The Good · The Bad · The Ugly

The Bad.

Most letters fall into either 'the good' or 'the ugly' section, but sometimes a letter of criticism is slightly civil. We give these writers a point for marginally good manners.

1

Hi I'm a Christian,

I think that Dawkins is biased, I've been a Christian all my life despite being totally outnumbered. I study the Bible everyday, read commentaries and systematic theologies and listen to sermons on my Ipod. I pray every day to God through the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank Jesus every day for dying in infinite agony at Calvary to save me from everlasting torment in hell.

The only reason that all you guys aren't Christians is that hate God. I mean listen to yourselves, you sound like a bunch of morons. Everyone knows that God exists but they supress the truth by their wickedness, instead of giving thanks they exchange the truth of God for a lie. Claiming to be wise they became fools and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I mean in my sociology class when we did religion one girl put her hand up and asked "if there was noone around when the world was made how did the author of Genesis know what happened?" . The teacher immediately replied "Well it's a load of nonsense isn't it?"

Great thinking guys, I'm surprised she didn't say "How did the author of Revelation know how the world was going to end since it was still a future event? What gives?" Sheer insanity!

Richard Dawkin's says he doesn't read theology and then claims to be surprised that he's not been converted. Well what do you expect!

"So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

"And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Of course you're not impressed by the argument from design! WE WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO BE, YOU MANIAC! Love you!

2

Explaining Christianity to an Intellectual Atheist

There was a discussion between two scientists in New York City back in 1996. The topic they discussed was the evolution of human beings. Richard Dawkins, one of the scientists, is a zoologist who published a book call The Selfish Gene. In this book he describes life as a conveyor belt for this selfish gene that is struggling to survive. He says in this book that everything we hold most dear acts of love, the beauty of a peacock's tail, the birth of a newborn could be explained by the selfish gene's struggle to survive. Also Dawkins once stated, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

The other scientist in the discussion was Jaron Lanier. He is a computer scientist, musician, and a provocative thinker on evolution, morality, and ideas. He has no basic quarrels with the theory of evolution, but does not believe it's the most apt metaphor for our lives. According to Lanier natural section is only a part of the human story, and we more than just the accidental result of evolution. He says what's best about us and civilization may be our ability to thwart evolution.

Lanier argued that it is hard to find a basis for our morality in nature from where we evolved and some people feel that if they accept evolution it would lead to a moral vacuum. He says nature is evil and every time we help a needy person or make it possible for a handicapped person to live and pass on their genes, we've succeeded in defying the process that created us.

Dawkins says that nature is simply indifferent to human concerns and that we are unique in the animal kingdom. We have brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish gene.
He says if it leads to a moral vacuum that's just tough. We must face up to the truth.


Sigmund Freud depicts personality as shaped by an ongoing conflict between people's primary drives, particularly sex and aggression, and the social pressures of the civilized society. According to Freud, we are born with a vast reservoir of instinctual drives called life instincts (such as hunger, thirst, and sex) and death instincts (such as aggression and destruction). These biological drives are instinctual and largely unconscious. Also the biological drives are very selfish and seek immediate gratification. As we grow older we realize that immediate gratification is not always possible so we learn to cope with the real world. Freud called this the reality principle. He theorized that we composite our morality from the standards of parents and society. According to Freud moral inhibition or "should nots" of behavior stem from punishment and "shoulds" of behavior we receive approval and/or reinforcement.


Kohlberg's theory of moral development has 6 stages. In the 1st stage children behave in certain ways to avoid punishment. In the 2nd stage they behave in certain ways to obtain rewards. At this low level children have no morality. In stage 3 moral behaviors are the desire to help others or gain their approval. Stage 4 is to help maintain the social order. Stage 5 of morality is to affirm the values agreed on by society, including individual rights and the need for democratically determined rules. In stage 6 individuals are guided by universal ethical principles even if their act's conflict with society's rules. Kohlberg suggests that people are encouraged to advance to higher morality by exposure to the more advance moral reasoning of others.

Tim Hogston
My Conclusions
One theory states that our parents and society teach morality to us with punishment for bad behavior and rewards for good behavior. This seems like a very weak foundation for our morality to be based on. With this basis for morality a person may steal if they thought they would not get caught. A very powerful nation may invade a weaker one, steal it resources and enslave its people if it thought that no other country could stop it. Kohlberg says there is no morality in society if people obey laws simply to avoid punishment. He says our morality advances as we observe higher morality in others. When we are first born we are basically immoral. Richard Dawkins refers to this as the selfish gene that we are all born with. Freud calls it the instinctual drives. So how do we be come moral?

Well the first step in becoming moral individuals started at the beginning of human civilization. The first thing a society had to do was to establish rules to live by. For example, at the beginning of the Israeli Nation they receive the Ten Commandments, which they believed, came directly from God. With these laws society had written rules that defined what was moral and what was immoral. But written rules are enough to help us advance to higher levels of morality. We need to observe higher morality in someone else and this is what Jesus Christ has done. Jesus Christ was born without the self-gene and the instinctual drives that we were born with and that is why when we look at the life of Christ it seems so radically unselfish. By simply believing in Christ and studying his life it increases the morality of the individual. This is the mission of Christ, to advance mankind to the final stage of morality by guiding individuals to universal principles even if those principles conflict with society's rules.

Matthew 4:16 & Isaiah 9:2
The people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.

3

The GOD Delusion is the most presumtuous pile of drivel I have ever come across. To declare that God cannot exist puts Richard Dawkins in the exclusive position of being God himself - he would have to be omnipresent and omniscience. He requires the ability to have been everywhere at every time in order to be assured of 100% of human knowledge.

It defies all logic that someone who is clearly as smart as Dawkins would attempt to debunk something as simple as God's existence - we see his creation around us every day.

Let me ask you - do you think you are a Good Person ? Well, if you are and lets pretend for a moment that you believe it existed - Do you think you're good ENOUGH to get to heaven ? Have you kept the ten commandments ? Well, let me ask you a few questions.....

Have you ever told a lie ? No matter how small I'm sure you have - so what would that make you...be honest. A Liar.

Have you ever stolen anything ? No matter how insignificant.

I'm sure you have - so what would that make you....be honest. A Thief.

Here's a kicker - We all know the commandment "Do not commit adultery", but Jesus said whomever looks after a woman with Lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Have you ever looked with Lust ?

Well listen, by your own admission you're a lying, theiving adulterer at heart. So If God was to Judge you by his law, his ten commandments, would he find you guilty or innocent ? Bear in mind that if your honest you've already admitted to breaking his laws. You'd be found guilty, just like me.

So if he found you guilty, would he sentence you to eternity in heaven or hell ?

If you've just said heaven, think about this. If you were found guilty of a crime and were in court, would you get off with it or would the judge pass sentence. A good judge would pass sentence, a corrupt judge might let you go. Perhaps you think God is just good and loving, but it's because of his goodness that he will pass sentence, he's not a corrupt judge. Perhaps you think you can just say sorry - well you should be sorry, but that won't help you - if you tell the judge in court you're sorry he's still going to make you serve the time or pay the fine!

So, the correct answer is, he's found you guilty, and the Bible makes it clear that the punishment is hell!

Does that concern you ? It should. Perhaps you say "I dont beleive in God". Well, I can stand on the highway and say I dont believe in trucks, but at the end of the day the REALITY of the matter is a truck will mow me down. Not believing something doesn't change the REALITY of it.

Now the good news. Do you know what God did for you so that you don't have to go to hell ? He sent his son, Jesus Christ to earth as a man, he lived a perfect life and died on a cross. He was beaten, whipped, battered, jeered, poked and made to wear a crown of thorns. They dragged him through the streets and nailed him to a cross and when they thought he was dead, they pierced his side with a spear to make sure. But 3 days later he ROSE AGAIN and defeated death. He died and took that punishment for you, in your place.

Jesus died on the cross and took the punishment he did to pay the price for YOUR sins. Its like being in court, found guilty and the judge has passed sentence of a fine of £100,000,000, when a stranger, someone you don't even know steps forward and pays the fine for you.

And all he asks in return is that you REPENT of (turn away from) your sins and believe in and put your faith in him, Jesus, as your saviour. When your judgement day comes around, IF you have repented and put your trust in him, he will step forward for you and tell the father that he has already served your sentence and you get to go to heaven even though none of us deserve it.

You have a choice to make right now, accept Jesus or deny him. The choice is yours, but the choice is eternity in heaven or eternity in hell. Jesus wants to be included in your life and he wants good things for you. He can turn lives around, heal the broken heart, body and mind. But these are all fruits of salvation - they are the bonuses of being "born again" and putting your trust in Jesus Christ. Put your faith in him today - if you were to die in your sleep tonight, do you know what would happen to you ? are you assured of your eternity ? Trust Jesus today, I beg you.

4

The blind leading the blind, October 16, 2006
Amazon.com review of The God Delusion
Reviewer: Eyes Wide Open "Christian" (Virginia, United States)
Why anyone would chose to put their faith in the foolishness of evolution instead of the loving sacrifice of God's Son Jesus, continues to allude me.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things, rather than the creator (Romans 1:25)"

Chose whom you will serve - in the end, there can be only one.

5

I saw you on Colbert Report tonight and must say that you are wrong sir.
There IS a God. How do we just end up here? How did it all just appear?

That is crazy to think that way sir.

Where did we all come from?

6

The argument I am going to place in front of you today I would hope is going to save your soul if that is still even a possibility Richard. Making a case for the spiritual side of life is probably the best way to approach our disagreement I believe so anyway here we go. The argument I can make is quite simply how detailed life can be. exe. When you are having a good day how does life know exactly how to reward you? When you are having a bad day how does life then know exactly how to punish you. The devil's in the details if you will pardon the expression. Think of it life knows exactly how to praise you and pummel you and it will do so in great detail.

The only logical explanation I could come up with spirituality Richard. Now maybe the first time you have a bad day and the absolute worst thing that could have possibly happened to you happens, maybe the first time its a coincidence but the second and the third. Failure to acknowledge the spiritual side of life is stupidity at best Richard. God gave you the gift of intelligence and look how you have repaid him by spurning him time and time again. Hopefully now you realize just who's work you have been doing and yes he's real too believe me. The question I would ask you is for what?, why risk your soul for money?, how much money can you spend Richard?.

Here's another stroke of genius for you if you are taking more than your fair share are you not also taking someone else's. Make amends if you can that's my advice Richard because eternity is an awful long time what if your wrong?

7

(note from the staff, honest folks we don't make these up!)

The main accomplishment of hard science over the last 50 years
is that there is a creator out there.

How are you coming in your accommodation?

If you think that's not important, try to create a universe----start out
with a little one-perhaps 10e-20 or 10e-30 full scale. After you receive your Nobel Prize(it would be kind if you mention my name in your
acceptance speech), we'll communicate further.

BW

8

I realize that this will probably never see the eyes of Mr. Dawkins. I realize that this may anger his supporters so much, may further lead them to dislike religion, religious people, that they may, having read this, explode in rage or frustration, or may laugh at my insolence. I realize that Richard may never read this, and probably will never respond and will never change his ideas just because of some internet comment. However, I have to try. I saw your (meaning Mr. Dawkins) interview with Stephen Colbert tonight, and, although I have never read any of your books that might have addressed this, I have one simple question for you. If you do believe in what you say--which, I assume, you do--you believe that all things may be explained by scientific analysis and observations. You proved this when you asked where God came from. Well, if you do not believe in God, then you must believe that through scientific processes the universe, earth, and all humans have been created, and as such, the happening that occurred was likened to that of the Big Bang(as a perfect example that is so readily used by people of your understanding). But tell me this, what created the Big Bang? Either you must tell me that Elements were constructed from nothing, which is scientifically impossible, or that the Universe or the elements that created the Big Bang were forever in existence, or both. Or, you must tell me that you cannot know this, or that it is unknown, or that by some means your knowledge does not extend thus far. By choosing the former options, you are putting yourself in the same category as "religious bible thumpers" or zealots by saying that something which is proved scientifically impossible by our laws which you use as your pulpit for everything else is something that you believe in. Therefore, it is once again taken down to the level of pure speculation. Or, your can choose the latter of the two options and say that it cannot be known. Although I doubt that anyone of your calabur would want to admit this, this is truly the most sane answer because it does not limit things that we don't entirely understand to rules which apply only to the studies which we do understand and pursue. However, in stating this, it would disproving and killing the entire premise for your last book in which I assume you attempt to disprove the existence of God. It would do this because it would be admitting that truly you do not know how or why or what, and, therefore, it is mere speculation and the existence of God can therefore not be disproved because no scientific explanation that is in form of every earthly scientific explanation can explain the event(overly wordy, I know). In short, it is speculation, a mere hypothesis either way. In truth, we cannot go back in time and see what exactly went on--and clearly we cannot explain it using the laws which guide us on earth or in space (attempting to do so in anyway, as was said before, would be ludicrous because the event had so much [speculation] energy and was such an anomaly that we cannot really test using the same variables and constants). So, in short, we must ultimately accept that there are things that we do not understand. Religion tries to explain it one way, and they adopt God. It's a pity though, that so many rules a regulations and arbitrary ideologies have accompanied such a belief, because those things turn rational people like you against it. Thank you for reading this.

9

That was a very entertaining appearance on the Colbert show that I watch tonight Mr. Dawkins. My name is Justin, I am in no way a Christian, but, I am a servant of Christ and I am not telling you this as an act of persuasion but solely as my proud heritage in Christ. I have often heard come across through one source or another an atheist, evolutionist, and even an agnostic professor who teaches at UNC who promoted his book on the “Daily Show” about the lack of credibility of the most widely known book, the bible! And I did not preach to them nor will I preach to you because we all have our own paths and our own purpose to find in this world. But, something about your appearance bothered me so I wanted to ask you some questions about your belief and I am sure Darwin’s theories will be implemented in any answer that I may receive from you! Maybe what bothers me was the arrogance of what you represent…science…almost in a “god” like way. You said that intelligent design is not truly intelligent, but, the intelligent that men used for technology is. Then surely you must believe that this “intelligence” is flawed? I mean, there is not one pill that cures all and almost every type of medication is argued by some other drug company or doctor that the side affects is not worth it and that their version is better. Not to mention technology it is flawed and if it is not, then, nothing would need to be replaced or words like upgrade would have no meaning. But, I know you know this and you already know that human beings are imperfect. So, I will not take much stock in awaiting your reply for former question. I will state, however, I am somewhat surprised that you think that the way that every organism is designed is not intelligent. From how our body works like a machine, how our arms and legs are used as our bodily “tools”, and our emotions of love/attachment, hate, devotion, loyalty, mistrust, etc.. But I am sure that you believe that all of these examples of intelligent design are actually just examples of evolution and how each thing that our previous (and now defunct state) was lacking and how, through the process of evolution, we were able to compensate what we lack into all of those lovely examples I just mentioned. Not to mention, the smaller organism and their instinct for each of their purpose that they present in nature and their need for survival. From the outside looking in, I would not call it “Intelligent Design”, but, an array of plans that is instilled in every breathing creature. But, I really do not want to talk about evolution versus intelligent design as I will leave it to the overly sensitive Christian and scientist to battle over and waste their time pondering. No, my main question is this. There is a beginning to everything as I am sure you are aware. Where was our beginning at? If we truly evolved from one microorganism into our present state, then, where did this microorganism come from? If you believe that it just existed then does this not contradict your response (that you made on Steven’s show) to those who believe in God also believing that He just existed? And if you do have your own personal theory from which this microorganism came from, then, if it evolved from something even smaller, then where did “it” come from? Do you see, it is a stalemate. It is not a win on your side or the Christian side, but, this is the thing that bothered me. You acted as if this was a win for your side. Your book can and will be argued and as you said, it cannot be disproved nor proven. I guess, I would not want one of you science “guys” to admit the possible existence of God, but, to show humility in recognizing despite all of the verbose words, all of the tests, the lengthy presentations, and etc that will be presented by science, it still comes from men. Men who feed off their own ego for fame and glory as we all are suppose to “worship” their intelligence. How about turning it down just a bit and maybe more Christians would take you seriously!

10

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I am writing to you and responding to your position from an educated person's standpoint. I know Science and know it well.

Firstly, let me state my position clearly. I do believe in Science. I also believe in God. I do not believe there is any kind of contradiction between the two. Neither am I a young earth creationist who believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old. That is silly and unscientific.

This e-mail is meant to be a brief and scientificaly honest reply to your atheism.


Before I discuss the Theory of Evolution, let me discuss the Big Bang. I do believe in the Big Bang. I do not believe in Evolution, and from a scientific position I will explain why.

When we study the present day expanding universe, we clearly see that it started a a finite point in the past. We know this because the universe is expanding outward in all directions.

Astronomers have placed the age of the universe at about 12 to 15 billion years ago.

That is not that long ago! since the universe is clearly expanding from a central point we can honestly conclude that there was a time when this universe did not exist.

It gets better. Theoretical Physics tell us that the Big Bang did not explode into any pre existing space! They say that at the moment of the big bang space, time, matter and energy all came into being at once in a sea of subatomic particles!

An Entire Universe from Nothing!!

The Bible says

"In the Beginning God said 'Let there be Light' "

Does this verse of Genesis not sound like the Big Bang to you Dr. Dawkins?

See, Doctor, The Universe could not be a self existing, steady state universe because recycling of matter to form new stars could never continue indefinitely since recycling is never 100 percent. Plus we can clearly see and study the expansion of the universe, which would not be possible if it had not come into being, rather than having already existed forever.


My library time is running out so on Evolution I will simply say quickly that Evolution breaks the law of Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, which says that you cannot get complexity out of simplicity. Things in the natural order go the other way around from the complex to the simple, not from the simple to the complex, and in the case of evolution it would never work because it is blind and random, and does not in any way shape or form account for the diversity of life.

11

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I just got more library time and I would like if I may expand on my explanations.

Granted, Evolution would work if life were as simple as it was thought to be in Darwin's time. At that time, the cell was thought to be a simple blob of protoplasm which could both form from nonliving chemicals and change to suit its surroundings as need be.

The cell is not simply a blob of protoplasm.Modern Science shows it to be more complex than we have ever dreamed. And cells do change to suit their surroundings, but this is adaptation, not evolution in the Macro sense.

There is a difference between micro and macro evolution and evolutionary biologists like yourself have made the distinction between the two fuzzy so the uneducated will believe this bankrupt theory!

If life is as complex as modern science shows it to be why are we holding on to a theory from the 1850s? That is ancient in terms of scienticic knowledge!

The theory is dead wrong and bad science.It breaks the laws of the universe, does not explain the origins of life, and its feasibility hangs on random mutations and blind chance!!!

Surely chance and random mutations cannot explain the "evolution" of one species of life, let alone the "evolution" of the trillions of species of life of all five kingdoms of life on Earth!!

The age of the earth in years needed for the evolution, if it were possible, of every species we know exists would be a 10 with a triple digit exponent!

There aren't even that many subatomic particles in this universe!

There is no doubt in my scientific mind that evolution is false, there is a God, God caused the Big Bang,

God created all life on Earth. Not random Evolution.

If there is no God, why do we have the concept of such a greater being?

Why has he put eternity in our minds?

If there is no God, why does 98 percent of the world worships something?

Could it be that the brain is wired to worship like modern science tells us it is?

Could it be that the brain is wired to seek the spiritual because God wants us to worship him?

Random Evolution could not have caused this.


Again, I do believe in Science. I also believe in God. There is no contradiction between the two.Only an Apparant one by those who wish to promote and believe atheism. God has allowed us to prove he doesn't exist so he doesn't infringe on our free will.

12

Dawkings (sic), you're so smart in your own eyes. You can't comprehend simple bible passages and misconstrue them for your own bullshit dogma. I read your book about the bible it is totally sucks ass and is biased and one sided propaganda. Your theory sucks!! You are not as wise as you think you are.

You hypocrites want to CONDEMN anybody for making mistakes or believing different from your bullshit retard atheism dogma!! Dawkings books are fucking stupid bullshit!!

13

I do not want or expect a response from you. I am just amazed and shocked by turning on C-Span to see you lecturing to a college crowd. You may have your "opinion" and I have mine and I am a Christian, thankfully by His grace always will be. I hope that maybe some of your readers that are questioning their faith will read my comment and will turn their minds away from you and turn their hearts to God. Your message of no God, no Jesus, just your delusional factor is absolutely absurd. Not only is it proven in the bible which you seem to quote by picking out judgments, Jesus was proven in history. You leave out many passages of love of God, the mercy of God, the patience of God, the love of Jesus, the heart of Jesus, but maybe you ought to read James 2:19 Unlike some people, demons believe there is a God and "shudder":You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -- and shudder.

No, I don't expect my comments to change you, God will deal with you someday, you knee will bow and you will be judged. I'm just sorry that you don't know his love, his caring, his forgiveness, his mercy, his grace as I and many others do.

I'm sure your site will not post this, but at least someone on your staff had to read it and maybe their heart will soften and change. God does harden hearts (I'm sure you've read that, look up Moses and Pharoh), but he also hardens them for his glory, his purpose and his kingdom. His kingdom which sadly, you won't see.

14

First of all, you are wrong about there not being any athiest lobby groups in America. you forgot about the ACLU. (the Anti-Christian-Litigations-Unite) you say anything about God because you don't know God!! But be assured, you can scoff, smirk, deny the true God of the Bible but you'll be gone within 30 years then you will meet the one who you have despised & rejected and all of your degrees won't save you. I hope & pray that before you go, you will ask God to soften your heart and show you his truth. you will never understand God until you humbly ask Jesus into your heart, something that will be especially hard for you.

15

Richard, my heart is deeply troubled for you. You as a devout follower and believer in evolutionary thought (religion) waste so much time and energy trying to dissuade people from their religious beliefs. It seems that these beliefs do in fact have an positive impact on people's lives (from an evolutionary perspective). Studies show that people who have deep, solid, moral and religious belief systems live longer (thus giving them more time to procreate), are healthier, and are more generous towards others. Why then, if evolution is true, does it matter to you whether or not people believe in the existence of God, the supernatural, and a life after death? Why do you waste so much time? Faith will not go away. You can try to dissuade people all you want but the reality is that science cannot explain how humans can ask the question "why?" but other animals cannot. It cannot explain how people who have been dead for hours can rise up and walk and live again. Why do you have such animosity, anger and hatred towards God and the people who follow Him? You seem to attack the Christian God of the Bible whatever chance you get, but forget to mention the belief systems of other religions who also believe in a creator God. Is your life that meaningless, that you truly believe your only reason to exist is to make more babies. Maybe, if you really believed that evolution was true, you'd spend more time doing that (spreading your seed) than attacking people of faith. My heart is troubled for you. Open your mind, ask God if He exists, not science if God exists. Evolution has become your god. You worship it as strongly as I worship the God of the Bible. The only difference is that my life has meaning, and yours has none (based on our belief systems). I know you probably will never read this email, but your assistants and correspondence teams will throw it in with the junk. But if you really are open-minded, you'll read this.

16

First let me start off by saying this, as Sigmund Freud said,"Organized religion is so patently infantile". With that statement I whole heartedly agree. However your view on the nature of god as a delusion is also patently infantile. You argue from your big old ego.(your need to be right), as if science is the only thing, you are too narrow minded. You think god is a thing that can be investigated. It is beyond human comprehension.So there is really nothing to say... Your comments(book) is the Richard Dawkins delusion...

I will leave you with these quotes;
"God cannot be explained, He cannot be argued about, He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood.
God can only be lived...
To understand the infinite, eternal Reality is not the Goal of individualized beings in the Illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood; it is to be realized by conscious experience.
Therefore the Goal is to realize the "I am God" state in human form.
"Meher Baba"

I doubt you will really understand this because you had the audacity to write about what god is not... lose the ego, your not as smart as you think you are.

"Those who speak do not know
Those who know do not speak".

17

If you do not have God in your life, then what is the point of your life?......POINTLESS!!!

WHEN you die, that's it....game over!!!! How pointless is that???

I really feel sorry for you all......BUT it's not too late to turn to God.

18

I am a man of reason and a son of God. Where is the mutual exclusivity?

Those who understand science know that God and Science are not oposing
forces.
There are Christians who use God to absolve themselves of personal
responsibility.
There are also Atheists who insist on the absence of God to avoid
personal responsibilty.

Science points squarely at the possibility of God.

Look at the beginning. How can nature come into existence through
natural processes when there is no nature to begin with?
Even Richard Dawkins admits that he has no way of knowing what occurs in a singularity where all laws of nature and natural selection breakdown.
How can nothing explode?
How does something come into existence from nothing?
How does inorganic matter create life?
How does asexual reproduction of one organism give way to sexual
reproduction of two organisms?
How does consciousness evolve?
How can DNA code be the only code in existence without a programmer?
How do organisms organize when we know the natural process is to go from
organization to disorganization?
How did an explosion like the Big Bang create structure and organizationand create processes which make it impossible for an explosion to organze anything again?

Science breaks down in the face of these questions.

This is not "God in the Gaps" but reasonable explinations to intriguing questions.

True believers are rigorous thinkers.
Have a nice day.

19

I watched on CSPAN your titillating lecture at Randolph-Macon Woman's College from your October appearance there. Congratulations on your masterful job of self-congratulation. I was thoroughly amused by your silly little tirade against the theologians. It was marvelous evidence that you have a huge axe to grind against Christianity and that you don't know the first thing about the nature of confessional theology or about the intellectual articulation of faith. Your purpose is to lampoon and trivialize. I suppose that before certain naive audiences your little tirades come off quite well. The giggling from the Randolph-Macon audience showed that. But my strong advice to you is to stick to the sciences. Make your case as you will against the "God Delusion." I'm sure God can handle it. But please don't try to weasel your way over into the academic study of theology or biblical interpretation, about which your comments were juvenile and, well, full of shit.

P.S. The arrogance of having your own silly little website "richarddawkins.net" is truly amazing. Your self-congratulatory remarks about your victories over those poor "Liberty University" students were also amazing. I don't doubt that their fundamentalism is obnoxious to you. It is to me, too. But please dont' turn fundamentalists simply into a straw man. You don't need to, after all. You teach at Oxford.

God bless you, Richard.

20

Dear friends,

Dankins' attitude towards life, consciousness, and religion resembles that of a physicist who - on viewing his measuring devices in a concert hall -states: "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is nothing but acoustic oscillations and vibrations"...

21

Your characterisation of David Quinn as obnoxious is a fallacious type of argument - the argument ad hominem; don't try and answer the argument just insult the opponent. It shows your commitment to truth, evidence, and rational debate in a very poor light. Shame on you.

By the way, I wonder will you poet this comment on your website? I have been reading it for a while and am surprised at the lack of comments other than those from people who agree with you - for saomeone who claims to prize truth and debate this is rather strange.

(Note from Staff: this individual must not understand the concept of the forums or a dictionary)

22

You used the analogy of quantum measurement.

Maybe that's Gods' measuring stick?

He does know the number of hairs on your head.

"Believe it or not!"

23

I don't like you richard dawkins, its not that your an atheist. Its that your trying change peoples religious reasoning to follow your proporgated dogma. Its how you present your argument, and you totally inetituded to see your hipocracy. You say that any man of reason will not believe in god, and the god is the cause of all wars.

Who are you to decide who is reasonable and who is gulible and foolish. When does your ideology of a perfect world without religion manifest in to a world faught over interpritation of fossils and other paleolithic evidence. When is that your campaign of reason become one of hate.

Is it when you claim your ideology is supeior to mine? Is it when you try to end a religion by replacing it with up to date man based religion. Is it when you embrace science as the only and conclude that anything unexplained in this world has yet to be discovered, and not simply the work of god who claim does not exist.

When are you going to smarten up and realise that your message of peace will soon become a message of war, a reason to destroy religion and its followers under the banner of the ideology that if you are illogical and unreasonable then you are fool who deserves to die. Don't say it won't happen, all religion starts out with good intentions and usually ends with genicide or some other act of inhumanity.

When are you going to stop using the term, "If your a smart person, then you must see where god fails". This isn't a term of reasoning, this a term you use to blindsight and destroy the concience and indepence of the common people. All men and women on some level think they are smart, so when you say that if you were smart you would believe this; you are in defintion trying to convert people who are ignorrent fools and moronic theologins unsure of their own connection to the world. They hear you say these bloated words, and long to become like you.

Your smart Mr. Dawkin, but you are not wise.
From a man who is rational and believes in a god. which by your definition is a paradox.

24

Mr. Dawkins,

I just got done listening to an excerpt of your presentation at Randolph-Macon's Women's College.

I can measure the distance from San Francisco to New York as many times as my heart desires. That sort of measurement along with measurements taken when experimenting with REAL, PURE science, is at the very heart of science - that is measurements extracted from controlled, REPEATABLE experimentation from investigating directly or indirectly OBSERVABLE phenomena.

I am sorry to inform you of the logically obvious, but supposed, past events are inobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable making them subject to mostly storytelling. If you wish to implement "scientific" procedures regarding supposed, past events then tell the truth, namely that you are engaging in FORENSICS which is a soft science. For a lesson on pure science vs. soft science refer to the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science

This misuse of science will not go unnoticed by concerned people who care about the rules, philosophies and methods of science. Quit using science to storytell about a time that is inobservable, untestable, and unfalsifiable in order to fulfill a hidden, religious agenda based on a STUPIDnatural god. I say STUPIDnatural instead of SUPERnatural because as an evolutionist, whether you be an atheist or theist, you believe in a unconscious, unmotivated creator that is blind - hence "STUPIDnatural".

That, by the way, is the hidden premise of evolution - that a STUPIDnatural god, that goes by many names including God and even Richard Dawkins (that is when Mr. Dawkins claims there is no God or god), twiddled his/her/its thumbs while "evolving" everything we see around us including us. You and your comrads have turned science into a religion within the study of the Theory of Evolution based on this unspoken god that you people try so hard to cover up.

You may not like the HISTORY that my God revealed to mankind, fine. But quit RUINING science to STUDY what is a HISTORICAL matter. Leave HISTORY for the historians and religionists without RUINING science.

That is unless you have found a way to time travel. When you invent such a machine then maybe you can have the audacity to tell people where to go to college.

In the meantime, thank your lucky stars that I was not present in that audience. You would have left in tears.

(Maybe we need another category: Daft)

25

If as you say God is a delusion, and God created humanity, then humanity is a delusion. Since you think you are human, you are a delusion and do not exist. Then why do you have a website? Whhy don't you just wink out of existence since you never was real anyway? -david

How do you know you are real and am talking to me? There is no one telling you you exist! How do you know you are even human? Are you an android who thinks you are human? why do you think? If there is no god, then evolution would never have happened and humanity is a great lie.

note: Dawin says "survival of the fittest" and that means "kill or be killed" without care to morality. Therefore you are dehumanising humanity. Of course you don't care, since you are not even human. You just look human and think you are, but you are a lie. Why don't you make friends with Freddy Kreuger and Jason Vorhees, because they think just like you? They kill for fun, why not you?

26

Dear Mr. Dawkins

I expect you receive many emails from Christians all over the world trying to prove to you God's existence. I, for one, am not one of those Christians because I have no right to tell you what to think, or feel, for that matter, but I will tell you that you are so very very wrong in trying to cause uproar in the world with your book. You are trying to get people round to your way of thinking that there is no God and trying to delude people into unbelief. That is all you amount to at the end of the day, you are just an unbeliever. Just because you do not believe in God does not mean to say He does not exist. It just makes you, as I have said, an unbeliever.

If you have NEVER looked at a Bible then I suggest you do so now and see in Matthew 24 that EVERYTHING in that chapter is happening NOW. Bible prophecy has been proved over many, many years to be correct and the evidence of the birth and life of Jesus Christ, AND His death and Resurrection have been catalogued and scripted justly and truthfully. There is more evidence to support the life of Jesus Christ than that of the life of Genghis Khan!!!!!!!!!

Did you know that the Ark of Noah has also been found on Mt Ararat? This proves the flood happened. Did you know that Jonah was swallowed (probably) by a whale and they said this could never happen in real life? ..........A whale was harpooned and they found an Italian man living in its belly..........

I am not trying to prove to you God's existence because as far as I am concerned, I only have to look around me and see the wonderful world He has made. Proof enough. But I also am a Christian who attends Church and sing in our worship group and I love every minute of praising the God who created me, AND you. Whether you like it or not, He did make you and one day you shall know the truth but it will be too late for you. I do feel sorry for you, you probably had religion rammed down your throat all your life and now you are rebelling.

You probably do not believe in the devil, but he exists as sure as we do. He is the one who is blinding your eye to God's favour. He wants you in hell with him when Jesus comes back, and at this rate, hell is where you will be. However....you still have time to repent and accept Jesus as your saviour. Yes, even you can be saved if you TRULY repent.
Confirmed atheist or not, when you are on your death bed, faced with no hope, and the fear that "this is it" you will call out to God and beg for clemency. It has been proved by so many atheists facing death, scared out of their wits and calling out to a God that they trashed and said did not exist.........and I know in my heart that you will be one of those people, and when you do you will find that Jesus has been waiting to hear you say that.

I just hope and pray it does not take a death bed confession for you to become a believer, because you would have such a testimony to tell. You could write another book denouncing the previous and the title could go something like " From Death to Everlasting Life."

I shall be praying for you.

May God bless you and keep you until the day you become His in Spirit and in TRUTH....Read a Bible, He will show Himself to you. You don't have to tell anyone...just see for yourself how alive He is.


Yours in truth and love

27

Three words from God to you!

Dear Atheist,

This is what God says about you.

You are a fool.

(Note from the RDFRS Staffers: guess counting requires too much thought)

28

Dear Mr. Hawkins.

I'm really just learning a little bit about mind virus and memetics.

I'm fascinated with it, and I find some truth to it.

I'm sad to find out your an atheist though, because I believe you actually show what Jesus was fighting against, which was mind virus against God.

What is God to you.

You think of God on a different level other wise you wouldn't have come to the conclusions you have.

You actually stop further investigation, I presume, based on who created what first, and until you have an answer, you will not allow your mind to scan any further for the truths that are in the bible.

I believe your mind virus theory fits what happened to the Jews perfectly.

I believe Satan is the first one to spread a mind virus.

I believe Jesus is the one, who fought and died against negative mind virus to free us.

If you know this, you should be ashamed of what you have done.

You are no better then the Pharisees of the Jews in that you capitalize on this knowledge to imprison people to maintain, your place and identity in this present world.

You are no better the LRH, do you know who he is?

I hope that someday you will see how your mind virus is better able to explain what it was Jesus was fighting against and for.

Evil is a mind virus.
Sin is the action of it.

Your not plagiarizing the bible and trying to make yourself above God are you?
Because simply put this is what the Pharisees did.

Jesus called them vipers and children of Satan.

To put in your language, Jesus told them to they are propagators of bad mind virus's that is harmful to God and his good will.

God = good, love, honesty, and the fruits of the holy spirit.

Evil = selfish IE, you should know about this one, this is the one the got the whole train a rolling.

Are you sure, the way you packaged this God delusion isn't a selfish agenda of self survival in this current climate?

Once again I see and will continue to see the truth I gather from mind virus's theory.

I was a child of a scientologist and I know this(mind virus) has truth to it.
But to use this truth and twist it to maintain the power and political standing in this present world is, well, selfish, so your back at square one now and a Pharisee.

You think Christians are condescending to you, but you do not realize they may see you for who you really are, or in fact, see the end result of your agenda.
It is you who are condescending Mr., Hawkins, and you are being condescending to God.

It isn't a total loss though, if you look hard enough in the bible, you will see, that the mind virus theory is in fact a fact and it is called a lie and Satan is the father of it.

I too, once looked at religion and God the same way as you, but things happened to change my mind and heart.

The bible warns of false Christians.

Satan in fact will be acting as an angel of light, = knowledge/truth.

You have missed the mark and are an acting as an angel of light to the world and this is the reason Christians are angry at you because they see you and another one of the many anti-christ running around spreading mind virus's against what they see as truth, and strange as it may sound to YOU, it is the truth.

You are not the savior of mankind, Mr., Dawkins as you believe yourself to be right now.

Jesus was and is and always will be, He is the ultimate mind virus eraser.

This is why you will have no effect on Jesus' true disciples.

God help you and help us all.

29

I listened to your interview today on the "Janet Parcel's America".

I am 60 years old and the thing I have noted about "intelligent people" over my life is that they are all very narrow minded.

Also, they feel they must (and try) to dominate other less intelligent people through intimidation to keep their own status in life.

I am a "Christian (A person who has accepted Christ as my savior and Lord)" and you really insulted me through your degrading description of Christians (who do not think like you) in your interview today.

You know you don't have to insult people. You appear too be an very smart person. It appears that you have put a great deal of thought into your book and your theory. Even though I don't agree with your theory, I see no need to (and will not) go out and bash you in public due to the way you think. You are just a clone (due to your inflexible theory) of the people you insult.

You said something to the effect that we all developed from the same genetic code/chemical strand (or something to that effect) and it appeared that you support the "theory of evolution" as a part of your own theory.

Well, the thing I always the Darwin Folks" (which they can never answer) is: If we all came from the same "cell"… and developed to our present state… where is any "in between" evidence of the gradual development of any species??? I never get an answer and I have never seen any physical proof of this gradual development.

But this is something that I loose any sleep over because it has no impact on the way I will live my life.

I am just sick and disappointed that every time I turn on the radio or TV someone is insulting me as a Christian.

You don't have to do that.

30

I must say that you would best be off writing a book entitled The Human Delusion as there is no doubt you exhibit more of this from what you say than you can ever imagine. I heard your interview yesterday on NPR and concluded that you really do not have the slightest idea as to what you are saying. Do you really profess to know such things? It is not only ignorant and arrogant but entirely absurd. Sadly, I fear there are enough poor delusional humans out there to think you have something substantial to say. In reality it is entirely bogus. You really do not know anything except to know how much you do not know. A wise one would admit this however I see that you are beyond this by your personality. I partly blame your parents and partly your circumstance as to why youturned out the way you have. Our dear Prof Einstein did not know it all and died saying in effect "I only wish I would have come to know God better....". Whether he believed in God or not is his own problem as it is yours. But really to profess to know what truth really is and what it all means....oh excuse me....you have said "we are not entitled to have a meaning of anything" then why do research or why take up study at all? How silly and what utter nonsense. Of course we are entitled to meaning in everything in life only we do not come by known meaning of anything without thinking and exploring and experimenting and with the evolution of time. In much the case we do not come by meaning at all. When your mother kisses you it means many things, one being that she loves you and knowing that meaning makes you content. We wish to be content about our knowledge of the world but cannot because meaning is a mystery. Be
content with that my good man.

Lastly, your disbelief in an All Knowing Creator is your problem. Faith is mercifully granted. It cannot be artificially instilled. The latter will show discord. Watch your life and see where it will lead a person who is proud to reject the knowledge that his own souls knows. There will be discord in this to be sure.

31

Dear Dr Dawkins,

I'm afraid that I'm writing in the wrong section of your website as I haven't found the section that lists the, no doubt, many negative and yet thought out responses to your book "the God delusion".

Maybe we will soon see these responses posted in the interest of balance. It is easier I guess to post the outraged and the sensational, due to limited space if you are trying to show the other side as crazed and unbalanced, but to do so would be, to all intents and purposes, an extension of the "straw man" argument that people use to inhibit sensible discussion. So, apologies if this is out of place.

Dr Dawkins I am greatly concerned about the methodology and end result of your book. I myself am science trained, but I am in no way esteemed or celebrated, and yet even with my humble level of education I see many things that greatly trouble me especially when one so widely acclaimed and handsomely educated writes it.

Much that is written in this book seems to be inconsistent, badly researched, and phrased in such a way as to sway opinion rather than to present balanced facts – which is surely an affront to any real scientific endeavour. My great concern is that such errors reveal the author as either a poor scientist or worse as deceptive. I will cite only a few examples of the many I have already observed upon first reading, and will limit myself only to the first few chapters for the sake of brevity. I do have pages of comments written however, if you would be interested in thinking them through.

For now though, in your chapter on the argument from scripture there is this great problem. Page 93 "the Chinese whispers generations" – surely you are aware of biblical textual criticism and the degree of accuracy and reliability that we have with regard to the New Testament documents and yet your book examines none of this. This is surely a grievous oversight, and your language is far from balanced and scientific or academic. Such popularist phrasings suit the shock documentaries rather than the pen of a learned man.

Further, a dismissal of C.S. Lewis is extraordinary from a biologist who is speaking well out of his field and against a world expert in historical literature. It needs to be remembered and noted in your text that this man was indeed an atheist himself until he tested the scriptures – the fourth possibility noted on page 92 is not actually a fourth option at all, it would have to fall into the lunatic category given the radical nature of the claims made by Jesus.

I would love to write further but will wait until you ask for further details and data that might speak against your hypothesis here.

Another example of loose writing – page 96, a reference to King Arthur and the gospels – surely you are not so foolish as to put these two types of literature in the same category? Even school children recognise a massive difference even if only at the surface of historical anchoring and relevance to daily living. It is clumsy at best to write so.

And sadly the most unscientific of statements is made on the next page (97) "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity". How can this be said by a "reputable" scholar? A scientist, at least where I studied, is obliged to examine the evidence pertaining to his subject and to do this exhaustively. To dismiss these complex and ancient documents without a thorough and detailed study would be paramount to the other side saying that genetics itself is not worth considering in the debate against evolution!

One last example that troubles me, although again I would be willing to at some stage send you my annotated copy of your book – I must say however, that on average so far I have two to three detailed comments per page. Data is of crucial importance in the scientific endeavour, and the misuse of it a grave concern. I note that on page 100, only 7% of NAS fellows believe in "a personal God" as against 90% of the general American population who believe in "some sort of supernatural being". Surely you will see the error here and change it in future publications – perhaps even a public retraction would be in order for the sake of sciences' good name. The two questions are massively different – "personal" verses "some sort"?

It may even be that on this data the scientists have a higher proportion of believers than the general population. As I understand it, belief in a "personal" God in the population may be as low as 2-5% or perhaps that is just an Australian figure and we are very different from our American cousins. What ever the case may be, the use of data and language here shows a looseness that should be of great concern. Again I ask you, are you making errors here? Or are you being deliberately deceptive? Either way the issues need to be addressed for the sake of your readers and the good name of science.

You will have no doubt guessed where my own bias lays. I am a Christian as well as a biologist, and an academically trained pastor. Again I am under no illusions about my own short comings in the studies of both areas, however, even my level of education leaves me with many questions and concerns about your book and your methods.

In the interest of good science and balanced engagement will you provide links to other worthwhile thinkers such as William Lane Craig, Dr Hugh Ross, Alvin Plantinga and others?

And also will you balance out tired arguments such as religion being responsible for all war and atrocity etc. since the greatest conflicts in terms of casualty and damage have had Atheism or token religious identification at their heart (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Russian and Chinese internal bloodsheds). Religion equals the root of all violence just doesn't hold up.

And please be careful of atheistic hagiography – Bertrand Russell may well have been gaoled for pacifism, but he was also a campaigner for women's rights even as he beat his own. And David Hume may well be an ally against religion, but he was if anything even more severe on science – You will be well aware that Kant wrote in order to try and rescue science from the ravages of Hume's scepticism far more passionately and urgently than he was trying to rescue religion.

Anyway thanks for your time.

I do look forward to an improvement in your methodology and language skills. May truth be our discovery.

C. Brennan

32

Dear Dr Dawkins,

This debate is not an interesting linguistic and philosophical game since it regards a hypothesis with ethical and sociological consequences probably beyond all others, and it must therefore be dealt with as impassionedly as is possible and with the highest of ethical and academic endeavours.

A scientist is only as good as his data, his methodology and conclusions as you will no doubt be aware.

I point you to just one of those issues which I mentioned (which is just one of the many I have noted at first glance through the book). Page 100 of "The God Delusion" states "only about 7 per cent (of NAS fellows) believe in "a personal God"" as against 90% of the general American population who believe in "some sort of supernatural being". Surely, you see the problem here! The two questions are massively different - "personal" verses "some sort"? Again I ask, Is this an error? Or is this an intentional misuse of data?

For the integrity of your argument this issue, and others like it, must be addressed, and if an error has occurred it must be properly acknowledged and retracted publicly. As I see it, a failure to do so here would be of gravest ethical concern - even should that ethic be determined by human reason alone. As you are well aware "The God Delusion" has massive popular appeal and therefore influence. It has opened itself for scrupulous examination.

As to the reputation of Professor Dawkins, his work in his own narrow field of genetics is widely acknowledged, but as I mentioned earlier a scientist and his work are only as good as his data, methodology and conclusions. I have questions with regard to all of the above in this endeavour.

Anticipating a fulsome and direct answer to the issue here raised,

Regards,

Chris Brennan