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. You bet

    No fool, like an old fool!

    September 7, 2012 at 7:44 am |
  2. popseal

    I choose joyful, evidential Christian faith over the nihilistic end game of the atheist's conclusion to things. "He shall hold them in derision and laugh at their calamity" says the God they spend so much effort to deny.

    September 7, 2012 at 7:35 am |
  3. Ron from New Jersey

    Evolution could only make sense if those that religiously support it, were not intentionally out to dispose of God.
    Darwin, Dawkins, and Nye all have a mission: to remove God and allow thier belief to shine through at any expense, even their own integrity. This will not work without pumping up evolution. Yet this so called "gene" coincides with the biblical source of sin from the fall or man. Keep talking Richard and thank you so much for supporting creationism, you are doing a splendid job.

    In Christ's Name.....Amen!!!

    September 7, 2012 at 7:20 am |
  4. Word Smith

    Meme seems Dawkins is playing the child's game of enie, minie, mo. Anything to avoid saying the word "God"
    Meme is Dawkins way of bringing God down to size. He would rather play with something too small to be found as with a Divine mind to great to be grasped. The very thought of a Creator implied a creature in debt to "his" Maker.
    Dawkins cannot abide by an intellect and power greater than his. To him "meme" is his out.

    September 7, 2012 at 7:12 am |
    • donna

      You don't seem to know what a meme is. It's not a way of bringing god into anything by any stretch. It's a bit of culture that gets passed on by living people. Like a tradition.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
  5. Jason

    Unlike religion, teaching evolution has no useful purpose. Dawkins is just hating on religion to sell a few books and make a few bucks.

    September 7, 2012 at 6:59 am |
    • donna

      He's already made his fame and fortune. He is doing this because he believes it's best for society. It's like when Chomsky reduced his time spent on linguistics to write about politics. Some of these academics have a bizarre sense of wanting to contribute to society...

      September 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
  6. floyd schrodinger

    Another voice that lights a light in the darkness of religion. Believe whatever religion you want but it's still not truth. That's why it's called a belief.

    September 7, 2012 at 6:43 am |
  7. James C Edgar

    The negative comments and other rejections are just what he was alluding to. It is such a shame that so many people are willing to blindly believe and follow something without ever researching it or knowing anything at all about it. For instance – Christianity. It is a duplicate of the religion Amun-Ra. The Bible; compiled by the Emperor Constantine because he was tired of all the bickering about whose old wives' tale organized religion should accept. Tales, by the way, that go back thousands of years. Oh well, when you are dead you are dead, so I guess it doesn't really matter. What is it Iris Diment said, "Let the mystery be."

    September 7, 2012 at 6:38 am |
  8. No one

    I disagree that it has NOthing to teach us. It teaches us what the lower limits of our species can reach. Although, I'm not sure why we would want to know that bit of information.

    September 7, 2012 at 5:31 am |
  9. Bleeding Violin

    Dawkins is just another religious nutbag.

    Think about this: He travels the world telling people that his perception of the world is the one true perception, but he can't offer any proof to back his claim. More than that, he wants to limit the freedoms and rights of people who believe differently than him, based on these proof-less theories. That's the very definition of religion.

    Personally I believe in evolution. As a force, evolution is an empirical fact, we've seen it in our own lifetimes, there is no way to deny it rationally. The problem is that evolutionary genesis; the theory that we evolved spontaneously from amino acids, has absolutely zero proof. Not only that, but the link between simple proteins (which we know can generate from amino acids with no biological help) and single celled organisms is more than a trillion (yes, trillion) times more complicated than the link between humans and bonobo apes (our closest DNA relative).

    So here comes Dawkins, rallying people and telling them that his narrow, primitive view of the universe is the only truth, meanwhile he has as much proof of his ‘truth’ as creationists do. That’s no different than Jehovah’s Witnesses telling you their 130odd year old religion is the only true Christianity. And it doesn’t stop at Dawkins either, he’s just been in the news a lot lately. The entire Atheist movement has been on this bandwagon recently and it’s honestly making proper scientists look bad.

    So I say “Dawkins? Shut up till you can get your facts straight and stop stirring up trouble.”

    September 7, 2012 at 5:22 am |
  10. Thomas

    Prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Man will totally distance him/herself from God our Father in Heaven. As much as I know that God is real, most want to engage in Group think. Wow. What kind of train wreck is humankind on?!
    Can't people see the corrupt world we live in? Satan is hard at work. This is really sad people. So all you unbelievers, you really think that all the planets are in order just by coincidence? Did you know that if the earth were off only a few degrees all of us on this planet would fry. But, no, a big bang THEORY, of which so too is the THEORY of evolution, has order out of unorganized matter. Give me a break.

    September 7, 2012 at 5:01 am |
    • shimmernrot

      Take a break. Really

      September 7, 2012 at 5:32 am |
  11. wes

    oh my goodness. just who is teaching people the world is only 10,000 years old? When you teach someone, tell the Truth!! or you end up like sara palin, who belives dinosoars and man walked to togeather and Would belive the earth is really flat, since she says she can see russia from her house?

    I on the otherhand Accept Science, I embrace Science. I am an athiest. I belive Life on earth started in the cambrian period, 542 Million years ago, from microbes from space, or from carbon getting struck by lightning and forming a lifeform. "I forget the exact phisical properties they said on the science channel" they explained it all out and then demonstrated how you create life, or play god for some people. That is what I belive In

    September 7, 2012 at 4:34 am |
    • Tom

      You believe that life came from microbes from space or through lightning striking carbon... Where's your evidence? Were you there when it was happening or did you see a single proof of it take place in a lab? Or has any scientist provided any shred of genuine evidence to support that position? You believe such a farfetched story about the genesis of life and yet you find it hard to believe that a devine or intelligent being could have created this world? Or have you passed your "thinking" over to false scientists who are driven in their experiments and observations by their own warped believes?

      The fact, friend, is that no matter what we do, none of us can ever know with certainty how our universe originated or how life began in it. Besides, we humans were born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to shed that ignorance and move from that position to enlightenment, from darkness to light, we should be very wary of false knowledge which has no more blinding power than ignorance.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Evolution = Religion

      wes – please don't claim others are ignorant when you display the penultimance of ignorance. While I don't support Gov Palin, I do support the truth. What you see on SNL is comedy, NOT truth (News Flash I'm sure). Gov Palin NEVER SAID she could see Russia from her back yard, that was the Tina Fey parody.
      If we are going to represent one side as true and the other as ludicrous (flat earthers) it needs to be based on scientific data. In this case there ISN'T ANY. There have been NO basic principles of science applied to justify the theory of evolution – zero observed events, zero successful experimental recreations. More miracles are required to sustain evolutionary belief than creationist.
      It is one religion vs. another. That is the truth.

      September 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  12. Brian Sarntee

    One religion on this planet is in total agreement with modern scientific knowledge, except for the belief that life exhibits evidence of very intelligent and purposeful design. Here's a link to an awesome scientific discussion of the facts:
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/18866

    September 7, 2012 at 4:18 am |
    • SickOfIt

      Disagreeing with evolution is like disagreeing with the speed of light. It isn't something you disagree with, it is something you don't understand. That doesn't make it any less correct.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:33 am |
      • Bleeding Violin

        Yah 'cause scientists know everything and they're never, ever wrong.

        September 7, 2012 at 7:16 am |
  13. JTLavery

    "You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose – and that means evolution." I agree with the statement but not with evolution. What man believes about his origin determines what he thinks about many things. Morality, theology, inalienable rights. The actual facts support a young earth creation theory more than they support the evolutionary model, but since it would mean indulging the "possibility" that there might be a God, the "intellectuals" and "acadamia" in general immediately squash the idea.

    September 7, 2012 at 4:01 am |
    • shimmernrot

      what "actual facts"? what in god's name are you on about? If you think evolution is still up for debate then you know nothing about evolution so please read up. Mankind doesn't need religion to contemplate morality, inalienable rights and, ironically, theology. He needs a rational thought process.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:24 am |
  14. fedupwithla

    Well, thanks for the enlightenment, Dick. Just like Nietzsche and all the deniers before you, denying a God only leads to social upheaval and political struggle – what we see now in this country. Why don't you leave your gospel to those who want to believe it, and leave others to try and live their lives by a good set of rules, tested generation after generation. Okay with you?

    September 7, 2012 at 3:24 am |
    • ScottCA

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

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

      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.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:27 am |
      • Bleeding Violin

        There’s a giant, gaping, massive hole in the proof/evidence argument: What the overwhelming majority the public thinks of as ‘scientific fact’ not only has no proof, but is only theory based on theory based on theory. If even one of the theories in the unbelievably massive theory ladder turn out to be false, the whole thing comes crashing down. So little of accepted scientific ‘fact’ is backed up by empirical evidence that It’s truly hilarious.

        A PERFECT example of this is the EM field. Scientists are having to re-structure everything they know about the EM field, what it does and how it affects us, because just last year they discovered that the sunward side of the EM field is completely open, as in nonexistent. According to everything science claimed was fact, we should all be dead right now. Do you realize that’s an ENTIRE SECTION of atmospheric and geological science that turned out to be completely bunk?

        When you think about it, what CAN you prove? Really think about it. The overly vast majority of our world exists in a state than can only be accepted as self evident, yet you don't dis-believe in these things. You only want proof when something challenges your pre-existing world view. You need proof that Santa Claus exists, otherwise belief in him is labeled as silly, yet you accept as self evident that 'The Big Bang' is true based on the simple principle that it already fits comfortably in your mind because that’s what you were taught as a child.

        Would it surprise you to know that there actually IS more scientific evidence that an omnipotent creator being created man fully formed than there is that we all evolved from a primordial soup?

        Would it surprise you to learn that 'The Big Bang Theory' was dis proven less than 10 years after it was first postulated, but in actuality it is still taught in schools and accepted as fact because the Catholic Church CANONIZED it as being consistent with biblical teachings? Sure there is an updated Big Bang Theory model that works just fine, but that’s not the model they teach in schools.

        Or that the entire fact structure surrounding astrophysics is based on an outdated mathematical formula that describes how wavelengths work, even though we’ve never actually observed wavelengths or even particles of any kind outside our own biosphere? Science literally has no idea how light, radiation or gravity react outside our own solar system, they just assume the entirety of the observable universe behaves exactly as it does within the confines of the Moon’s orbit. That’s like assuming that the entire planet is just like the underside of your kitchen table because you haven’t looked outside your door.

        The idea that to believe in anything without evidence is insanity is rhetorical backwards logic that only proves that you either don't understand the nature proof, and by extension science, or don't care enough about it and are just too lazy to examine your own beliefs.

        September 7, 2012 at 7:39 am |
  15. Walter Weinzinger

    Fool.

    September 7, 2012 at 3:22 am |
    • ScottCA

      Walter Weinzinger, I know you are but what am I?

      I understand your lack of understanding of grade school science, from your comment you are still 6 yrs old in mental age.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:25 am |
  16. Markus

    There is no excuse for worshiping a man. None. You howl into a black sky. You smile when good comes to you while millions starve and rot. You love fictional characters more than real people. Soon you will be in fire – nuclear fire. Good. Maybe persons, with thoughts in their heads, may endure. Bomb and burn each other to oblivion, incurable idiots. Die, unperson. Join your god in non-existence.

    September 7, 2012 at 3:15 am |
  17. Michael Vick©™

    Bible has taught us that Christianity is the truth and we must drive the arabs off Jerusalem. Bible has taught us we must win the crusade.

    September 7, 2012 at 3:14 am |
    • ScottCA

      The bible is BS written for political and Economic gains. The bible was used to manipulate and control people throughout history for the goals of very specific people.
      It is amazing what you can learn when you study history.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 3:20 am |
    • ScottCA

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 3:23 am |
  18. ScottCA

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

    September 7, 2012 at 2:49 am |
    • ScottCA

      All people of logic, reason, and good consciousness, keep up the battle against religious ignorance. There is no greater good that we can do but leave our children a more sane, rational, and moral world to inherit.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:16 am |
  19. ScottCA

    Seth Macfarlane about atheism
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3pExZs9IJA&w=640&h=390]

    September 7, 2012 at 2:41 am |
  20. ScottCA

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

    September 7, 2012 at 2:38 am |
  21. ScottCA

    On Atheist
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYwrgHONSc&w=640&h=390]

    September 7, 2012 at 2:26 am |
  22. Jack

    meme? anyone who uses that word is just a momo.

    September 7, 2012 at 2:25 am |
    • ScottCA

      Daniel dennet one of the most reknown philosophers is not a moron. Harvard Psychologist Steven Pinker is not a moron.
      Both use the word meme.

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

      September 7, 2012 at 2:28 am |
    • ScottCA

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6zCKlgGOwQ&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 2:29 am |
    • ScottCA

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07t-bXL7k2k&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 2:31 am |
  23. belikejesus

    Bitter old man. Where did he come from? Where did this "initial energy" come from"? It has a Creator.

    September 7, 2012 at 2:22 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Check out Lawrence Krauss and M-theory. The theory that something can come from "nothing" from a mass/energy perspective has already been pretty much scientifically proven.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:30 am |
    • ScottCA

      Steven Hawking explaining how something comes from nothing.
      "Maybe we should patent the universe and charge everyone royalties for their existence."
      Science can explain the origin of the universe and has. There is no need for a god to be involved at all.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 2:36 am |
  24. Luke

    It's interesting that every major scientist in history was religious. From Galileo Gallilei to Darwin, from Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein, and many, many more were deeply religious man. All believed in God and were the founders of modern science. However, modern scientists, like this wanna-be, suddenly think that science now excludes God.

    Whatever you think you know, the greatest man of Science in human history disagree with you !!!

    September 7, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • ScottCA

      You claim is false and an open lie.. you are clearly not educated in regards to these scientists.
      Einstein was completely opposed to a personal god he spoke of Sponoiza's god a concept referring to the processes and laws that dictate the evolution of the universe. Darwin was agnostic as well. The vast majority of scientists have been and are agnostic or atheist. With increased intelligence religious belief especially in faith based religions, drops off sharply.

      Anyone who fails to understand evolution one of the basic cornerstones of science, clearly is not worth speaking to in regards to any facts, because you have shown you have no idea how to determine what is real from your denial of science

      .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 7, 2012 at 2:21 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Darwin was an avowed agnostic until the moment of his death. The other "deeply religious" people you're talking about had tremendous schisms with the church, except for Einstein, but only because he was Jewish and blossomed in the 19th century which was a more enlightened age than that of Newton and Galileo and was able to espouse his own form of pantheistic deism without fear of heresy charges. Einstein thoroughly rejected the Judeo-Christian god.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:26 am |
  25. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKqqGX0DEMM&w=640&h=390]

    September 7, 2012 at 1:55 am |
  26. ScottCA

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

    September 7, 2012 at 1:49 am |
  27. Richard

    The " Fool ' Says There Is No God / Creator. The Entire Universe Is Declaring, Intelligent Design...Only An Empty Soul, Could Believe Such A Delusion of Emptiness...You Need An Open Heart, To See The Beauty and Wonder of CREATION!

    September 7, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • shimmernrot

      Ok dear, whatever makes you happy

      September 7, 2012 at 2:02 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      That quote from Psalms is a mistranslation. In that particular Psalm, a better translation would have been "immoral" or "moral fool."

      That statement is in itself foolish (usual meaning) in that atheists don't have much in common with each other at all except in their refusal to deviate from the null hypothesis absent reason.

      Finally, Stop Capitalizing Everything When You Post. It Looks Very Silly.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:09 am |
    • ScottCA

      To proclaim the existence of god without any evidence is immoral and disgusting.

      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 7, 2012 at 2:15 am |
  28. ScottCA

    Of course rational arguments don't work on the religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people." – House
    Well said house. Well said.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwhqhqBtbo&w=640&h=390]

    September 7, 2012 at 1:45 am |
  29. polycarp pio

    This fellow is the ultimate athestic snob, Mr Dawkins you have nothing to teach me. PP

    September 7, 2012 at 1:44 am |
  30. In Great

    Please, can an atheist explain to me the origins of the universe.. I love the Big Bang Theory except for one thing- That elementary particle which began the Big Bang–How did it get there? Was it "poof" and it appeared magically? Someone please explain to me in simple terms. Thank you!

    September 7, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Check out Lawrence Krauss and M-theory. It's a bit obtuse at first, but once you get through some of the tougher math, it has an elegant logic to it.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:50 am |
      • In Great

        Thank you I am looking at Kraus's theory. But I thought spontaneous generation has been discarded years ago as folly?

        September 7, 2012 at 1:56 am |
  31. ScottCA

    There are far more atheists out there in the world than anyone predicts. We just have a bad habit of not making ourselves known. We need to start speaking out in public.

    September 7, 2012 at 1:37 am |
  32. Jesus with an H

    The irony of christians arguing against science via internet is not wasted on me.

    September 7, 2012 at 1:31 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      I've tried that logic on them and they don't find it at all funny like we do.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:33 am |
  33. Angie

    I have read that in his final days Darwin avidly read his Bible, and he accepted Jesus as his Savior. He couldn't believe how people had made out of his writings a religion. Very few people know about this.

    September 7, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • ScottCA

      Then you clearly read lies. Darwin called himself agnostic to his death.
      Few people know about what you say, because its made up lies.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:30 am |
      • polycarp pio

        Why didnt you tell us you were personally aquainted with Mr Darwin, since you know so much about him, Oh I see you read it in a book and that book was written by a man, so it must be fact, but the bible is fiction. Get a life sir, your hypocrisy stinks like macro evolution. PP

        September 7, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      In a note written less than 3 years before his death, he reaffirmed his resolute agnosticism. All viewpoints to the contrary have been debunked. Nice try rewriting history with your own agenda.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:31 am |
  34. Gazelle

    Dawkins has a right to his opinion. But the way he likes to impose his views on other people offers a hint that he can be an extremist atheist at times. Live and let live peeps. If you're an atheist, good for you. If you're not, good for you too. Live and let live!

    September 7, 2012 at 1:22 am |
  35. Rahul

    Nice arguments !

    Even if there is a god, he/she has given us a brain and a heart. Follow these gifts of god and not some stupid book written thousands of years before by comparatively dumber ancestors !

    Human beings unlike any other species has been able to preserve and pass-on knowledge and hence,on an average,the next generation is always more aware and smarter than the current. Given this, it is sheer stupidity to blindly follow somebody's teachings who lived 1000s of years ago !!

    September 7, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Given by which god?

      (I'm pleased that you're questioning the validity of the bible, I'm just suggesting you take the next logical step and become areligious.)

      September 7, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • ScottCA

      All it takes to become an atheist is to realize that god is not necessary to explain anything. In fact evoking god just compounds the question making it more difficult to answer.

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

      From here Occam's Razor leads to the logical conclusion

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

      September 7, 2012 at 1:35 am |
      • In Great

        See, that's what's so weird. I used Occam's Razor and came up with the answer that there is a God and God is from everlasting to everlasting and just about everything else is finite

        September 7, 2012 at 1:51 am |
  36. Chris

    There certainly are a lot of LONG comments here. I'll keep it short. Q: How do you get something from nothing? A: It's easy when something IS nothing. Think about it. And if you need a clue, Google "Max Tegmark", and "John von Neumann".

    September 7, 2012 at 1:00 am |
    • ScottCA

      Sir, I present your answer. Steven Hawking explaining how we have a working theory for something from nothing.
      "Maybe we should patent the universe and charge everyone royalties." – Steven Hawking
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • ScottCA

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

      September 7, 2012 at 1:07 am |
  37. ScottCA

    This ignorance regarding evolution is a damning critique of the American education system that has completely failed to educate over 40% of its students in even the basics of science and critical thought.

    America should be thankful that our British friends have stepped in to help rescue us from our own ignorance.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:59 am |
  38. Daaang

    I just saw a fish come out of the ocean and start walking and next thing you know dude is talking on his iPhone.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:59 am |
  39. supafly88

    There is Buddha !!!

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luaujreUYsw&w=420&h=315]

    September 7, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • nojinx

      Shiva rising!

      September 7, 2012 at 12:51 am |
    • ScottCA

      Buddhism is a less dangerous religion because the faith component is very limited, Buddhism is more philosophically based and encourages people to rationally determine reality and make decisions based in logic and examination of the world.

      Non Faith based religions that could be better called philosophies are not a problem for the world and can be very good things.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:53 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Dawkins has repeatedly said that "he doesn't see the point in philosophy" (unless it's Daniel C. Dennet of course).
        I used to be catholic until things collapsed for me about 20 years ago.
        My own theory is "philosophical" too:
        "The existential purpose of Being is Care".
        We are because we care... we are "to care".
        And I'm very happy with that... I'm happy to care. I love life and the people in it.
        My biochemistry might be able to run around on autopilot.
        But that doesn't change that I'm here and I care.
        Daniel C. Dennet can tell his cynical stories about how stupid, mechanical and predictable people are to his sheeple. What can I do if they don't get it and think they're smarter for their blindness?
        :/

        September 7, 2012 at 1:03 am |
      • ScottCA

        lolCAT2000, Dawkins has said he has no problem with people have a personal philosophy. and he has talked about higher less dangerous forms of religion that are more like personal philosophies about creation that many intelligent people form on their own.

        Your comment is clearly untrue. Philosophy as in an examination of logic and the world, are in keeping with Dawkins view, hence Daniel Dennet one of the worlds most respected philosophiers is a friend of Dawkins, and they share many of the same ideas.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:13 am |
      • ScottCA

        lolCAT2000
        you are reduced to trying to deny all of reality to support your irrational belief in a god for which you have no evidence of existing. How can you not realize your belief is utter insanity.

        If you doubt reality then you should be able to step off the roof of a building without dying, but you won't because you know just like everyone else from evidence, that the building is there and you will fall to your death.

        Your consciousness is rooted to a material body, material drugs having material effects on you brain can change your behavior your personality, and your conscious experience. A cut to the right part of your brain can remove your control over your emotions, remove portions of your visual field such as that you can only see the left hand of everything, and if anything disturbs the neural circuitry maintaining the 3 second loop in your neurons that is called the remembered present and your consciousness blink out of existence. If you doubt your brain is producing your consciousness then you should not be opposed to undergoing a full frontal laboratory that will leave you dolling in a chair with no motivation to do anything.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:23 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Here's the direct quote
        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ&w=640&h=390]

        September 7, 2012 at 1:40 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Step off the roof? Why would I do something that stupid?
        I have no problem whatsoever in combining science and philosophy religion.
        However, I have a problem that science so often disregards moral considerations.
        Take lab animals for example: Can you believe all the terrible things they do to these animals just for the purpose of increasing knowledge?
        It's incredible... but who is going to stop them... ethics commissions certainly don't have any sway when it comes to commercial interests.
        Scientists have again and again found no essential difference between a human being and a starbucks paper cup.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:50 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Do not defame the great and powerful Mithra!

      September 7, 2012 at 12:54 am |
  40. supafly88

    If God ever reveal himself to people on Earth...everybody won't enjoy and act the same way as before because the world will become religious. All sinners, murderers, and criminals will follow God. That the reason God reveal himself unless your great faith in God. If you don't believe in God...then go here and realize there is God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luaujreUYsw

    September 7, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • ScottCA

      as long as you are saying there could be a god, or maybe there is a god, or if there is a god, you are acting rationally and sanely. But the moment you say there is a god, without any evidence to prove this, then you are a complete lunatic, and behaving insanely.

      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.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Your video is as insipid as it is logcally fallacious.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • ScottCA

      Sir how did you manage to fail at posting a video? I mean there really should be no way to fail at this, it was designed to be idiot proof.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:56 am |
  41. emmanuel o. salomon

    I need a scientific fact not theory that human evolve or what Mr. Dawkins belief of evolution. Big bang? Show me on your scientific test if big bang occurs(remember now NO theory). The facts from a test where human came from the beggining or shall I call it genesis of all things.....One way or another Mr. Dawkins before you die I assure you, you will be thinking what will happen to you.... Even Darwin change his mind before he died.... people like you Mr. Dawkins would not listen but believed on his theory..... prove it to me on scietific test that human came from evolution..... and I will believe you.........................

    September 7, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Your science education was obviously terrible. Also, your period key is stuck.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • nojinx

      By definition, science can only provide theories. Science cannot provide facts. The scientific method makes science mutable by design and for good reason.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • ScottCA

      Sir, your comment is both imbecilic and ignorant. There is nothing higher in science than theory, the stages are Hypothesis, then theory, then accepted theory. There is nothing higher than an accepted theory. evolution is as much science fact as that the earth is round and the earth circles the sun. Gravity is an accepted theory,. There is nothing in science higher than an accepted theory. Evolution is an accepted theory accepted by every reputable scientific body. This is as close as anything comes to Fact as science ever gets.

      You suffer from a common misunderstanding of what theory means in science.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:45 am |
  42. daniel

    I'm completely respectful to people who don't hold my beliefs but why is it that a number of atheist thinkers in the public spectrum are so incredibly mean spirited?

    September 7, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      You should see some of the comments from the religious here. It'd freak you out.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:46 am |
  43. lolCAT2000

    Religion has NOTHING to teach me...
    I totally know how to make noodles with tomato sauce!
    🙂

    September 7, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • ScottCA

      Faith means to believe in something for no good reason, thus it cannot tell us anything about what we should do or ought to do, both of these require reasons and logic.

      Faith based religion has nothing to offer us, because there is no evidence for the existence of god. Studying faith based religion is like studying the 6ft tall green monster in my closet that also has no evidence of it existing, we learn nothing from it, and it is an act of insanity.

      There are other types of religion that are not faith based, these are more a form of philosophy and these are not dangerous.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:39 am |
      • daniel

        Great sense of humor you have there...

        September 7, 2012 at 12:40 am |
  44. jago

    Dr. Dawkins says that when he dies, he will ask God "why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?" I have an answer for him now, which I hope he gives serious consideration.

    Gravity is provable. It is a scientific fact. It can be measured and used reliably. We have no reasonable choice but to believe in gravity because not believing in it can result in negative consequences.

    Faith is a choice. Faith is the act of choosing to believe something based on evidence that one encounters. Faith is also the foundation of relationship. God wants us to choose to believe in Him. If God proved himself, we would no longer have a choice in the matter.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • nojinx

      Wait, we need evidence to have faith, but god cannot give evidence because he cannot prove himself? Or is it evidence of soemthing other than god?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • lolCAT2000

      I agree with Dawkins on that one, it would be better if God would be a little clearer with us than those cryptic lines of the bible that have been reinterpreted so many times already.
      But where Dawkins goes wrong for me is that what happens right now is filled with the most incredible and unexplained wonders and all these "scientific discoveries" so far seem to me like nothing but distractions.
      Handy for sure when we want to get things done. But distracting from the existential miracle of life.
      Dude... Dawkins just needs to look right there... I mean, right here!
      What's going on with him... why doesn't he get it? Stuck in a method.. ?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:37 am |
      • nojinx

        "But distracting from the existential miracle of life. Dude... Dawkins just needs to look right there... I mean, right here! What's going on with him... why doesn't he get it?"

        I do not understand what you are talking about. Are you saying Dawkins does not live life? or observe it? I not clear on what you mean.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Philip K. Dick was once asked, "what is reality?" He replied, "Reality is that which, when we stop believing in it, does not go away."

      Not believing in gravity doesn't have any consequences except, possibly, for the extraordinarly stupid who, believing that they could fly if they just wished for it hard enough, proceed to jump off of a cliff. Understanding the consequences of gravitational pull has nothing whatsoever to do with belief.

      Also, "faith" or "belief," which, by the way, are synonymous, has nothing to do with evidence. In fact, faith is characterized by the complete lack of evidence. If you have proof positive that something is a fact, then no faith is required. So, decide. Do you have evidence of God or not? If you do, then you don't need faith, do you?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:40 am |
  45. John

    Mr. Dawkins needs to brush up on his Nietzsche and Heidegger. He's become a bit of a preachy secularist for the masses.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  46. ScottCA

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

    September 7, 2012 at 12:19 am |
  47. Klaas Jan

    I agree, even sympathize with the man, but part of what makes his message so off-putting is the sheer pretentiousness that each statement he makes contains. It's hard to read, honestly. He even claimed to coin the term "meme" fercrissakes

    September 7, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • ScottCA

      He speaks like every other professor does, in a logical and rational manner. He also shows great kindness and moral decency.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Uh... he did kind of do that. The definition of "meme" has strayed a bit from his original sociological intention, but he did actually coin the term.

      Also, he's admittedly a little creepy and condescending. Someday we humanists will have our Barack Obama. Until then, we have to make due with what we've got, which is this guy, Hitchens and, to a lesser extent, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Nothing's perfect, right?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:20 am |
  48. MOSHE

    _

    -------

    ----------

    MEDIA RELEASE:
    JERUSALEM, ISRAEL
    ---------–
    B"H
    MEDIA RELEASE:
    JERUSALEM, ISRAEL

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947by3X6_RU&w=640&h=390]

    September 7, 2012 at 12:12 am |
  49. Maine liberal

    creation was a single event, everything after is evolution

    On 22 October 1996, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II said of evolution that "this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory." The Pope qualified this by noting that, "rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution." Some of these theories, he noted, have a purely materialistic philosophical underpinning which is not compatible with the Catholic faith: "Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man".[71][72][73][74]

    Although generally accepting the theory of evolution, John Paul II made one major exception – the human soul. "If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God".[71][73][74]

    September 7, 2012 at 12:10 am |
  50. sholiera

    First, he has the right to be atheist. But that does not give him the right to mock christianity. Second, he will meet God. and he will not ask Jesus Christ one single question, not one. Even if he will try, they will get stock in his throat because he will absolutely with no doubt know that he stands before the creator of the universe and himself, ready to give us all what we chose in life. Those where some big words from this guy that a respectful person would not let his mouth speak.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      In a free society, we have the right to ridicule whatever we want, epecially things that are ridiculous like religious fundamentalism.

      Perhaps you'd rather live in a barbaric, third-world theocracy like Iran where people don't have that right. Move there. See how well they treat Christians and then try talk about the right to criticize anything. Then get thrown in jail for the rest of your life. Have fun in your apparent version of utopia.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:10 am |
  51. MK54

    All objective evidence leads to the conclusion that Dawkins is right, but the overwhelming majority of the people in the world would disagree with him. Some would put him to the sword for his lack of faith, if they could. He is brave to so prominently take such an unpopular position.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:00 am |
  52. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01r1Tz4k3m8&w=640&h=390]
    Dawkins is a very nice kind and polite human being with excellent morals.
    He is a scientist looking for truth and only the truth deduced from evidence as a logical person should.

    Dawkins has never said there is no god, he has only said that there is no evidence of a god and it appears very unlikely that there is a god. About as likely as there being a tooth fairy. Richard Dawkins is a very good rational man.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • lolCAT2000

      Dawkins puts the "no God" hypothesis into the beginning of his theory and gets it out at the end.
      The question he should try to answer is: What does he think "he" is, and how is it he is not me and I am not him, in a world in which there evidently is no reason for anything really.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
      • ScottCA

        The null hypothesis is the starting point for rational examination of the natural world. This is how sane people come to understand what is real or not real.

        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.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:05 am |
      • WhoIsTellingTheTruth

        let's put this in practice.. you think there is no car, so you turn the bend. then comes a car and there is a head on collision. all faith & believe have consequenses. have you try going to a "god-forsaken" place? we are speaking the comfort of a society that was build by people who believed in God.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:16 am |
      • nojinx

        "...in a world in which there evidently is no reason for anything really."

        What does that even mean? Surely you are not suggesting this is a position of Dawkins of non-theists?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:06 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @nojinx
        let's rewind: What is the reason for the existence of the universe again please?
        And if there is no reason behind it, how can anything within it have any purpose?
        And what do you think is the purpose of you having to pay that parking ticket again?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:11 am |
      • nojinx

        You will need to define your usage of "reason" and "purpose" before I can answer that. Do you meant intention? Do you mean significance? Do you mean cause?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:14 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @ScottCA
        The thing that doesn't exist is you... I definitely can't see you in any way.
        You are apparently a biochemical process with pretty intricate mechanisms, and you are making sounds when I step on your foot... interesting!
        Nope... definitely nothing there. Sorry.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:14 am |
    • ScottCA

      Word games and semantic tricks, this is what every religious argument is reduced to, an attempt to deny reality of that we can tell anything about the natural world, but not one of you will step off the side of a bridge because you know reality is there and you will fall to your death, because you have seen the evidence for it.

      Our brains are fantastic at detecting and deducing what exists in the natural world, this is why you do not end up eating rocks when you reach for an apple. You always rationally determine which is the rock and which is the apple.

      To protect your delusions of a good for which you have no evidence, you have to descend into insanity and claim that nothing at all can be known. If that is true then step off the top of a building, because you can not deduce from evidence that you will fall to your death, because as you claim nothing can be known about reality. your arguments are completely fallacious.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:24 am |
      • ScottCA

        typo correction:
        To protect your delusions of a god for which you have no evidence, you have to descend into insanity and claim that nothing at all can be known. If that is true then step off the top of a building, because you can not deduce from evidence that you will fall to your death, because as you claim nothing can be known about reality. your arguments are completely fallacious.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:26 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        As we know from Gödel's theorem, no system is at the same time complete and without contradiction.
        And in terms of "descending into insanity" – how creationism is defended seems to me like an indication of "insanity" too.
        But Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others seem to be very good at ignoring that if you really follow their theory to its existential consequence, you would end up in an extremely insane place as well.
        We can think about it one way or another – we simply do believe in some way.
        And I personally see no indication that these beliefs of ours should not be an indication that there is more to it than an "insanity".
        All we need to make it work is honesty with ourselves.
        I don't think that Dawkins is honest with himself – imho he got stuck in his method and now doesn't allow himself to find any "reality" beyond it.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:47 am |
    • ScottCA

      lolCAT2000
      I am a mass of biochemical reactions. There is no evidence for a soul of any kind. My consciousness is an emergent property of the interaction of many neurons in my brain, particularly the 3 second loop in the processing called the remembered present. Anything at all disturbs that 3 second loop and my consciousness blinks out of existence., be it due to electrical interference, a knife cutting my brain, or falling unconscious, or dying.

      "The supposedly immaterial soul, we now know, can be bisected with a knife, altered by chemicals, started or stopped by electricity, and extinguished by a sharp blow or by insufficient oxygen."
      — Steven Pinker (How the Mind Works)

      Most children stop believing in fairy tales and magic when they become adults. You should try growing up too.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:32 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        A biochemical reaction is something that happens ourside of you that you can observe.
        the "3 seconds of consciousness" is something that occurs to you, that exists for you on a completely different level.
        How can you not see the difference?
        Look... I know that there are "biochemical reactions" going on at our brain, that our consciousness and those reactions evidently form an intimate connection.
        But isn't it evident that their mode of existence is a completely different one?
        How can you say that you "are" a biochemical reaction.
        I mean – that's exactly what you seem like to me.
        But you have an inside perspective that I have not access to.
        Even though I can in theory see your "biochemical reactions" in some using fMRI imaging etc.
        There is stuff you have access to about yourself NOBODY ELSE has any way of accessing and science has ZERO handle on it.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:54 am |
      • nojinx

        Even if what you say is true, what is the significance? That the operations that occur that form our focused thoughts are not fully understood? All you are doing is pleading for the reasonable doubt, which exists regardless in other spheres and does nothing to provide any evidence for theism of any sort.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:57 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @nojinx
        I'm not pleading for the "reasonable doubt", I am "pleading" for the acknowledgement of the essential incompleteness of world models based on the scientific/empirical method, and a restauration of the value of "direct access" granted to us by the "inside perspective" into our being and life.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:01 am |
      • nojinx

        By inside perspective, you mean our singularity of consciousness? Again, it is already acknowledged and that dynamic of our nature is not in any way evidential of anything except our ignorance.

        You are just establishing that we don't know some things about our nature, which any scientist will agree with.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:00 am |
  53. nojinx

    If you are interested in a study on evolution, one of the best done in the US was the Michigan State study on worms developing new reproductive organs over generations.

    While it is hard to see in birds, reptiles and mammals given our longer life cycles, some species have cycles that measure days or hours and can be used to test a hypothesis of evolution.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • lolCAT2000

      Don't you get it..?. This whole focus on "evolution" is a decoy – a distraction from the real discussion, which is one about personal responsibility.
      In a self-emergent world that places you completely outside of any control, what are you supposed to do anyway?
      Are you supposed to care for your fellow humans?
      And why do you have to pay for parking tickets... it was all just your brain chemistry behind the steering wheel anyway, wasn't it?

      September 6, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
      • Byzas1

        "n a self-emergent world that places you completely outside of any control, what are you supposed to do anyway?
        Are you supposed to care for your fellow humans? "

        Your questions show 2 realities..
        1st: you have NO idea about evolution whatsoever if you had any valuable knowledge your questions wouldn't be that easy to answer but since I think people just understand and learn about the world around them when they start doubting and not just blindly follow the religion they were born in and follow people who tell them stories (your parents) .. I will just tell you READ .. just open a book about evolution and then answer yourself why it is important FOR our SURVIVAL to CARE for your fellow humans etc ..

        2nd: Your superficial and simplistic questions just show that you didn't read any of his books and that you have no Idea about what he is talking about, before you try to impress people as a pseudo-intellectual you should actually have some knowledge about the man you try to insult .. would help a lot.

        But here some good questions as homework before you leave.

        What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And—most of all—what kind of designer or creator only chooses to “reveal” himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?

        just to make you start thinking once in your life 🙂

        September 7, 2012 at 1:00 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @Byzas1
        lol!
        It would be kind of polite to read someone's comments before applying the "someone who criticizes atheists must be some stupid, naive, illiterate ignoramus"
        Really, your comment shows that you've been buying into the "us vs. them" split promoted by the current cult of Atheisms.
        Just search for my nick on this thread, read some of what I wrote.
        BTW, in terms of "opening books", why don't you take your nose out of the Dawkins propaganda and get some Paul Feyerabend into your brain? Might cause some calcified epistemological thought patterns to pop though... proceed with care plz :o)

        September 7, 2012 at 1:52 am |
    • ScottCA

      Absolutely, evolution can be seen in the lab as well as in nature. Both so called Micro and Macro Evolution have been witnessed in the lab, within creatures that reproduce fast enough to produce the hundreds of generations necessary. Evolution has been found in these studies to occur much faster than what was initially suspected,.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • ScottCA

      lolCAT2000, Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker can help you understand why we pay parking tickets and why we can send people to jail even if their minds are rooted in material brains. You should read his books they are new york times best sellers. I suggest "The blank slate, the modern denial of human nature."

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxJi0COTBo&w=640&h=390]

      September 7, 2012 at 12:01 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Oh thanks Scotty I know Pinker quite well and he doesn't understand the first thing about what makes us human.
        I suggest reading Heidegger as a counterbalance.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:04 am |
      • ScottCA

        As one who completed my studies in Neurology and Psychology in University, I disagree with your statement completely. Steven pinker is in high standing amongst the entire scientific community. Steven Pinker is one of the brightest minds of our times in science and one of the best minds in the field of psychology today.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:10 am |
      • ScottCA

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

        September 7, 2012 at 12:11 am |
      • ScottCA

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ&w=640&h=390]

        September 7, 2012 at 12:13 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @scottCA
        You can totally be a Harvard Professor and an excellent Psychology expert and not understand the first thing about human existence... unfortunately.
        😦
        Besides, Pinker doesn't really exist... as you know very well, he is God. 😛 :o)

        September 7, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • ScottCA

      lolCAT2000, If you read Pinkers books why then do you display so obvious an ignorance regarding law enforced as a deterant to a rational mind rooted in the material brain?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:15 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @ScottyCA
        because the material brain makes us clearly unresponsible for anything we do.
        So, alright, my brain might then avoid the wrong parking. But why would I have to be involved in that?
        I don't have to be here.
        And you don't have to be either.
        Why would you care?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:19 am |
  54. ScottCA

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

    September 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • lolCAT2000

      Why is Daniel C. Dennet so stooooopid ? 😛

      September 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
  55. ScottCA

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

    September 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  56. ScottCA

    Evolution American scientists speak out
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
  57. Bob

    It is interesting that Dawkins affirms diversity, but is more than happy to "dehumanize" people of faith. His treatment of such individuals as a kind of modern "primitive" paves the way for others to feel comfortable with a new kind of discrimination. There is nothing new here, however. His theory of memes is not unlike E. B. Tylor's 19th century theory of survivals. The only difference is that we already know what was done to the 19th century "primitives" who were dehumanized. Where is the outcry from the academic community? This kind of language would never be tolerated if used against other groups. There is definitely a double standard here.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      He's not dehumanizing anyone. He recognizes that it's only human to seek out easy answers to tough questions. That's why the GOP in the US has such a following. It's the same mindset.

      In point of fact, he is seeking to "humanize" everyone – to awaken them from a, to this point, endless sleep of delusion into the realization that logic and reason should be the basis for our decision-making about the world and each other, not religion.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • Byzas1

      There is nothing diverse about these religious cults, which all proclaim to be the true and only path to a fictional being for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Furthermore these religions spread Fear and hatred towards different religious cults and non believers too. Richard would betray his colleagues and Science itself (which is based on reason and evidence) if he'd affirm these cults as diverse .. or are you saying Alkaida's believes are diverse? No? well Christianity isn't either! Religious Communities "Dehumanize" people of different faith or non believers .. Richard treats all of them fair when he says that all of them base their believes on Fairy tales for which there is no evidence, so that's why they are not to be trusted with matters that concern the public good.. so if there is a double standard it is on your side .. not on the part of the academic community .. or you simply don't understand his arguments ..Ps: Your Concern about "his theory of memes " .. why don't you make a fool out of yourself and just ask Oxford University what they think about your ridiculous stement? 🙂

      September 7, 2012 at 12:29 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Byzas1, I think you want people to be a certain way so you can say things about them.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:12 am |
  58. Jason

    Dawkins has nothing to teach us.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Byzas1

      Nothing to teach an uneducated and narrow minded believer in a fictional God you meant right? Please learn to form a whole sentence don't leave it just like that .. but either way I corrected that for ...you you are welcome 🙂

      September 6, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        Sorry, but if you look a little at Dawkin's argument, he simplifies religion to be identical with the creation story – and since creation evidently didn't literally happen as it says in the bible, it must be totally void and "have nothing at all to teach us".
        This is a highly illogical conclusion, promoted by someone who prides himself to be a "clear thinker".
        From a biologistical perspective his statement makes sense.
        In reality, it doesn't.

        September 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
  59. Mike

    Although I believe God and Jesus exist and are and have done what has been proclaimed, I do find Mr. Dawkins ideas very fascinating. It is great to hear ideas from someone who is scientifically very intelligent and who probably has a very good grasp on how life and the Universe have likely evolved. But, he does not convince me that God does not exist, although I would still love to read his book.
    The issue I have always had with the various religions and the Church, etc., is that they have also evolved over time. And, during their evolution, they have all digressed significantly from their original inention(s) due to man's interpretations, and the effects of bias, love, hatred, war, murder, greed, ambition, politics, famine, corruption, fame, fortune, convenience, and so on. I think that religions are so changed that they bear little resemblance to what our Maker really intended for us.
    It always gives me bit of a chuckle when people take literally the idea that Man was made in God's image. Er, the good book says we were made in his image, not made Gods. A statue may be made in a man's image. But, is it human?
    And, if God made the Universe (and maybe several parallel universes and other modes of existence or non-existence), do you really think he would be comprehensible to a human being? Are we really so far advanced that we can disprove God, or believe that he could not take whatever form he wished?
    The Bible, the fables, the tales we have been taught since the beginning of humanity. These are just tales, altered over time, and were given to us as a very simplified indication of how everything came into being. And yet we tear them apart so literally.
    What was our Maker going to do otherwise, recite the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Rates of Change, and all the Laws of Astrophysics to cavemen? Of course not. He gave us little morsels at a time. What we could understand. And yet, from reading several comments here, we, the great race of Men, who can barely send a machine outside of our own solar system are set to disprove God.
    Let us not disprove Dawkins, nor God. Just keep an open mind people.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Your mind doesn't sound very open.

      God hasn't "shown" us anything scientific about the universe. The scientists who devoted their lives (and sometimes gave them) to the cause of teasing the riddles of the universe out of an extraordinarily unwilling subject would take great umbridge with that statement. You minimize the grave dedication of millions who are solely responsible for the upward mobility of the human race in saying so.

      Also, your god concept isn't that unique or new. Read Xenophanes.

      Finally, Dawkins is not disproving God. That's impossible and he knows it. It's logically impossible to prove a negative, and that's his point. If the concept is unprovable then what does it really matter?

      September 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
  60. ScottCA

    Faith is belief for no good reason.
    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 11:27 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      "Faith requires one to believe in something even in the absence of evidence ..." Exactly. It is incredible when religious people try to explain (rationalise) why they have their beliefs. The basic principle of religion is faith and faith, by definition, is exempt from reason/evidence. So in a way arguing (which requires reason) with religious people about religion is null. Oh well ... satire is fun

      September 7, 2012 at 12:45 am |
  61. Show me the facts

    Can anyone post a link to a scientific study that conclusively shows genetic material being added as a result of a cellular mutation? Would like to have some proof of this.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Mistakes in replication happen all the time. Usually it goes unnoticed since a small rearrangement of base pairs in a huge strand of DNA/RNA usually doesn't make a hill of beans. Sometimes it does, though, like in Down's syndrome or spinabifia or other birth defects. That's just for humans. There are thousands of examples of genetic defects in medical journals. Pick one.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • NekoMouser

      Except that organisms can get "new" genetic information from all sorts of sources. There's polyploidation, simple gene duplication, gene insertion, retrotransposition, tandem duplications, nondisjunction, horizontal gene transfer, endogenous retroviruses, mutation of a duplication...I could go on, but I suspect you prefer to just blindly believe that these things don't exist because it's more convenient?

      You can look up the terms and do the reading, all of the above are AMPLY observed, docu.mented, and experimented with. And if you do a search in a database of academic papers you'll find thousands of hits.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:03 am |
  62. wayne fowler

    "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" REALLY DAWKINS??? WHY IS IT HERE? You position is utterly meaningless. WHY IS IT HERE? While you're at it please explain where the universe came from and why it's here? Your position is as arrogant as a creationist, it makes me sick to here your drivel as well. step off already. You know NOTHING, as do your creationist foes.

    September 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • nojinx

      Wow, you completely missed the point. He is not saying he has the answers. He is saying that we need to avoid nonsensical answers based on myth or logical leaps. If we don't we endanger and/or retard the whole process of science.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        science does not progress logically.
        All major scientific findings have been declared "complete nonsense" by contemporaries.
        Reality is *always unexpected*, and the only way forward we have is to be vigilant on all levels.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:31 am |
  63. Chip

    --------------------------–

    Matthew and Mark are readily harmonized with Luke and John by reading a little further: both Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37 report that Jesus drank wine vinegar and then cried out again before dying. Therefore Luke and John record Jesus' actual last words, which could have been any combination of the two phrases recorded, e.g. "It is finished, Father; into your hands I commit my spirit."

    1. Thou shalt not murder.......uhhhh.....SELF-DEFENSE?

    Not sure what you mean here. What's the issue?

    2. Matthew 24:34, (Jesus said:) "Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." JESUS said he was coming RIGHT BACK (after allegedly flying off through the clouds). HA! 2000 years late?!

    "This generation" refers back to verse 33, those who see all the things he was taking about, which would be way later

    3. Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version)
    14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
    PAUL said no one even needed to spread the "gospel" of the Jewish faith since man already knew how to be morally upright. So why do Christo-Fascists still feel the need to proselytize?

    Those without Christ still have morals, since God put them there. However, they still needed to trust Christ for conversion. Therefore, they needed to hear the gospel.

    Next

    September 6, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
  64. Frank

    Gotta go...PEACE...if you can find it...if you knew where to look!

    September 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      I do. In diplomacy.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
  65. Rev_Hellhorn

    Being hopelessly addled by supernatural nonsense is a sign of virtue here in the time of the Great American Dumbing Down.

    It is unfortunate that so many people were abused as children with the fear of the boogeyman, they are nearly all damaged goods for life in terms of ever knowing better. Inside they will always be 2 year olds afraid of the dark, and their masters will play them as such.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
  66. Travis

    Evolution was the Basic Model for All that Adolf Hitler did, great job listening to this idiot. walk this path and we will be Nazi Germany II.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Hitler that fine Catholic?

      September 6, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Hitler was a eugenicist. Big difference between that and espousing evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
  67. ScottCA

    Atheism is not a religion
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • lolCAT2000

      to think that Atheism is not a religion makes it the most dangerous cult in human history.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
      • nojinx

        Why? What possible reasoning could you have for that?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:03 am |
      • NekoMouser

        How is the single lack of belief in a single claim const itute being a religion in any way whatsoever?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:04 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @nojinx science is built on beliefs and methods in any way as irrational and groundless as religion. A religion that sees itself as "only pathway to the truth" the way science does, while not acknowledging its own basis in belief is extremely dangerous.
        It becomes a cult when atheists separate the world into "good, clear thinking atheists" vs. "ignorant, naive, borderline criminal religious people" the way that Dawkins, Hitchens and others have framed believers.
        For some enlightenment on the relativity of the scientific method, I can recommend reading Paul Feyerabend's "against method" – don't worry, there is no bible bashing or religios conversion suggested in this book at all, it's nothing but science philosophy.
        Highly recommended.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:09 am |
      • nojinx

        "science is built on beliefs and methods in any way as irrational and groundless as religion."

        That statement is patently false. You also seem to carry a gross generalization in your idea of what atheists are.

        Atheists are simply all the non believers in the world. They are the most diverse section of the global population and have as much of a collective ideology as the subset of all non-sports fans on the planet.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:26 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @nojinx
        I don't think I made any assumptions about the general character of Atheists.
        I actually know some and they are my best friends.
        I am not judging anyone for their beliefs – unless they belief in sacrificing kittens.
        What I am arguing against is the propaganda, especially of Dawkins, that makes it seem believers are stupid, uninformed, illiterate, borderline criminal/child abusing evil people, while Atheists are clear thinking, reasonable, logical, entirely sane good people.
        Science is not good by nature -> treatment of lab animals in neuroscience labs for example.
        Due to it's funding requirement, science is the slave of corporate profit.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:13 am |
      • nojinx

        Science is the only method we have to determine the nature of our world. If we don't use tested guesses to draw conclusions about our world, we have no way to separate fact from fiction.

        Science can involved corrupted methods, as can any process. I agree. That does not mean we have anything better to use or that we should abandon it.

        Science has to be mutable by nature. If science cannot be revised as we learn more, it will fail us.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  68. Not a Christian

    Mennoknight, I applaud your ability to live in a world where science and religion can co-exist. I hope you adhere to the teachings of Jesus, which seem pretty enlightened, care for those less fortunate, wash their feet, feed the hungry, respect the social pariahs like leppers, provide drink for the thirsty. Just a question would Jesus be for or against Universal Health Care in your opinion?

    September 6, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  69. Av

    All of his books and debates are brainless and lack any kind of credible "evidences" that he claims. He chops himself by his own version of faith (he thinks he is intelligent) in his own illusion and stack overflow of information that doesn't stand any test. Too much of saying will not make up facts.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      You're correct. Saying stuff again and again and again doesn't make that stuff factual. Please tell that to the theists.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  70. Rob

    The argument well framed:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • ScottCA

      There are 1225 scientists in just the US named Steve that agree with evolution. There are only 800 scientists of all names in all the world who have a disagreement with evolution, and none of them are taken seriously by any scientific body.

      Ben stain looks like a complete imbecile in this video. He has sunk to the intellectual level of a moron.
      http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      September 7, 2012 at 3:32 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        Imbecile: refusing to acknowledge one's descendence from amoeba.
        🙂

        September 7, 2012 at 4:24 am |
  71. ScottCA

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

    September 6, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
  72. Mennoknight

    Ultimately as a born again Christian I don't care how long it took to create the world, I don't care what the method or process was.
    I care about the real historical Jesus.
    Jesus is the starting point for my faith. His life, his death, his resurrection are what my faith is built upon. The eye witness accounts of Peter (book of Mark), Matthew, John, and the Roman historian Luke who interviews the living eye witnesses like Jesus' mother Mary are my basis for faith in Jesus Christ.
    Jesus was a real man, who lived, breathed, died and rose again. And he turned the world on its ear with his message of love and morality.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      So, what is the big deal about jesus? Where is the supposed sacrifice? God – supposedly an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient ent-ity, sends a tiny bit of himself to earth in human form – jesus. God does this knowing in advance that this human form will life, then be killed. But god knows that god will then resurrect jesus, and then bring the little bit of himself back to heaven, or wherever god hangs out. That's not a sacrifice. Imagine the wealthiest man in the world, lending you a penny for a second ,knowing 100% that he will get the penny back in a second. No sacrifice. And the idea of jesus being – what? A sin sponge? I can ra-pe and kill all kinds of people, but as long as, just before I die, i say, okay, jesus,I accept you, then I'm completely absolved of those horrible things? and i get to go to heaven forever? not very moral.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • sybaris

      Using some words used by noted followers of your faith to dispute human evolution.................were you there?

      Anyway, you might want to check the authors of the gospels. It's well docu.mented by respected theologians that MMLJ did not write the gospels and were not eyewitnesses.

      Your Jesus man, if he really existed was just an Essene priest with a savior complex, megalomaniac if you will. The David Koresh of his day.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      The gospels are not eye-witness accounts. They weren't written until at least 50 years after the death of the biblical Christ. Virtually all of the story comes from Saul of Tarsis, who never met Jesus as a man (though he claims to have seen him in a vision – that seems to happen a lot in religion, doesn't it?).

      Also, the story of the life of the Biblical Jesus was virtually all plagiarized from earlier solar gods: Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, Zeus, Horus, and Mithra just to name a few. Most of these were born of a virgin on the 25th of December, were heralded by a star in the east, and were admired by three wise men.

      December 25 is the first day the sun starts proceeding visually back from its zenith in the southern sky, where it has sat since December 22, hence three days of death and rising again. The star in the east is Sirius which, on the 25th, aligns with the rising sun and the three stars on Orion's belt. These are ancient astrological facts and are not in dispute.

      0 AD is approximately the first year of the age of Pisces, based on the great procession (which lasts about 25,700 years due to a slight wobble in the rotation of the Earth). Christ is often associated with a fish (and at the miracle of the fishes and the loaves, TWO fish), and this is why, not because he was creating fishers of men. The age of Pisces will end around 2150 when the age of Aquarius will begin.

      Your solar god is an astrological marker. Nothing more.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Correction: Precession, not procession. Sorry.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
  73. Terry

    Richard Dawkins says aloud what a lot of people think privately.... Granted,not enough people, since Religion mandates, among many other things, that we stop thinking... Hence there are many many people who feel that they no longer need to think, because Religion has done it for them...Those are the creationists, the young earth creationists ( to stay within Dawkins field of expertise..), and, in the USA, they are quite numerous....
    The USA were, supposedly, built on religious, political and social tolerance, and we now find that it is a country where intolerance seems to rule.
    It only takes a glance at the comments on all the blogs when an ethical or possibly religious issue is raised...Zero tolerance, zero understanding...

    September 6, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • ScottCA

      We need to start saying it aloud in public. Ignorance is dangerous we should not tolerate it or respect it. Religion should not be treated as a taboo subject that we cannot speak about rationally and logically.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FlGGKZJ1E8&w=640&h=390]

      September 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
      • sybaris

        Exactly!

        Religion requires ignorance to perpetuate.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
      • ScottCA

        Many of us think exactly as Dawkins does, but we are cowards to speak out like he has. We need to be brave and speak the truth. The first step is telling others we are atheists and being proud to own up to who we are. Second is to challenge their beliefs with logic.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        Yes, you need to speak out for the "truth"...
        Follow the great martyr saint of Atheism, Holy Hypathia of Alexandria!

        September 7, 2012 at 2:35 am |
  74. a hindu

    Being an atheist is fine, but the vast majority of Dawkins' criticisms of religion really only apply to Christianity and Islam. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive in many other world religions.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Hatred toward religion is usually proportional to how confrontational and accusatory the religion is. And since Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism and the like (all from the same source, Judaism, which was itself ripped off from neighboring religions in Egypt, Persia, Greece, etc.), you are probably right. I don't think there is nearly as much negative feeling toward Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American religions, etc.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        well said, Zeus

        September 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      Religion by definition is mutually exclusive from science

      September 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        *beep* that is incorrrekt 🙂

        September 7, 2012 at 2:37 am |
  75. Ed

    Search for this on Youtube and watch:

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 4 of 10)

    September 6, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
  76. Jim Beranis

    I disagree with his statement "If we wonder why there are still serious people including some scientists who are religious, that’s a complicated psychological question." I believe it is a philosophical question. Psychological kind of infers that it is purely a wiring of the brain kind of thing and that if you believe that life began from some unknown force other than random molecular action, it has a psychological source regarding your thought's and not reason.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • sybaris

      You both may be partially right as there is an appreciable amount of people who never buy into any religion, those that did but "philosophically" dismissed it, those that follow a religion as a matter of culture and those that do because "philosophically their brand of religion makes sense to them.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
  77. Not a Christian

    I am not Christian, so when bloggers are discussing the word of God can they please be more specific, is it the Jewish God, the Christian God (and which variety, original flavor Catholic, defiant Lutheran God, God the Western aka Mormon) or is it the Muslim God, or perhaps one of the Hindu gods, Vishnu perhaps. I seriously need to know this as I keep getting confused. Also, please provide time references, since the Roman and Greek gods pre-date Christianity are they valid only during a time that they where worshiped. Or maybe, just maybe we are pack animals that have an affinity for hierarchical command structures, you know like a king or a pharoh, or a president, or a CEO, or just "The Leader of the Pack". What could be more comforting than a perfect Leader Diety which one can follow blindly. Is it so hard to come to the conclusion that it is merely an extension of our basic psychology? We are divided into leaders and followers (also middle management, who I guess are both leaders and followers). By the way I have lived outside of the USA in purely Muslim countries... are they all wrong? They don't think to seem so. Also, my bible quoting friends are several hundred million Hindus wrong? Perhaps you should travel there and convince them of the wrongness of their ways. Or maybe, just maybe, you missed 8th grade social studies or anthropology class in high school where they discussed the great variety of societies and cultures throughout history... each with their own religions and beliefs. What about the Aztecs, maybe they got it right? Yet they are considered madmen. Didn't early Hebrews sacrifice animals? Are they madmen? Seriously, the desire to be a follower is very comforting, is relieves one of the stress of not knowing. That is fine and I am happy that people find comfort in that. Please keep it to yourself, my family has heritage back to the native americans, am I a madman if I believe in the Iriquois creation myth? Oh and by the way the Easter Bunny is a Saxon goddess and the holiday predates the birth of Christ, also the Christmas tree is a pagan fertility symbol, the tree being the phallus and the balls hung representing the womans bossom, again pre-dating Christianity. So what is the disposition of all of the human beings that existed before Abraham or Jesus are they in Heaven or Hell. And after you tell me that, can you provide the complete census of both locations? I believe Heaven was in the clouds and hell was under the earth just like Milton described (was he a prophet as well?) Give it a rest, I don't care if you believe you are a Jedi night and can use the force, please don't attack science. Putting stickers on textbooks that say evolution is only a theory... only if I can put stickers on your bibles saying "Only one of many religions currently worshiped on earth" People five thousand years ago didn't know why rain fell from the sky, these are the folks whose words you worship as absolute truth. I will stick with the ways of my families ancestors, who by the way kind of look like eskimos with suntans, who kind of look like asians who crossed a land bridge, a far more plausible story than we are travellers on dirt stuck to the back of the great earth mother turtle who is floating in the skies. For you Ultra Young Earth Christians, get out of your house and travel the earth, meet people of other cultures, live in an exclusively Hindu or Muslim town for a while. You don't have to accept and love all these people, just tolerate them. And yes it is insulting when you insist on your absolute correctness, because what I hear is that I am wrong, me and the other 5+ billion non-christians. Oh and not that it matters, the fact that you deny global warming, evolution, and believe humans lived with dinosaurs makes you the absolute laughing stock of the rest of the world. You know from those demonic cultures that take care of the poor, provide health care for all the sick, and housing for the homeless, 99% literacy rate, civil societies, and murder rates per capita 90-99% lower than ours, you know Europeans. What makes me laugh is the poor white christians that blindly vote with the party of God, the republicans, don't have health care, and firmly believe that poor peoples children should be deprived of heathcare. Oh and have minimum wage jobs with no security and hate unions. Hey maybe training people to blindly follow without regards to any observable reality is a great idea. It's good to be in the upper 1%.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Terry

      Please read " The Future of an Illusion " (Sigmund Freud)..I do believe that you will enjoy it.. Cheers.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Forget Freud. Freud was a quack. Listen to Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker, arguably the most intelligent mind in psychology today.

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

      September 6, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        According to Steve's brilliant view of the way we work, we're clearly not involved. So let's just all go home, OK?
        🙂

        September 7, 2012 at 2:40 am |
    • ScottCA

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6zCKlgGOwQ&w=640&h=390]

      September 6, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
      • Not a Christian

        Scott,

        Wonderful, thanks for the audio links

        September 6, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        oupsi... it looks as though you are right there where it says that God is supposed to be... it seems like you're not there either...
        You are such a nice person and all... Quite regrettable that no one is home really.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:42 am |
  78. Chip

    Wow, he said concerning morality, "we are getting more moral, we are getting better as time goes on," then just a few sentences later he says, "we might drive ourselves extinct by some horrible catastrophe involving human weapons." Does he even know he contradicts himself?

    September 6, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Did the authors of the bible know how obscenely and horridly they contradicted themselves? Did they even know each other? NO! Did they even know their writings would be compiled and edited by an opportunistic, political cabal called the Roman Catholic Church much later? NO! Did they know their writings would be translated through at least 3 languages and inevitably lose meaning in the process? What's your point?

      September 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
      • Chip

        wow...really touched a nerve, didn't I

        September 6, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
      • Chip

        incidentally, can you name one contradiction in the Bible....just one?

        September 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Jesus' last words
        MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
        LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
        JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

        September 6, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        1. Thou shalt not murder.......uhhhh.....SELF-DEFENSE?
        2. Matthew 24:34, (Jesus said:) "Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." JESUS said he was coming RIGHT BACK (after allegedly flying off through the clouds). HA! 2000 years late?!
        3. Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version)
        14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
        PAUL said no one even needed to spread the "gospel" of the Jewish faith since man already knew how to be morally upright. So why do Christo-Fascists still feel the need to proselytize?

        The list could go ON AND ON!!! I mean $h|+!! Talking snakes, the sun allegedly stopping in the sky?! BS! When's the last time that BS was ever alleged to have happened....NOW THAT WE HAVE SCIENCE and an AWARENESS and the TOOLS to make such measurements and records them and repeat experiments and the like? It has NEVER happened again! What?! Is your "god" afraid to repeat such fantastic performances for fear that we may see through his hokey tricks and disprove them with SCIENCE?!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • NekoMouser

      Are you referring to the part where he clearly states "OTHERS have come to the opposite conclusion: That we might drive ourselves extinct by some horrible catastrophe involving human weapons."

      So contradicting yourself now is saying "this is one possibility and here is another possibility that other people than myself have proposed or subscribe to?"

      September 7, 2012 at 12:12 am |
    • End Religion

      chip, there is no contradiction. we are getting more moral however we may still be driven to extinction by one religious fool with a nuke.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
  79. Veritas

    Religion is for the weak minded who need simple fairy tale stories to explain the world.

    September 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • Mulehead

      Well said....couldn't agree more.

      September 6, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  80. Philo99

    I believe in some fundamentals of evolution and I'm not sure if I believe in God. However I feel it's hard to believe that random evolution, even over the course of 4.5 billion years can be responsible for the complexities of the human eye.

    If you used a computer model, and tested the odds of random chance resulting in such mind boggling complexities that make up the human brain, it doesn't seem possible. Every step in evolution would have to happen perfectly, unless it was guided by a greater being.

    Just my $.02

    September 6, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      The human eye is built upside down and backward. it is not nearly as powerful or sensitive as the eye of many birds. there are many examples of light-sensing organs, in various stages of development, in animals throughout the world. When one looks at it, the human eye is a prime example of evolution.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Neil deGrasse Tyson:

      "The eye is often held up as a marvel of biological engineering. To the astrophysicist, though, it's only a so-so detector. A better one would be much more sensitive to dark things in the sky and to all the invisible parts of the spectrum. How much more breathtaking sunsets would be if we could see ultraviolet and infrared. How useful it would be if, at a glance, we could see every source of microwaves in the environment, or know which radio station transmitters were active. How helpful it would be if we could spot police radar detectors at night."

      September 6, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • NekoMouser

      I'm amazed how often this eye thing comes up because the eye...really not that impressive on many levels. Besides the fact it fails constantly (nearly 4 million Americans are legally blind or visually impaired and an estimated 75% of all US adults use vision correction of some kind), it is frightfully limited (it can't even do what half the other eyes in nature can do like see in the dark or UV spectrum), fragile, and not efficient in the way it captures light or conveys images to the brain.
      Besides, evolutionary theory posits a number of paths for its sequential development through iterative stages–all the stages of which are plainly seen in other animals in nature.
      Here's a good video on proposed evolutionary paths of the eye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8

      As for the brain, it didn't arise in its current form all at once. It was a slow, iterative process that produced numerous faulty iterations in order to hone in on the ones that worked best. In fact, speaking of sitting in front of a computer simulation, most modern AI programmers use a similar programming mechanism to develop increasingly complex AI programs and robots. Programs that literally evolve and then keep the stuff that works and abandon the code that doesn't, a good analog for the natural genetic processes of evolution by natural selection.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  81. Sam

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

    September 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
    • ScottCA

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

      September 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
  82. WS

    I can't believe Richard Dawkins made the amateur mistake of saying that the question of "how [life] arose...means evolution."

    Is this how far the creationist milieu has dragged the discourse into the mud? The question of life arising from nonorganic matter–abiogenisis–is completely apart and distinct from anything having to do with biological evolution. Evolutionary biology does not have anything at all to do with the question of how life arose. Creationists repeatedly try mixing the two concepts to make dishonest arguments and conflate two phenomena to look like one. Mr. Dawkins, it's no good to muddle those concepts and do the confusing for the creationists.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
  83. shimmernrot

    It's obvious religion exists to make people feel good about their at times unpleasant existence. Even when something unpleasant happens to the devout, religion is a tool that tells them it's part of "god's" grand design. Hey, it's all part of the plan. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Everything will eventually turn out very well for you. Religion is a drug. Science does not stoop to pacify people's fear of the unpleasant aspects of nature or life. It presents facts whether favourable or not. Science = Earth will ultimately be extinct through any one of various ways (at least we have options). Religion = The world will come to an apocalyptic end but wait ... you get to go to a utopian scene and live happily ever after.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Bryan Kirchoff

      It's obvious that atheism exists to make people feel good about their life choices. After all, getting to live by whatever rules I can rationalize, not worrying about consequences beyond this life, congratulating myself for my supposedly superior intelligence, and believing that I am truly altruistic (strangely, many atheists believe their volunteer work is exempt from the biochemical/emotional reward mechanism that drives so much other human behavior) are pretty nice perks. One simply needs to convince himself/herself that space and time created themselves out of nothing, perhaps by subscribing to the unprovable (i.e. faith-based) notions of an infinitely old universe or an infinite number of universes.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Bryan! Your straw man fallacy is showing!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
      • shimmernrot

        This is the hole the "religious" bury themselves in - you think atheism is an alternative to religious beliefs. Atheism is an alternative to religious beliefs as oxygen is an alternative to pixie dust. There is science and there is ...well ...science - the study of nature which is what we are and everything around us. Science is verifiable. It does not answer every question there is but strives to through verifiable means. Does this mean we should fill in the gaps with unicorns, santa and god because he is all-knowing and the things we don't know prove he exists? Excuse my superior intelligence but that's just silly. People have more than enough consequences to worry about in their life than to borrow a few from the "after-life". You seem to imply if one is not religious then he must lack empathy cause that's a divine gift bestowed solely on the "righteous". And please read up on the origin of the universe and its recent SCIENTIFIC discoveries before you say anything about it

        September 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
  84. cook0032

    Sam Harris pointed this out to me in "end of faith" dt. 13: 6-10 says people who try to persuade Christians to another religion must be stoned to death. how could anyone want to be a christian after they read this? I dare Christians to read Deuteronomy in it's entirety.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Leviticus is a real horrorshow, too.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • JFCanton

      If you change that to Jews, perhaps you get to be literally correct... if you want to be a critic, it helps to actually understand what the context is?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
  85. Joel

    Dawkins is, and I say this as an atheist, a misogynistic creep. The sooner the man closes his mouth and goes away, the better.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      I admit he's a bit creepy, but we humanists have to work with what we've got. Someday we'll have a Barack Obama. Until then, we've got this guy and Hitchens (and to a lesser extent Neil deGrasse Tyson) and that's about it.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • cook0032

      Dawkins uses his brain for the good of the world. i hope he lives till 130 years old

      September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • NekoMouser

      Yay for cheering for the death of one of your fellow men? How much better a person you must be to wish death on another...

      September 7, 2012 at 12:11 am |
  86. Mark

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

    September 6, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
  87. Frank

    The atheists are out tonight. Empty minded individuals spouting off about issues they barely understand in attempt to disprove FACTS they canNOT even fathom all the while encouraging one another in their demonic endeavors against a Loving God that smiles through grace at their piety filled ignorance! BOY!!

    September 6, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • Aezel

      Oh noes Frank, is your pretend friend mad?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Yeah. Demons are everywhere.

      Here's a fun one. Look in the mirror. Say "atheists" three times. Then turn out the lights. When nothing happens, you can rest assured that atheists aren't demons, right?

      Boo!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Frank: What is an idiot like YOU doing on a SCIENCE blog? Religious supersti-tion has NOTHING to do with SCIENCE!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • Frank

        Science...psudeoscience blog. That actually made me LAUGH!! Your on here spouting off about your religion...Zeus. Look in the mirror dude! Science. HAHAHAHAHAH!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Frank

      "Demonic" is their activity. Read it again, dude!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Yours meds, frank – your meds! Quick, before it's too late.

        Hey, frankie – I left a nice one about your buddy jesus on the prior page.

        Work of the anti-Christ, i tells ya!

        September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • Frank

        Yes your meds are what is causing your speech to slur and your mind to race. Drugs? You need to lay off of them man. The only drug you need is the drug to inoculate your guilt ridden conscience.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Isn't jesus just a latino ball player? And what's the big deal about jesus? There was no sacrifice – none at all. if you believe the bible (Noah's Ark and talking snake and everything) God sent a piece of himself to earth in human form (Jesus) knowing in advance that jesus would be killed, but then resurrected three days later, and scooped back up to heaven. That's hardly a sacrifice.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • The Anti-Christ

      FRANK!!!!! I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE. I'M COMING FOR YOU. SOON, FRANK, VERY, VERY SOON.

      September 6, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      You must be a troll cause that was just a "huh?". Then again, calling you that may be giving trolls a bad name

      September 6, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
      • Frank

        HUH is right. Someone help him.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
      • The Anti-Christ

        I'M COMING FOR YOU AS WELL! YOU AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOTO!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
      • Frank

        The LORD is my refuge and strength. My strong tower in WHOM I TRUST.

        What do you have...an unsupported frame work supported by one singular, unproven thought after another, accusing and excusing your mouth. YOU'RE the one who should be afraid...Rev 20:1-3 His end is sure (the devil).

        The question is will yours be just like his??

        September 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Hey frank – ever go to the race track, maybe bet a couple of bucks on the ponies? Ever put you money on what someone describes as a sure thing, only to find that you've backed the wrong horse?

        Just saying.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
      • Frank

        Your speaking about trusting MAN. TRUST GOD!!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Which god, frank? Which god?

        September 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • ScottCA

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

      Most adults out grow the belief in their imaginary friends that have no evidence of existing.

      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 10:27 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        ScottCA, "6ft tall green monster in my closet" I think you are a clear thinking disaster area. 😀

        September 7, 2012 at 12:22 am |
  88. G. Zeus Kreiszchte

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

    No one ever said "There is NO god" until someone first said "There is a god".....and in particular some "god" that allegedly punishes everyone that doesn't believe in him......needless to say WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND! Sure this alleged "god" only favors armies of ONE nationality! Sure this alleged "god" only favors those who eat certain foods and abstain from "unlawful" s&x....etc....etc...! Go on, pull the other leg!

    September 6, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Frank

      That is not even true. You suppose that to be the case. Every human being has it written on his conscience and brushed on the canvass in the world around us that there is a higher being. Atheism introduced as an alternate belief just as it was to you!

      September 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Frank, seriously, dude: did you go to high school? not finish – I think that's pretty clear – but start.

        September 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
      • Frank

        Try again....your missing the point.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
      • shimmernrot

        Frank... dear oh dear...

        September 6, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
      • Frank

        Wrap him up boys, he's about to have an break through!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        frank, even if you are right about the "written on your conscience" bs about a higher being, how do you know it's your god?There are thousands of gods – chances are its another one – Visnu, maybe; or Thor; or Ra; or Satan.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
      • Frank

        WOW, if you wish to know more, I'll be glad to help you. However, take your Bible and read while you beg the GOD of the Bible to be merciful to you and show you Himself. I CAME from where you are. I KNOW He will answer! Plus, you will appreciate the journey later when you encounter your past in the face of another. The Gospel of John...best place to start.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
      • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

        Thank you for the offer, frank, but I find many passages in the bible to be repulsive, immoral. and disgusting. The concept of condemning someone to a pit of fire forever, simply because of what they believe, is morally repugnant. no – it's horrific. Your god is supposedly a god of love? Eternal torture????. I find it arrogant in the extreme for people such as yourself to claim that they – of all of the billions who have lived before – have the ONE TRUE ANSWER. There are thousands of gods. The bible was written by bronze age ignorants as a means of controlling and manipulating the ignorant ma-sses, and to justify their own immoral behaviours. There are many other books that I'd rather spend time with than that supposed "good" book.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
      • Frank

        NO, my GOD and YOUR GOD is a GOD of love; but HE is a JUST GOD...NOT to be confused with what your speaking about, FAIR. If you could learn what that means, you might have a chance.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
      • Mulehead

        Frank...we all think you're batsh!t crazy. Give it a rest. Better yet, go get an education.

        September 6, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

      Anything allegedly "brushed on the canvass (sic) in the world around us" has to be LEARNED and is therefore NOT the default for human existence! I had to LEARN Christianity, for example, because it was FORCE-FED to me in Sunday School! IDIOT!a

      September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • Frank

        Wrong...your conscience has it in it....same with every human being. You suppress it to support your position. When you had the opportunity to glorify God with that understanding, you rejected it and became vain (useless) in your imagination and your foolish heart was darken. Romans 1:18-22 Read it. It is GOD's DIRECT answer to this very nonsense that have gripped your heart and mind.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        You're so unintelligible and unable to spell correctly, Frank, that you lose all credibility. Go figure! The ignorant and the religious go hand in hand! Nothing new there!

        Try this one on for size, dolt! Paul said that the alleged "gospel" didn't even need to be spread since people already had moral standards "written on their hearts." Yeah I know what you're getting at, but that "moral compass" merely comes from LIFE EXPERIENCE, which leads one to develop EMPATHY. Gee, Wally, if I do this evil deed to my neighbor, that will cause my neighbor to REACT in a negative way to me. Therefore I should refrain from doing the evil deed in the first place. DUH!

        Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version)
        14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

        September 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
      • Frank

        Typos. Sorry.
        You just proved my point, though. IT WAS WRITTEN ON YOUR CONSCIENCE BY GOD!!! Reread the verse you just supplied, "Since they show that the requirements of the law are WRITTEN on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness". WRITTEN BY WHO...GOD! You better find another verse. Further, you are avoiding the facts I presented to you in Rmns 1:18-22 about your path.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        No! You are alleging that it was another "goddidit" situation! Your "god" must have put those "laws" on man's hearts! Bull$h|+! I didn't start learning empathy until after my childhood, after I had already gone through the experience of recklessly shooting birds in trees with my BB gun and pulling legs off of spiders, stomping on ants and the like. It was those experiences that I was able to extrapolate onto human "targets," if you will. I could easily imagine how I would feel after doing such things to fellow humans. I could easily imagine how I would feel if another person did such things to me. It's called "learning from experience" EXPERIENCE is the key word here. NOTHING was ever written on my "heart" or "soul" by default. I had to LEARN it. And EXPERIENCE was the ONLY TEACHER! Not any imaginary "god". DOLT!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
      • Frank

        That is EXACTLY what the verse is saying, DUDE, and no matter how you spout and spew you canNOT change the FACT that GOD's finger was on your CONSCIENCE from the very beginning. YOU Experienced its warnings even as you did the acts. You were further taught expanding on that knowledge THROUGH your experiences! Same with every human being on the planet. That is how a man who was never taught the law can already by the guide of his conscience DO THE THINGS WRITTEN IN THE LAW while his CONSCIENCE speaks on. BUT the conscience is not enough. It is the starting point. What you did from there is what has brought you to this predicament you are currently in ROMANS 1:18-22. Stop ignoring it. It is not going away.

        September 6, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
      • G. Zeus Kreiszchte

        You religious DOLTS always have a problem with understanding TIME LINES and CAUSALITY! What do you not understand about the fact the NOTHING was "written on my conscience" until AFTER I, say, pulled the legs off the spider? What do you not understand about how NOTHING was "written on my conscience" until AFTER I SUBSEQUENTLY (that is, SUBSEQUENT to having pulled the legs off the spider) extrapolated that EXPERIENCE (OVER TIME) and only AFTERWARDS (OVER TIME) realized that something like murdering another human was generally wrong?????

        Mind you, MURDER is not ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Murder is 100% A-OK in the case of self-defense. So how does your alleged "god conscience" square that with the alleged "law written on your heart"? DUMB @$$!

        September 6, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • JFCanton

      Actually we should consider the default position for children to be to believe in some sort of invisible action, because that's what they are going to be using to fill in the gaps of their perception during most of the time their brains are developing. You have to be 10, 12 to be even _theoretically_ capable of understanding your immediate world without placeholders.
      Of course, there are more and less appropriate ways for parents to handle that...

      September 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
  89. James228

    Evolution is 'definitely' a controversial subject. Controversial: giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement. I'd say this topic has definitely given rise to public disagreement. When people say science is based on 'facts', they're already wrong. A fact is something that is indisputably the case...and I'd say there's clearly a dispute going on over the 'facts' of science vs. religion. This is where angry people chime in and say "you're an idiot if you don't believe the evolution facts!"...and I would say 'see definition of fact'. Evolution is a 'hypothesis'...that's right. Before you attack, know that I'm not the slightest bit religious, and I completely disagree with everything religion has done to the world. But I'm one of the few people who also believes that 'science' is just like a religion. Instead of a 'holy book' you have a 'textbook'. With science, you're still just blindly believing in secondhand information that was given to you in a slightly more reliable source then a 'magic book of fairy tales'. Science also has the most 'faithful' followers. I'm going to agree to disagree with everyone who claims that they know how life works.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  90. spent

    God: Creator, Intellectual, Master of life and death, Teacher, Scientist, Philosopher, Anthropologist, Biologist, and the list continues, but humble. He has a lot to teach one if one is open to learning.

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

      You mean if one is susceptible to mental illness. Religious thought is defined as a mild form of schizophrenia by psychologists because you live in a self-induced fantasy world apart from reality.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • ScottCA

      God only exists 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 9:51 pm |
      • lolCAT2000

        *YOU* exist only in your imagination.
        You aren't even really reading this.
        Forget about yourself, you don't exist.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:02 am |
      • Byzas1

        lolCAT2000 Since you are so eager to know .. the reason you exist now is because your parents weren't allowed to use condoms because of their religion 🙂 .. Ok jokes aside .. your questions for the existence of human beings and life on this planet is clearly too simplistic ... Could you live on Pluto? Is "intelligent" life on Pluto possible? No? .. Why not? When is it possible for intelligent life to exist? when you answer those questions which you should have learned in school then you will understand why on this planet your clearly purposeless existence is possible 😀 After that try to understand what is purpose .. who defines it? and don't be so simple minded and scream "GOOOD" that would be kinda dumb .. in regard to all these different religions we had and have.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:19 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        @Byzas1
        I know, it's fun to think about life on other planets and other hypothetical&fantastic scenarios.
        It is typical for science-"fantastics" to dream themselves into all kinds of places... cyborgs! etc.
        But what I'm talking about right here right now though – this very moment as you are reading this text.
        Are you there or not?
        Do you care or not?

        September 7, 2012 at 1:45 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      You mean he has a lot to answer for: earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, childhood cancer, deformations – the list goes on and on. Actually he sounds like a miserable, incompetent t-wat

      September 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  91. DJones

    Can you imagine trying to explain a three dimensional world to a person who can only see two dimensions and who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the third dimensions existence? Every time I see some one who likes to fancy themselves as intellectual trying to explain that evolution is a science and that there is no God I have to laugh at their blindness. Such people don't want to know, as it is said, none so blind as those who will not see. There are literally thousands of things that happen every day that no one can explain through the limited, distorted, science of atheists, and yet these scientist refuse to investigate these happenings. Why? They are afraid of what they will find. As one doctor told me once, he said that no doctor who has been a doctor very long can say that they haven't seen a miracle that defies explanation. There are a lot of complete sham ministries out there, but there are real ones. During the height of the Oral Roberts ministry even ambulances would alter course if the person was beyond medical help and take the person to Roberts and they would be instantly healed. John G. Lake was investigated by the Better Business Bureau after doctors were outraged at his claims of hundreds of healings. After following up on several hundred claims, interviewing doctors, examining medical records, they reported that John G. Lake wasn't reporting even half of the miracles that were happening. I personally know of a child who was scheduled for open heart surgery who was prayed for and the Cardiologist who took care of him was furious when his parents told him they believed their child was healed and asked him to reexamine him before surgery. They doctor threw two stethoscopes across the examine room and yelled at a nurse all because he couldn't hear the defect and he thought it was faulty equipment. But after further medical test proved that the kid was healed from a condition that couldn't naturally heal, the child was dismissed without surgery and he has never needed it. There are literally thousands of cases like this every year and yet instead of at least being honest enough to examine them atheist scoff and dismiss them as impossible and beneath their exalted position to even question, and thus they remain in their two dimensional world. There is more to this world then the physical and the mental, there is the spiritual. We are spirits, who have a soul, who live in a body. The value of life is that we are unique, eternal, beings, and if we look into our hearts or into the eyes of someone we love we know it.

    September 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Bullsh!t

      September 6, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Hey, DJones; Give us a verified list of – i don't know – one hundred amputees who prayed for their missing limbs to be regenerated, and they were. What's that? You can't ? Not even one? Why can't your god cure amputees? Maybe has something do with the fact that he doesn't exist?

      September 6, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Aezel

      Your self-induced delusions of grandeur in your mind are in fact, something I certainly do not want to know about, yet you and all other religious seem intent on spewing them at everyone all the time.

      September 6, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      While I won't deny a mind-body connection, what you're proposing to be the truth is utterly preposterous.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am |
      • nojinx

        Agreed.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:39 am |
  92. chris

    Why are we giving this guy so much media time? He's not saying anything that most 8th grade kids in public school don't already know. Alright alright the religious people are dangerous and shaping policy.. whatever. You think Richard Dawkins is really helping the situation. He's a religion unto himself.

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

      Because he is right. Religion predicts nothing and has no evidence at all to support it.

      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 9:45 pm |
  93. ScottCA

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6zCKlgGOwQ&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  94. ScottCA

    what is religion?
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JILvK_fLTuY&w=640&h=390]

    September 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer