sort of religious belief on me at all.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Then how do you know that he's a "bible thumper", if he was keeping his religious views to himself?

        September 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      If you think Jesus was sent down to Earth by God, you're a Christian. You're not an atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
  76. Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

    Since no ID'ers wanted to respond on the previous page, I'm posting this again. Hellooooo???? Any ID'ers out there with the ba11s to respond?

    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 7:39 pm |
    • UtahProf

      I can answer your question. ID is nothing more than the same concept as the "Butterfly Effect" – in that, there is a starting point (a seed event) and then the rest unfolds naturally. ID deals more with the complexity of the system as a whole and not with a specific evolutionary track. You plant a seed in your garden – how quickly it grows, whether it bears fruit, how many leaves develop, etc, etc, etc is a process outside of your control but instead is dependent on a myriad of external (environmental) and internal (genetic) factors. Varieties can (and do) naturally mutate over time for a number of reasons including adaptation to the outside environment and genetic mutation. Of course, you planted the seed – and, if you were Monsanto (or perhaps God), you may have even genetically engineered the seed. Sorry if this is not smooth to read, have to run out and can't do an edit to clean it up. Peace.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        No, that's evolution, not ID. Evolution does not explain the origin of life (your seed event) but it does explain what happens once life is here. Intelligent Design claims that all life was designed by a Creator/Designer/other weaselly word for god. So, Utah Prof, I've gotta grade your reply with an F – you fail. Nice try tho.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • Ed

      A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

      With that said, freinds, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Ed, you make the basic logical mistake of confusing possibility with probability. Sure, anything is possible, as long as there is a one in an (infinity minus 1) chance of it happening or occurring. Probability is a measure of that possibility. You say that the ideas that god exists, or aliens exist, are not farfetched. "Not farfetched" means a relatively high probability. I think that wrong. Possible – of course. probable? No.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
      • Tom

        So you find it very probable and believe that life origniated spontaneously out of amino acids assemblages without any shred of genuine evidence and yet you find it farfetched or improbable to believe that a creator can be responsible for the creation of our world and imbuing it with life? Your position astounds my understanding.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
  77. phearis

    “If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”

    – Penn Jillette

    September 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • James PDX

      Good quote.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
  78. conrad

    well there is a reason to why the people of the world
    keep say Americans are stupid

    September 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  79. peick

    Just a few thoughts, and then I got weary reading this:

    "you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose"

    In this statement, Dawkins is sneaking in a sense of meaning. But how is there meaning if life arose by chance? Meaning to whom? By whom? Ironically, atheist evolutionists cannot quite seem to give up completely the idea of meaning. They betray themselves when they speak in an unguarded fashion. A clear thinker would understand that how and why are not the same thing.

    Next, Dawkins says "There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact." I hope others recognize how he controls the rules of the game. Dawkins reserves to himself the definition of "serious scientist" and then excludes those who disagree with him. Neat trick. I define the definitions and hope no one notices the sleight of hand.

    "What you cannot really logically do is to say...therefore Jesus is my lord and savior who died for my sins." Mr. Dawkins, is it possible for someone to come back from the dead? If you say no, then you have to have an explanation for what happened 2000 years ago. If you say yes, you will have to explain what rules of physics you rely on. If you say "we just haven't found them yet," then you are back to defining the definitions so you don't have to answer hard questions. The Christian belief rests on a space-time resurrection of someone publicly executed. Did it happen or not? If not, why were there so many witnesses who died claiming what they had seen?

    September 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "If you say no, then you have to have an explanation for what happened 2000 years ago."

      No.

      Fables and lies.

      Next.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      You asked: Mr. Dawkins, is it possible for someone to come back from the dead? If you say no, then you have to have an explanation for what happened 2000 years ago.

      Let's see – no, it's not possible. And NOTHING happened 2000 years ago that involved someone rising from the dead. it's a story. Do you not understand fiction?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • James PDX

      you really blew it with the come back from the dead bit. There is no proof that anyone came back from the dead 2000 years ago. Almost a good try.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
  80. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdBJL1c7xUI&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  81. Tom

    Dawkins thinks religion has nothing to teach us. Well, except unconditional love and humility. I'm certain he's an expert on both topics, though.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Tom, you do not need religion for either or both of those qualities to exist

      September 6, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Love does not come from religion, it cones from the emotions we evolved inside our brains. Everyone can love, we do not need religion to teach us anything about it.

      Neuro-Psychologists can explain it to you the physical mechanisms of love and evolutionary psychologists can explain to you how we evolved the feelings of love and what their purpose in nature was. And lastly Philosophers can discuss with you the logical meaning love can have for our personal lives.

      Faith means to believe in something for no good reason, it cannot teach us anything.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  82. Chump Change

    How about we all just let others believe what they want to believe and focus on our own lives, okay? That goes for everybody.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      If that was all that there was to it, fine. Unfortunately, a large number of believers are attempting to impose their religious and moral views on others, and are attempting to change the laws and governance of the country based on their religious beliefs.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
      • Chump Change

        Atheists are doing the same thing, so it's not just religious people doing it. How about, we keep religious AND secular education in private schools and/or colleges and universities, and let general education be in public school.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Chump, you are a moron! really and truly – an absolute twit. Do you know what the word "secular" means? Non-religious. So you want to keep the religious, and the non-religious education in private schools, and the rest in public? There is no rest, you moron! Take religious and non-religious, and there you have it – 100%

        September 6, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Ignorance is not a self contained phenomena, leaving it unchallenged is not an option; the cost in human suffering is too high.

      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 7:20 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Suppose someone said "I KNOW that water runs uphill."

      You'd just nod and say "That's nice", wouldn't you? You are a better man than I, my friend. I'm afraid I'd feel compelled to go with "Let's try it and see!".

      September 6, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
  83. enemyofdogma

    Why does this pretentious clown think that he's disproved God?

    September 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Why do you think he's a pretentious clown?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      He doesn't say that he has disproved God – he merely does not believe in god. If you're going to attack his viewpoint, at least be honest about it and properly set out his viewpoint properly.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • ScottCA

      He doesn't think that he has disproved god. He believes that he and all rational people have through logical examination of the world (called science) discovered that there is no need to evoke a god to explain anything at all.

      Everything in the natural world is explainable without a need for any god. Further there is no evidence for gods existence not one single shred of evidence.

      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 7:18 pm |
  84. Ed

    Mankind was born into the position of ignorance. As a result, during the course of his life, it is his duty to journey from ignorance to enlightenment; from darkness to light. But on that journey, he should always be aware of false knowledge which, masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Beware of pseudoscience.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Yes, pseudoscience such as Intelligent Design.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
  85. saeed

    the onylthing i have to say is white people think they now everything. you europeans should leave religion alone its from the middle east and we dont want to share it take your half breed jews home with you also.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      One hopes that you are simply a racist troll

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

      What ever became of the "Report Abuse" button?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  86. ScottCA

    The evidence in support of evolution.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
  87. 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.

    Most children out grow their belief in imaginary friends and fairy tales when they become adults.

    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 7:11 pm |
    • Ed

      Man was born into the position of ignorance. As a result, during the course of his life, it is his duty to journey from ignorance to knowledge; from darkness to enlightenment. But on that journey, he should always be aware of false knowledge which, masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Beware of pseudoscience.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • enemyofdogma

      Science has yet to prove that we are not more than the sum of our parts. Therefore believing in a higher consciousness cannot be rightly labeled insanity.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
      • Ed

        A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

        With that said, freinds, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance.

        September 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Ed

      Man was born into the position of ignorance. As a result, during the course of his life, it is his duty to journey from ignorance to knowledge; from darkness to enlightenment. But on that journey, he should always be aware of false knowledge which, masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
  88. AlienShark

    I have found that the verses of the Qur'an are surprisingly in agreement with science, more so than with any other spiritual scripture. I am a lover of science and I have studied many forms of spirituality and philosophies in my life. Anyway, if you are closed to the subject than I would not expect you to change your viewpoint and investigate further, but if you are open to learning and you like to investigate and make decisions for yourself instead of following blind dogma, than look into the scientific miracles of the Qur'an and measure them against what you know to be true of science. peace and best regards.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Could you please tell us what you consider to be the scientific miracles you referred to?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      "Scientific miracle" is an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp", "stale brownies", "Big Environment", "business ethics", and "Fox News".

      September 6, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        They've changed their name to "Faux News"

        September 6, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
  89. ScienceGeek -

    Fact: Dawkins is an old guy with a theory
    Fact : Dakins relegates man to animal status
    Fact: People who agree with Dawkins want to look cleverer than they really are
    Fact: GOD created the world and everything in it. COPE!

    September 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Fact you have not one single shred of evidence to support the existence of god.

      Dawkins has the support of volumes of evidence and the backing of every single reputable scientific body in the world.

      religion predicts nothing. Logic and rational examination of the natural world (otherwise known as science), predicts the natural world very well

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

      September 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Hypothesis: Self-proclaimed "ScienceGeek" wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • FifthApe

      ScienceGeek – you have no business calling yourself a 'ScienceGeek'.

      You are a science illiterate.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
  90. tonyl9973

    The 40 are probably Repubs.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  91. ScottCA

    Faith makes rational people insane.

    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 7:10 pm |
    • Quoting

      Faith is not blind acceptance, and faith is not an irrational embrace of uproven tradition.Faith is trust. Trust and belief that someone will hold true to their word. And trust is built on reputation. For instance, you might trust someone if they have a history of integrity, a track record of reliability, and an impeccable reputation of trustworthiness established over a long period of time. In such a case, it’s reasonable and rational to expect the person’s trustworthiness will continue.
      I have faith in Jesus Christ not because my ancestors did, and not because I cling to a false hope… It’s just the opposite. I have faith in Jesus Christ because I trust God. I trust Him to keep His Word.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Geez – it sounds like you're shilling for Toyota, going on about its impeccable reputation for quality. Unfortunately, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to prove the existence fo such a god, let alone how reliable this god is. You are delusional.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
      • Quoting

        Theirs no evidence for macro-evolution either, but I bet you think its a proven fact. The fact more science uncovers it points more toward a creator than some random chance.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Why don't you do a little reading about evolution – both micro and macro, talk to some real scientists, and then get back to us. idiot.

        September 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Yes, Quoting, we know that you religionists have been desperately trying for centuries to conflate faith with worthier methods of making decisions, but faith is NOT the same as trust. TRUST is what you place in people, usually people who've got some claim to it, like a track record, or a position of authority, or your parents. CONFIDENCE is what you place in things, almost invariably things that have been tested under similar circµmstances (like your car starting on a cold morning) and proved to work. FAITH, on the contrary, is belief in an idea that has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and frequently lots of evidence stacked against it. Don't try to muddy the waters by claiming undeserved credit for something faith is not and never was. It is now, and has always been, and always WILL be, the world-champion, gold-medal, all-time WORST method of arriving at decisions in human history.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
  92. Alex

    I would say it is very interesting to see where Dawkins is right. In fact he is right in many things. Since intelligence – being the capabillity of independent thinking – is in fact a brainfunction and this brainfunction as we know now is not even very old, this intelligence as we know cannot be the intelligence that created the universe. Some people start to say this becos now they can think this, but it is in fact a limited projection of conceited intelligence. About the whole of Dawkins work is within the arena of intelligence. That is the Arena of the moment we are now living in. So the science of Dawkins is in some way the expression of the time we live in. It is the expression of the time spirit. But this- time spirit – is something where Dawkins probably will not agree with me. The problem with Mr. Dawkins is that he makes evolution a mechanical proces, that is the consequence of living in his Arena. I do not object this as long as he is not the one who decide what and how my children have to learn at school since I do not wish my children to be educated as if they are mechanical phenomena. This doesnot mean children should not learn about evolution, but then they should learn the truth about evolution and the truth is not according to what Dawkins tells. Because that truth is far too limited to mechanical processes. The human is in his material existence the consequence of evolution. Becos so many specialities where there before the human entered the earth human could become as human did become. The evolution is more a kind of destillation process, where at the end we have the human as it is now and all the other phenomena specialised themself into being out of this process before the birth of humanity. This 'destillation' will continue. Our universe is no intelligent design, our universe is the partial expression of the Spirit. We cannot understand this by our brainbound intelligence, because this brainbound intelligence is partial in a partial expression. we can only 'understand' this when we will continue to evolve to become spiritual beings within pure awareness. With regard to religion I am convinced Dawkins is very right in a certain way. We have entered the time where religions as we have known for centuries will become or already are an anachronism. They are becoming or are outdated. Humanity will individualise to singular beings. The interhuman relations will now have to come from the inside of every human and not from the outside of a dogmatic dictating religion. When Dawlkins will die, there is no God outside him he could ask who HE is, because then he wil not be outside the immanent Spirit, as he is now living on earth enclosed in his arena of intelligence, but he will be inside, just like you can only see water when you are outside and cannot see this anymore when you are inside. To see the Spirit on earth one needs to develop spiritual awareness, one needs to spiritualise thinking, for this we have to live also outside the Arena of Dawkins.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  93. terri

    So the author is an atheist because he feels abandoned by God? Sounds like the cry of a lonely child. If the author wants to know why God is far away, he should read the Bible. Really, writing a thesis on a topic that one is ignorant of is a huge disconnect when that person proclaims himself to be an intellectual. And just like the gay crowd, his solution is: teach the children. No wonder the author foresees humanity becoming extinct...Children without hope are a problem. Adults without hope destroy societies.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • FifthApe

      "he should read the Bible."

      Hes read the bible. Reading the bible is the BEST way to become an Atheist. The bible is nothing buy myth, much of it evil to boot.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
  94. Jonam

    RIP Christopher Hitchens. Hopefully Dawkins can continue his teachings and inspiration!

    September 6, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
  95. Quoting

    Supposedly evolution 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 7:08 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      The probability of one person winning a lottery is exceedingly low. Are you saying that, therefore, no one has won the lottery? The life that exists today represents the lottery winers. The extinct species represent the non-winners.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
      • Quoting

        You would have to win the lottery 30 straight times

        September 6, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        What??? It's not the same animal that has been alive since the beginning of life! Do you have the foggiest idea of what evolution is?

        September 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      Let's consider an analogy to the card game known as bridge. It involves 4 players, and the entire deck of 52 cards is dealt out so that each of the 4 players holds a hand comprising 13 cards. Each of these cards has a suit (spades, hearts, diamonds, or clubs) and a value (2 thru 10, jack, queen, king, or ace). There are many, many possible combinations of 13 cards. And, since we know exactly the conditions under which these hands are generated, we don’t have to be content with just saying “many, many combinations” — we can figure it out precisely. And we have. There are exactly 635,013,559,600 possible bridge hands. You can look it up if you’d like.

      So you’re sitting at the bridge table, and they deal out all 4 hands, and you pick up your own hand and there it is: a freaking miracle! You’re holding a hand which consists of a combination of cards that has only 1 chance in 635,013,559,600 of happening by random chance.

      Furthermore, after expressing your astonishment at this amazing coincidence, your 3 fellow players chime in with their own wonder stories. It turns out that each and every one of them also holds a hand that can only occur 1 time out of 635,013,559,600. That means the chance of all 4 of you holding these amazing hands simultaneously is 635,013,559,600 times 635,013,559,600 times 635,013,559,600 times 635,013,559,600 to 1 against, a number so large that I can’t run it on my computer’s calculator, so I’ll content myself with just counting decimal places and say that the odds against this astounding occurrence are 10 to the 50th power (that’s a 1 followed by 50 zeroes) to 1.

      I can start boosting the amazement factor by having everybody lay down their hands and comparing them to each other, only to discover *gasp* that none of the hands includes even one card that shows up in somebody else’s hand. A little quick math will show that, in general, there’s only a 1.28% chance that any 2 bridge hands dealt at random will have no cards whatsoever in common. And yet here it’s happened not just once but 6 separate times. (Why 6 and not 4? Because there are 6 possible pairs of hands.) That’s 1.28% to the 6th power, or 0.0000000004%. Another tremendously unlikely coincidence, and one which increases the overall improbability of getting those 4 hands in the 1st place.

      Shocked at this miracle, the 4 of you take pictures for posterity, then realize that you can’t very well play that hand of bridge now that you’ve all seen each other’s cards, so you reshuffle the deck, redeal, and look at your new hands only to discover — beyond all possible doubt that miracles do happen — that once again all 4 of you have triumphed over the staggeringly large odds against holding the particular unique hands that you’re now staring at.

      I think you start to see how the game is played. And I don’t mean bridge. I mean what I will politely call the mind-diddling game.

      Any idiot can come along after something’s happened and point out zillions of factors that had to line up just exactly so for that particular thing to have occurred in that particular way to that particular person at that particular time.

      And yet, as you discover holding your hand of bridge, that sort of thing indeed happens so routinely that nobody pays a bit of attention to it at all. For there you sit, holding your miracle. And you’ll be doing it again in less than 5 minutes.

      The real miracle would be if you were able to predict the exact cards you’d be holding before the hands were dealt.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
      • UtahProf

        A very interesting concept. Let me sum up what you just said. "Science is not about explanation, it is about prediction"

        September 6, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • FifthApe

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

      Lets see the calculation. You make the claim, lets see it.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You poor dear. Please study population mathematics over a few billion years and get back to us when you understand it.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
  96. Seyedibar

    The only thing science can learn from religion is the psychological need for humans to invent imaginary beings to assuage their feelings of guilt and fear. Was religion nothing more than fiction meant to entertain or propaganda to control the masses or was it merely the largest example of shared delusion to ever exist. it surely did once serve an evolutionary purpose, perhaps for allowing a system of forced morality upon less civilised tribes. But I can definitely see the fruit of arguing that it has worn out its welcome and is no longer of any use in this modern age.

    September 6, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
  97. tb

    the weakest point in darwinism is that it doesn’t explain the creation of soul (if it can be created at all). what or who is it that is able to feel cold, heat, pain, to think, etc. can all our perceptions and mentality be reduced to some weird dance of molecules in our brain? maybe it is soul itself that “invented” the darwinian process in order to manifest and develop itself?

    September 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Why do you asume such a thing even exists?
      If we all have one it should be a simple matter to prove the soul exists.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      First, establish that a "soul" exists. What is it? What are its characteristics? Does it exist, or is our self-awareness simply a product of our electro-bio-chemical brains, that have reached such a level of complexity that we have become self-aware.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      First, establish that a "soul" exists. What is it? What are its characteristics? Does it exist, or is our self-awareness simply a product of our electro-bio-chemical brains, that have reached such a level of complexity that we have bec-ome self-aware.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      The creation of soul is wholly explained by Ella Fitzgerald.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  98. ltwrestler

    Reblogged this on Naturalistic Pantheist and commented:
    Great article from Dawkins regarding Atheism and Evolution

    September 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
  99. enemyofdogma

    Why does this pretentious clown act as if he's disproved God?

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

      He has never claimed to have disproven anything. Science has proven that god is not required to explain anything.
      Further there is no evidence to support the existence of god.

      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.

      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 7:09 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      You have approximately zero reading comprehension.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
  100. ameee

    it is of my opinion that Dawkins knows nothing. Who does he think he is "God"???

    September 6, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      It is of my opinions that words you about know little. Who thinketh self to be, Shagspeer? Why wist me thee?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • RichardSRussell

      It is of my opinions that words you about know little. Who thinketh self to be, Shagspere? Why wist me thee?

      September 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer