1. Comment #6864 by Ryan on November 15, 2006 at 11:04 pm

Heh. That second pic is funny. It looks like Dawkins is the leader of the Black Panthers.

2. Comment #9868 by Caesar Best on November 26, 2006 at 8:57 am

Since a couple of years I've been agnostic and Richard Dawkins is my new hero! He's right to have a certain aura of smugness, since he is able to debate any religious fanatic into the ground. He has convinced me of the fact that religion does not deserve our respect since it's obselete, antiquated, backwards and inherently damaging to humanity. Of course he would never put it like that, but I would. I feel that his 'arrogance' is in perfect balance with the commonly accepted arrogance true believers display at all times.

Go Dawkins!

3. Comment #10895 by Caesar Best on December 1, 2006 at 7:01 am

In the last comment I described myself as being agnostic, since then I've done research like a maniac and was able to conclude that the excistence of 'god' is so highly questionable that it's reasonable to assume he doesn't excist. Now I concider myself to be an atheist, thank you Richard for setting me free from religion!

@Martin
Dawkins is very specific about his definition of god, he states it as a supernatural being as defined in the bible (etc). The who, where and what is totally irrelevant since there is no evidence even remotely indicating the excistence of such a being. Answering those questions would result in nothing but wild guessing.

Further more you seem to underestimate science, it is not based on 'supposition', it's based on logic, reason and let us not forget facts.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're mistaking science for theology and making stuff up. http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

4. Comment #20541 by Shocking Blue on February 3, 2007 at 11:28 pm

He's taken America by storm, he's admirable.

Other Comments by Shocking Blue

5. Comment #20846 by tgabriel on February 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm

There are some comments here about things not being scientifically proven. Granted, there are some physical and mathematical properties that can be taken as "proofs" as far as rational beings can know with the current understanding of our world.

But to imply that something is not scientifically proven and therefore not necessarily believable misses the point of rational thought all together.

As opposed to religious faith, scientific thought is by its very nature open to any number of tests of its veracity. Why do you think there is a debate in learned circles about exactly what constitutes " a mind"? No religionist would tolerate for a nanosecond a challenge to their faith. Yet, science is continually challenged and, when necessary, changed. That is the beauty of science and the deep sadness of religion.

I will keep my atheism, thank you.

Other Comments by tgabriel

6. Comment #262384 by jennajwalton on October 8, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I love the Dawkins Fangirls! Women after my own heart.

Other Comments by jennajwalton