51. Comment #9785 by Quentin on November 26, 2006 at 1:19 am

Nice site!
http://dgagmsmw.com/ohcx/wgeg.html">My homepage | http://atixvajx.com/aknl/qeza.html">Please visit

52. Comment #9786 by Maggie on November 26, 2006 at 1:20 am

Thank you!
http://dgagmsmw.com/ohcx/wgeg.html | http://xcwkpmvy.com/faeo/zmww.html

53. Comment #9797 by Ron on November 26, 2006 at 3:22 am

Well done!
http://mzlagorq.com/zyhx/egwm.html">My homepage | http://ezhdrkuz.com/bfxe/plxa.html">Please visit

54. Comment #10637 by Thomas on November 28, 2006 at 4:52 pm

Dear Dr. Dawkins,
I had expected more reasoned points of philosophy to comment on when I viewed your reading, but those seem to have been largely in the third and fourth chapters which you skipped over. Mockery and scorn are difficult and generally useless subjects for reasoned response. Two points seem worth making, however.
First, God the Father as revealed in the Bible is not a 'role model.' To make him such, I agree, would be delusional. God is God, you and I are not. He fashioned us like a potter fashions a pot. It is unreasonable to criticize the potter or deny his existence just because he would make a poor container for your olive oil or vase for your flowers.
Second, as to the burkha:
Which one has the most tragically limited vison; you, whose blinders screen out all but purposeless matter from your sight, or an ignorant shepherd to whom is revealed a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and an infant Saviour lying in a manger?
Was Abraham a fool to offer up his son in faith?
Perhaps you also think God a fool to offer up his own beloved Son to save you from the fatal consequence of your own sin. I have just listened to you call Him much worse than a fool. Yet, even now, Christ stands at the door of your heart and knocks.

55. Comment #11196 by Phil on December 3, 2006 at 4:30 pm

I was a lapsed atheist. I thoroughly threw God out the window when I was a teenager but a few years of desperation since then rebuilt my ignorance and a vague and irrational cloud of muddled belief gathered as mere comforts.

Your book has brought back to me the clarity I had when I sat in biology class - taught by a Catholic priest no less - and listened as an argument was squirmed together which adapted the story of creation to the subject of evolution.

I was seething that I was expected to simultaneously hold in one hand the awesome monolith of Darwin's theory and in the other hand the theological putty the priest had shaped around it.

56. Comment #11262 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:41 am

"That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people."

I agree with screaming mimi, shouldn't we feel sorry for RD since he SHOULD be able to out-debate these young, inexperienced non-graduates? I can win any debate against a 5 year old, I wouldn't go around bragging about it though.

I once lost an argument that I'm real. Debates are just words, they don't really prove anything.

57. Comment #11345 by Andy on December 4, 2006 at 8:53 am

Same old religious non-sequitur, but still always a pleasure to watch Dawkins demolish them.

58. Comment #11948 by decortication on December 8, 2006 at 1:47 pm

I'd like to point out that most of the pro-Dawkins comments on here are simply mindless worship from a host of robotic followers.

These people claim to be intelligent, yet they blindly devour everything Dawkins says, without even bothering to process it for themselves. Essentially, they fall prey to exactly the same mindset they condemn (i.e. blind following). How ironic.

If these people would stop for long enough to pull their collective heads out of Dawkin's rear-end they might be able to see his "arguments" seem to often fall into diversionary tactics and straw-manning.

Take, for example, his response in the video to the "age of dinosaurs" question. Didn't anyone notice that he never actually addressed the question OR the problem, but merely straw-manned the argument by diverting attention away from the actual question and onto the difference in the spans of time between them? He then tried to "prove" his argument by just saying an overly-complicated version of "there's a big difference in time between them." Well thanks a lot, genius, any idiot can see that there's a huge difference between six thousand and a few billion. Pointing out that difference neither proves his point, nor disproves his opposition's point -- it merely states the glaringly obvious.

Seriously weak response. And you all bought it hook, line and sinker -- and then you turn around and piss and moan about people who automatically buy into everything the Bible says. Hypocrites.

Other Comments by decortication

59. Comment #11950 by Aussie on December 8, 2006 at 2:03 pm

"Take, for example, his response in the video to the "age of dinosaurs" question. Didn't anyone notice that he never actually addressed the question OR the problem ..."

What problem? There is no problem.

Other Comments by Aussie

60. Comment #11951 by decortication on December 8, 2006 at 2:14 pm

I see you've been taking lessons from Dawkins. Congrats on the asinine response.

Other Comments by decortication

61. Comment #11956 by Sailnsouth on December 8, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Anyone interested in an obvious (but unfortunate) contrast should check out some of the numerous Christian websites. Many of these have extensive libraries of talking points on everything from abortion to dating. Thus allowing the faithful to spew forth the appropriate canned responses to any question they might be challenged with. They never have to generate an opinion on their own...nor would it be tolerated by the church.

We wouldn't want the faithful to deviate from the religious party line dogma would we.

I'll listen to information from all sides but as we know in the Christian world there is nothing new under the sun.

I'll take an irreverent RD any day!

Other Comments by Sailnsouth

62. Comment #11959 by decortication on December 8, 2006 at 3:12 pm

You know what I find amusing? The fact that this man, with all his knowledge and education, wasted his time writing an entire book about something he doesn't believe in. How ridiculous is that? That's like writing an entire book trying to disprove the existence of faeries and elves.

Of course, if he wrote a book trying to disprove the existence of faeries and elves everyone would probably think he was a complete imbecile, but since it's God he's trying to disprove the existence of, he's automatically assumed to be a genius.

You know what else I find amusing? The fact that atheists seem to think that atheism isn't a religion. Just because it's based on disbelief, it doesn't make it any less of a religion. If it weren't for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. atheism wouldn't even exist. How pathetic is that? Every other major religion can stand on its own, yet atheism requires other religions just to subsist.

Other Comments by decortication

63. Comment #12358 by Garbonzo on December 11, 2006 at 3:41 pm

I just began reading your book "The God Delusion" (through chapter 4) and came to your website out of curiosity and ran across this video Q&A you had with regards to the book.

I must say, I was extremely dissapointed by the quality of questions coming from the audience. I have only read less than a third of your book, and I knew the exact answer you were going to give to almost every single question. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the quality of college education here in America? Is no one able to absorb anything that they read and form new unanswered questions to further extend the discussion you have started with your book?

Along these lines, a question I have is in regards to the origin of religion itself. The book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond touched briefly on religion being a necessity in order for smaller civilizations to evolve into a larger metropolis. Religion had to be used to maintain control over large populations. Could the development of religion itself be part of societal evolution in that civilization cannot advance without the collective control over populations provided by religion?

Other Comments by Garbonzo

64. Comment #15244 by nerdfiles on December 29, 2006 at 10:33 pm

Some feel that Dawkins feebly attempted to and surely failed at answering the question of the origins of morality. You must bear in mind, however, that Dawkins is a not a man who throws adjectives and adverbs around carelessly to describe what he adheres to as his beliefs. He surely addresses the difficulty and unsureness that we as a race endure when dealing with the origins of morality. I personally feel his answer was on the mark; however, my spin on it is a bit different and takes into consideration the workings of evolution.

Our morality itself has come into existence as it is today through evolution. It too follows a similar evolutionary path to that of our survival, and, without a doubt, the evolution of our morality can be said to have assisted in our survival. When Darwinians speak of evolution it should be understood that they also mean our morality. It, like our race, is a constantly expanding and changing thing, albeit more noticeably slower than our physical evolution. But that is arguable.

I came to this conclusion when I tried to explain the origins of morality to our friend, first stemming the conversation from Dawkin's initial notice that we cherry pick morality from the bible. And thus, morality could not have originated from such a source. Like Dawkin's and Darwinism profess, it is easier to accept simple beginnings, and so it is my firm belief that morality too evolved from simple beginnings. The story goes as such.

Picture a stone age setting: less intelligent, more ape-like peoples, on the dawn of "social organisation" and near the brink of establishing the first instance of a morality definition. Mind you, things are not as simple as this, but this is a microcosm of the grand scheme that defines the origins of morality. And so, these peoples are socialising, if you will, laughing, picking, grunting, in a group, yes, but as individual entities of the same group, until after a "few" years, they evolve the sense that things done individually could be better achieved with help. Theirs tasks can be better accomplished in groups, and working in groups requires at least some sort of loose cooperation. This story is probably redundant to most, but it sets the playing field for "morally good" and "morally bad" choices which inherently grow into the minds of the peoples within the context.

And so, people are cooperating--they've produced a crop field. Now, these people consider this crop field to be a "good" thing--not "good" by some general, arbitrary definition, but "good" because they know that tomorrow it will provide food for them. And it is not arguable that avoiding hunger pains is a good thing. The fact that the food exists to prolong life and avoid the pain of hunger is a good thing contextually speaking. And so, it can be said that if something were to destroy these crop, that would be a bad thing for those people because that would remove their food for tomorrow and introduce hunger pains. This is a fairly simple concept; and I use crop because throughout history and to this day, food is used to promote causes and keep the attention of the people. The simple concept of nourishment and avoiding hunger pains is the catalyst for the myriad faiths we co-exist with. One of the most notable long-running incidents is that of the conversion of the pagans. Hell, their all-star pantheon was easily "refuted" by Christian missionaries because hell, all the gods are made up for one, but most importantly because the Church simply said--"yeah, you get to keep your feasts, you filthy peasants whose only goal in life is to ensure his or her next meal is a reality. Here's your feast. Have at it. Oh? Saturn? Forget him. Try Jesus, and a drumstick."

I digress. I think you get where I'm going with this. It is easy to see how the destruction of our food source can be considered a bad thing. It is also easy to see how being unproductive can equate to being immoral. Destruction, causing harm, killing, breaking, being overly critical, and even being too unique and argumentative...when referred to generally can be seen as unproductive. And thus, things considered unproductive are things that are immoral.

After a number of millennia of our ancestors realising, evolving and determining what is unproductive and what is, a loosely defined moral law was construed. What was contextually considered "bad," became known taboo. And what was known taboo eventually became fully condemned. What was condemned became crime, and whatever was considered a crime in the most direct and simple terms eventually grew into a being morally bad. Our moral conduct originates from our own observation and necessity to avoid displeasing experiences.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

65. Comment #15780 by dkreller on January 3, 2007 at 12:04 am

Dear Professor Dawkins,

I am very grateful to C-SPAN (in the USA) for the broadcast of your recent lecture in VA. This was a brilliant talk, and it was THE MOST useful lecture that I have ever heard.

As a boy I was mildly indoctrinated into a Lutheran church. It wasn't terrible for me, but looking back it did contribute to the many wastes of my time as a youth. At this time I am a Ph.D. chemist serving as a visiting professor at a Catholic institution. The whole Christian thing and the recent resurgance (insurgance?) of the creationists had muddied the waters for me. However, you have served as a beacon and helped me not only see through it all very clearly but also feel good about my work in science and awe of nature. I can't express how much guidance I received from your lecture and then 'The God Delusion'. I am deeply indebted to you.

I really hope that some of us can intellectually stimulate and guide you even a small fraction of the way that you have done this for us.

Other Comments by dkreller

66. Comment #16464 by leelinau on January 6, 2007 at 5:13 pm

After watching both video's I can hardly wait to get his book.

He clarified for me everything I instinctively rejected about religions.

My mother and grandmother were both brainwashed at the (American) Indian Boarding schools. Completely and utterly brainwashed. They (missionaries & the schools) did a fine job at degrading our heritage and our ways in the name of their god.

I'm finally coming out of the atheist closet.

Miigwetch (thank you) a million.

Peace & love to all!

^_^

Other Comments by leelinau

67. Comment #20701 by ACE1 on February 6, 2007 at 2:18 am

154. Comment #11959 by decortication on December 8, 2006 at 3:12 pm

You know what I find amusing? The fact that this man, with all his knowledge and education, wasted his time writing an entire book about something he doesn't believe in. How ridiculous is that? That's like writing an entire book trying to disprove the existence of faeries and elves.>>

Nothing like the strawman syndrome for completely missing any point, and backing up idiocy. My Autistic dyslexic hamster (Hammy) could have found a better one than this!

Other Comments by ACE1

68. Comment #26105 by Thursday on March 17, 2007 at 12:27 am

154. Comment #11959 by decortication on December 8, 2006 at 3:12 pm

You know what else I find amusing? The fact that atheists seem to think that atheism isn't a religion. Just because it's based on disbelief, it doesn't make it any less of a religion. If it weren't for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. atheism wouldn't even exist. How pathetic is that? Every other major religion can stand on its own, yet atheism requires other religions just to subsist.

***

And even more amusing than that? That someone should argue that if there was no belief in gods, then not believing in gods wouldn't exist.

Now that's arguing in a circle so tight it's a freaking singularity!

Other Comments by Thursday

69. Comment #29008 by Bastardo on April 1, 2007 at 6:52 am

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I can't seem to find this video anywhere. Does anyone have a link to it?

Other Comments by Bastardo

70. Comment #30885 by waperboy on April 10, 2007 at 8:27 am

Same here, clicking on the image or the download link does not download the movie.

Other Comments by waperboy

71. Comment #33417 by NakedCelt on April 20, 2007 at 3:58 am

If it weren't for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. atheism wouldn't even exist. How pathetic is that? Every other major religion can stand on its own, yet atheism requires other religions just to subsist.

Could Christianity stand on its own without a Judaism ("the old law") to supersede?

Other Comments by NakedCelt

72. Comment #50480 by Graeme UK on June 18, 2007 at 11:42 am

Hey,

Just watched the video and felt moved to join and comment on the greatest living Brit. He is clearly giving hope to the the huge number of subjugated atheists around the world, me included, who for one reason or another have not spoken out about the nonsense of religion.

If I might suggest a parellel or two: Emmeline Pankhurst spoke out for women's rights, in a male-dominated society resistant to her views. Hindsight has proved that she was justified in her actions, starting a movement that has changed many countries. Martin Luther King Jr spoke out for black rights in a white-dominated society resistant to his views. Hindsight has proved that he was right to do so, starting a movement that has changed many countries.

Richard Dawkins dares to speak what so many hope for, yet the religion-dominated society in which we find ourselves is resistant to his words. I am not one for passionate zeal and overestimation, but if I had to throw my lot in with one leader, a voice for all who are touched by his words, then I would be proud to stand with Richard Dawkins.

The good-natured humility with which he deals with the belittling criticism from those who manipulate his words and attack his character is an example to us all. I for one am in agreement with several posts on this thread, that the way to counter against religious domination is to show the indoctrinated that we free thinkers, we atheists, are good, moral and happy people. We will win the 'war' by showing the virtues of goodness and humanity, and belief in one another.

Dawkins is giving hope and showing the way. Lead on!

Other Comments by Graeme UK

73. Comment #59403 by Wadsworth on July 29, 2007 at 12:55 am

Re Comment #6118 Yinka

What an extremely rude, bad-mannered as well as illiterate sample of what passes for Christian apologetics!

Other Comments by Wadsworth

74. Comment #59409 by Goldy on July 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

Comment #11959 by decortication

How ridiculous is that? That's like writing an entire book trying to disprove the existence of faeries and elves.

Aha! I KNEW it was a believe in a Sky Pixie!

You know what else I find amusing? The fact that atheists seem to think that atheism isn't a religion. Just because it's based on disbelief, it doesn't make it any less of a religion. If it weren't for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. atheism wouldn't even exist. How pathetic is that? Every other major religion can stand on its own, yet atheism requires other religions just to subsist.

A-theism = No god, ergo it is the opposite of theism = bullshit. Sorry, rude of me - but the truth does hurt :-)
Without irrationality, belief would not exist either. I'm not sure what your point is.

Other Comments by Goldy

75. Comment #69394 by Pamela on September 11, 2007 at 5:05 am

In an old post, 'Pat' said that Richard Dawkins didn't answer the question "why do we need a god"? I'll answer that with another question "why does a person need to smoke marijuana"? the answer - they don't. It just gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. - a false sense of security.

Other Comments by Pamela

76. Comment #71077 by dansample on September 17, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Richard earned a Knighthood that evening!

Other Comments by dansample

77. Comment #114581 by Arco on January 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm

I find it amazing to read so many comments about the ignorance of Liberty's students by so many who seem incapable of spelling properly or forming a complete sentence. Ah, I understand they must have been instructed by Dawkins himself.

Other Comments by Arco

78. Comment #133642 by Zar on February 26, 2008 at 1:01 pm

SO here is another web site for you die hard Dawkins Fundamentalists because you are a true believer in his opinions and really think he esposes all the answers your looking for here are other scientists from Oxford that beg to differ with your new found boy wonder!

http://www.atheistdelusion.net/audio.php

Other Comments by Zar