Comments by SteveN

151. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55692 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 2:01 am

gcdavis wrote in post #19

Maybe my account doesn't amount to a bestselling book, but the problem is by engaging in debate about the holy books, the historical personalities and the global influence of religion gives (them) an undeserved credence.

This is exactly my thinking. Again from the thread in the forum that I mentioned in post #18 I said in answer to the question "Was religion important to our ancestors?":

Although I think that [the] question...is a valid one to ask, I agree that it's probably giving too much respect to religion in the first place. I would think that our more distant ancestors had an extremely diverse and localised mixture of beliefs in the supernatural. During the vast majority of our time on this planet as humans, there have been no large scale organised religions - one tribe would believe in one set of gods or spirits and the next tribe along the valley would believe in another. If one replaces 'religion' in the above questions with 'belief in fairies' then they suddenly don't seem so profound, although they are probably in fact more relevant.

In some ways I think that the very act of spending time debating the role played by religion in anything other than a historical or social context is affording it undeserved status. Sometimes healthy ridicule of silly ideas is more appropriate than solemn debate.

152. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55670 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 12:31 am

Luis Cayetano said in post #13

Wilson cites some studies conducted on micro-organisms, suggesting that group-as-vehicle selection can and does occur, that it is powerful enough to overcome within group selection and thus maintain an otherwise deliterious allele.

I'm not so sure that this is true.

In the forum thread I started here (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18460) I said...

Now, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I am a virologist/immunologist and I find the best example Wilson can give for a modern example of group selection (an experiment published in Nature in which bacteriophages of reduced virulence survived better that virulent variants because their bacterial 'prey' were not wiped out) to be quite logically explained by a 'selfish gene' point of view - I see no need for group selection as an explanation here. Indeed, the authors of the paper cited do not themselves mention group selection or altruism at all so I'm somewhat skeptical of the relevance of Wilson's 'prime example'.

I get the impression that Wilson is trying to reinterpret other people's data to fit his own, largely discredited, theories. Note also that the second piece of evidence offered by Wilson is a theoretical 'Science' paper written by an economist - hardly vigorous scientific evidence in my (admittedly science-biased) opinion.

153. 4 page German spread on The God Delusion

Comment #52180 by SteveN on June 26, 2007 at 12:26 pm

I have SO been waiting for this. I am going to have to buy multiple copies for my German 'opponents' in our regular (usually drunken) debates.

154. The courage of their convictions

Comment #50994 by SteveN on June 21, 2007 at 1:05 am

I salute these people for their integrity and their courage. At a time when calls for Rushdie's murder (because of a novel he once wrote) are being openly revived, it is not without real risk to life and limb to openly challenge both the teachings and the power of an established religion.

It strikes me that most, if not all, of the excellent ten points should be incorporated into any 'European Constitution' that may one day be ratified. A few amendments to the American Constitution would also be appropriate, I think. Although clearly aimed at Islam, this manifesto applies equally in most points to countries in which Christianity (and, I assume, Judaism) is dominant.

SteveN

155. Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching

Comment #50346 by SteveN on June 17, 2007 at 2:58 am

Well, I think making 'The God Delusion' or 'God is Not Great' (or maybe sections thereof) part of the curriculum would be a great way to teach a more realistic view of the role played by religion in world affairs. If children and younger adults were to be exposed to the idea that religion is not the source of morality and ethics, that in fact it is often the antithesis of modern morality, they might be inclined to question their automatic tolerance of all things religious in later life.

"It says teachers should include ways in which religion is not always a force for good."

I think the BBC is confusing 'not always' with 'virtually never'.

156. The Great God Debate

Comment #50084 by SteveN on June 15, 2007 at 12:16 am

Well, Hitchens owes me a new keyboard. My old one is covered in coffee.....

MR: ... an action I consider to be one of the most moral that I do as a human being ... When my son was going to bed, I got next to him and I prayed for him.

CH: Gosh. Well, I mean, I think it does as much good as aerobic dancing would do, frankly.

Actually, I enjoyed reading this much more than I do listening or watching the debates with Hitchens. As much as I admire the man for his intellect, wit and courage, I do find his tendency to interrupt a bit rude sometimes. I hate it when interviewers or debators do this to RD, so I'm a little embarrassed when someone 'on our side' does the same.

157. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49859 by SteveN on June 14, 2007 at 12:24 am

Comment #49642 by atheisticism"
In times of grief, I reread the first chapter of "Unweaving the Rainbow."

Indeed. Richard's classic opening line "We are all going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones" and the line that follows: "Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born" really brings home how incredibly unlikely it was that any of us ever existed in the first place. My daughter, when she was about 16 or 17, went through a period of anguish when she first really became aware of her own mortality. I suggested that she read Richard's book and she was very much inspired and comforted by it, realising how precious her limited time is. It is far better to spend our days rejoicing our existence than bemoaning our mortality.

SteveN

158. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46655 by SteveN on June 1, 2007 at 3:07 am

33. Comment #46548 by baal on May 31, 2007 at 3:54 pm
"Atheistic theology" - what an oxymoron!

Baal, I believe the 'oxy' part is superfluous (plus the 'n' in 'an')

159. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46414 by SteveN on May 31, 2007 at 6:41 am

The other evangelical "university," Liberty University, just built a state-of-the-art building that exactly replicates the U.S. Supreme Court chambers -- for the express purpose of training Christian lawyers to argue Constitutional law.

Good grief! If this is indeed true it's very, very frightening.

160. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44857 by SteveN on May 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

"Up to 15 students are expected to enrol."*

*as long as it us understood that the phrase "up to" clearly includes the number nought"

(I thought a Monty Python quote would be appropriate here)

161. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39595 by SteveN on May 11, 2007 at 8:49 am

SRWB wrote:
"But, I'm not sure that we, as a species, would not still feel guilt and require forgiveness, even if there were no religious precepts. If you believe we are capable of moral thought and behavior even without God and religion, couldn't we, wouldn't we, still fell guilt about doing something wrong?"

Oh, absolutely! I didn't mean to imply that us atheists are not burdened by guilt as a result of our wrong-doings - quite the opposite, in fact, because we only have ourselves to blame and can't ask an invisible friend or a silly man in a box for forgiveness. It's just that we would be (or are) free of guilt for so-called 'sins' such as homosexuality, lust etc that are not morally wrong but can cause immense pain, suffering and confusion to those suffering from faith.

162. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39580 by SteveN on May 11, 2007 at 7:51 am

SRWB wrote:

"I'm sure even the earliest humans (hominids) had a concept of "sin", i.e., rules of survival that when broken, endangered or harmed the immediate family/clan group, which predates Christianity or other religion by thousands of years."

If you change 'sin' in the above statement to 'right and wrong', I would agree 100% (after all, I seem to remember that ape species other than humans have this trait). According to Wikipedia, at least, 'sin' is a religious concept, which is why I claimed (post 48) that without religion, Wilson wouldn't have ideas of sin to be guilty and confused about or to need forgiveness for.

163. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39544 by SteveN on May 11, 2007 at 5:15 am

LeeC wrote: (concerning evidence that would falsify evolution)
"All you have to do is find a fossil of a dinosaur and a woolly mammoth in the same "level" of rock. That is, the fossils must be from the same geological time frame."

Sorry to play Devil's Advocate, but that statement leaves open the possibility that some dinosaurs survived in a little niche (ala Lost World) until the time of the mammoths. Finding dinosaur remains comingled with mammoth remains from 200,000 years ago would be surprising but would not invalidate evolution. Finding mammoth remains comingled with dinosaur remains 75 million years old would, however.

164. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39511 by SteveN on May 11, 2007 at 3:16 am

I've just read the second installment of the 'debate' over at Christianity Today and Wilson's closing 'killer' argument is....

"The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion."

So we're all guilty and confused sinners, eh? Well speak for yourself Mr Wilson! I submit that without religion, we wouldn't have the concept of 'sin' in the first place. What an absolute fool this man is!

165. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39494 by SteveN on May 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm

savroD wrote (#44):
"I suspect the bottom line here is education. People have been to school, but have not been educated."

Well, they certainly haven't acquired the ability to think clearly. What astonishes me is that many of those writing these rather superficially learned but intellectually pathetic rebuttals to TGD etc have had the privilege of a very good education indeed. I wonder, does this apparent inability to think critically lead one to religion in the first place or is it religion that destroys the capacity for rational thought?

166. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39493 by SteveN on May 10, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Thanks to Peacebeuponme (#14), scot (#25), jackanaples (#30) and 3legcat (#35) for answering my post concerning objectivity. I guess that if we're objective enough to seriously question our own objectivity, we don't have to worry too much about not being objective ;-)

There's probably a horrible tautology in that last (semi-serious) statement, but what the hell!

Cheers,
SteveN

167. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39163 by SteveN on May 10, 2007 at 5:40 am

I've been avidly listening/reading/watching the debates and reviews on this site since its inception. It increasingly strikes me that whereas the arguments put forward by Richard, Sam and (more recently) Hitch are almost always great examples of clear, lucid thought coupled with excellent writing skills, those posed by 'the other side' are characterised, almost without exception, by what I can only describe as profound 'woolly headedness'. It's often like wading through molasses to read and understand their points. The contrast to me is so acute that I'm seriously beginning to doubt my own objectivity - an attribute that I work hard (as a scientist) to maintain. Does anyone else feel the same? Have I become hopelessly biased or is this really the best that the so-called intellectual theist can come up with?

168. The Empty Wager

Comment #32988 by SteveN on April 19, 2007 at 12:13 am

One of the other problems with Pascal's wager that Sam didn't mention in this short article (although I'm pretty sure that both he and Richard have covered it before) is that the wager imposes a false dichotomy - it's either God or no God (with a capital G). With humankind worshipping or having worshipped over 3000 gods, what are the chances of someone picking the right one? I'm pretty sure that Zeus or Ra will be much nastier to a mortal who spent his/her life worshipping a false god than one who worshipped none at all! I therefore submit that the safest and most logical choice to avoid an eternity of torture, even if you think that god of some sort must exist to explain the universe, is atheism ;-)

Note added in Edit: Dammit! I didn't see the post 20 by ferfuracious who says more or less the same thing.

169. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32685 by SteveN on April 18, 2007 at 2:45 am

Quick correction to post #32673 by BAEOZ: 'End of Faith' is Sam Harris's book. Maybe you're thinking of Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'?

170. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23354 by SteveN on February 28, 2007 at 4:41 am

MIND-REBEL wrote:

"Francious [sic] Collins is a typical Christian, and i'm highly suspicious of any "science" he's involved in."

As an atheist and professional biologist, I too have trouble understanding how one can do good science during the day and then abandon this way of thinking when it comes to pondering the existence of a magic sky fairy. I must say, however, that there are many very good scientists who are theists, so this lack of understanding appears to be a failure on my part. Unfortunately for my confusion, Collins is a very good scientist indeed. As head of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH he contributed significantly to one of the greatest achievements of biology of the last decade or so, the sequencing of the human genome. His day-job "science" cannot be faulted, I'm afraid.

171. To be Read at my Funeral

Comment #9390 by Steven on November 24, 2006 at 4:51 pm

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time … to die."

- Roy Batty

172. Journal Clarifies Report on a Stem Cell Finding

Comment #9386 by Steven on November 24, 2006 at 4:40 pm

Sounds like fantastic news. The fact that these scientists had to look into new methods to keep faith nutjobs happy annoys me.

173. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9384 by Steven on November 24, 2006 at 4:35 pm

All human beings have equal worth? What planet is this guy living on?

"All human beings have equal worth" - This is a nice idea but doesn't exist on earth.

And Dawkins doesn't say he supports eugenics he just states that perhaps we should ask the question about it.

174. God Delusion chosen as his Book of the Year

Comment #9107 by Steven on November 23, 2006 at 4:33 pm

This is now a review you are right.

Its as if people expect Dawkins to right a book like some kind of robot with 100% rationality, logic and zero emotions. Its obvious he is emotional towards religion because he thinks it does so much harm (as do I) and I also think as Gilbert Adair does that believers in a deity are somewhat foolish bamboozlers.

So when people say stuff like rage and incredulity I think "what is he supposed to write like? Is he supposed to write all happiness, flowers and puppy dog tails?"

He writes articulately, with passion and with purpose.

175. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #9044 by Steven on November 23, 2006 at 10:09 am

I suspect this website will be academic to them.

176. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #9039 by Steven on November 23, 2006 at 9:51 am

This guy obviously doesn't know his history. He uses Adolf Hilter as one of his examples of bad atheists and he was a catholic. Usually when an atheist dictator does something terrible it isn't in the name of atheism its usually because of his nutcase political or sociological beliefs. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris aren't really about debating numbers between atheist and religious dictators. Both of their books goes into the farce that is religion in much more details.

He says this - Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Alot of people do believe in god and they still do incredible bad things. Just because your an atheist doesn't some how make you a bad person at the click of a finger. It's not a magic switch. Good and Bad people exist on both sides.

You don't get atheists saying "If I believed in god I would kill people". Some religious people have actually stated this the other way around, "If I didn't believe in good I would kill people."

Its like its their only reason to be moral.

The Atheist who is moral is more so. He/She doesn't believe in god but is moral because he/she thinks it is the right thing to do.

177. What Does Someone Believe? One Man Has the Answer

Comment #8365 by Steven on November 21, 2006 at 3:18 am

Hope is a way you wish the world was. Faith kind of combines hope and belief. People with religious faith believe what they hope is true.

178. What Does Someone Believe? One Man Has the Answer

Comment #8364 by Steven on November 21, 2006 at 3:16 am

A belief is a held concept about something that you think is true.

I believe in gravity. I believe this because of evidence in the forms of theories and laws that work mathematically and the fact that I don't fly hurtling off the planet as it revolves at 1668.26 KPH.

Beliefs without evidence is different. I have several beliefs via experience but we know that experience isn't scientific if just one person experiences it. Human testimony is notoriously suspect.

I believe this "I don't believe in a god, I believe there is no god, I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe that it is useless invoking god because we can't explain something. I believe I am moral, kind, loving and emphathic without the need for religion. I also believe I am human and thus flawed. Nothing is perfect, nothing can be proved 100%. Nothing can be disproved 100%, this doesn't mean that because something can't be disproved 100% that it at all likely."

179. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7343 by Steven on November 18, 2006 at 9:28 am

Funny. Richard is a sex symbol lmao.

180. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7342 by Steven on November 18, 2006 at 9:26 am

I don't believe that a god exists.

I agree with Sam Harris when he says that he doesn't see why he has to label himself atheist. I don't call myself an afairyist or aghostist or apsychist because I don't believe in fairies, ghosts and psychics.

181. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #6106 by Steven on November 12, 2006 at 4:42 pm

This disgusts me.

182. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6062 by Steven on November 12, 2006 at 11:34 am

"And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you."

This isn't true. He doesn't debate with Intelligent Design believers or Creationists because he feels there is no scientific debate. The same way you wouldn't debate gravity with someone who doesn't believe it. He has throughout his tour discussed his book with people on radio who have had guessed who didn't agree with him. He talks questions from people at his readings and they aren't all atheists.

He doesn't say people who believe in the supernatural or god etc as unintelligent or stupid. He just think they are ignorant of the truth. The truth of evolution. The truth of the massive improbability of god.

Saying god did it is not an explanation for anything. It is a cop out, cowardly and insufficient.

183. Atheists top book charts by deconstructing God

Comment #3515 by Steven on October 29, 2006 at 6:36 pm

Informed me a few books to look out for next year :-D

184. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2809 by Steven on October 23, 2006 at 6:04 pm

Tim Slager NO!.

Just No.

185. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2523 by Steven on October 21, 2006 at 4:54 pm

this makes 142 responses to this article alone. Fantastic guys.

186. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1419 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 10:28 am

Sorry! I use the same name on the EvC forum so just kept it for continuity. Actually, Zaphod is a far superior name anyway - wish I'd thought of it myself. Hmmm, anyone named Slartibartfast yet, I wonder?

187. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1413 by Steven on October 12, 2006 at 9:00 am

We have free will as much as possible. I have the free will not to eat when I am hungry but eventually I will have to eat to survive.

188. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1391 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 12:06 am

(First of all, to avoid confusion I would like to point out that I am registered in the RDF forum as 'SteveN' and am not the 'Steven' who has already posted in this thread. Maybe I should have chosen a more unique nickname.)

Having listed to the 'debate' on the way to work this morning, I must say that I found it astonishing that someone as obviously intelligent and eloquent as Quinn can be so deluded as to make the so-called arguements he did. The guy seems to be truly incapable of rational thought. My irony meter almost exploded when he accused Richard of setting up a strawman view of religion and then proceeded to rehash common strawman arguments concerning Richards point of view. The classic (to paraphrase) 'you think that we are slaves to our genes and have no free will' is diametrically opposite to Richard's view as clearly stated in the closing paragraph of 'The Selfish Gene'.....

"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

This is clearly yet another case of a critic basing his arguments on the title and not the contents of a book.

He clearly didn't grasp the obvious difference between a person with a particular belief doing evil and a person doing evil because of their belief. The morality question and the origin question were all dealt with in 'The God Delusion' and yet Quinn presented them as some killer argument that Richard hadn't yet thought of. I really doubt that he had actually read the book.

As others have pointed out, Richard is sometimes too polite for his (our) own good, a trait I adimire but which is a clear disadvantage in an uncontrolled debate setting. I annoys me that Richard is generally believed, particularly in the USA, to be an arrogant and dogmatic person. I have read all of his books and most of his articles, listened or watched many of his interviews, heard him talk publicly and have spoken to him personally. I am unaware of any incident that could objectively be interpreted as 'arrogance'. Indeed, his talks are littered with phrases such as "better scientists than I have shown...." or "I am not expert enough to address this.." etc. In this interview he allowed himself to be constantly interrupted by a rude, ignorant and arrogant opponent and I think Tubridy should have controlled the situation better.

There may be a silver lining however. Moderate theists with an open mind and closet atheists may have seen what a fool Quinn made of himself compared to Richard and be inspired to read the book.

189. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1390 by SteveN on October 12, 2006 at 12:05 am

190. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1355 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:28 pm

Geoff wrote "You can't have moral laws without a law giver."

They don't have to come from a god. You can get your morals from your parents, teachers, people you look up to.

191. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1308 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 9:27 am

Hi Josh,

I love Brian Greenes stuff aswell. I am not 100% sure that string theory is the theory of the future but I like the implications of it. I have brian greens stuff on my hard drive and have his books Fabric of the cosmos and the elegant universe. Great books.

- Steven

192. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1261 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 4:01 am

Nice rebuttal to the review Michael. I agree with what you have written.

193. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1258 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:55 am

Although I disagree with Albert Mohler's opinion on the book I still would like to thank him for writing a good review. He didn't go out of his way to be over zealous in his views which alot of religious people may do in reviewing this book.

194. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1257 by Steven on October 11, 2006 at 3:53 am

from the article "A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing."

He isn't certain that it is passing away. He feels in this day and age religion shouldn't be an issue but with so many people around the world still believing in it and fundamentalism on the increase in the middle east and america Dawkins feels he has to stand up for basic human dignity. I like Dawkins will not strap a bomb to my chest or send anthrax in the post because of my Atheistic beliefs (more of a non belief).

195. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1243 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 9:11 pm

That link works for me. I just opened it with Real Player and it worked vine.

196. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1239 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 8:16 pm

I did the same. Just used Firefox to find the location of the actual file and used real player to play it. That allowed me to fast forward.

197. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1237 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 8:08 pm

The very existence of matter proves god, what nonsense. What a total idiot David Quinn is. So if you don't understand something then it must be god. How cowardly. Given this you may aswell never know anything and just be content with saying its god. David Quinn is just a loud mouth moron. All he did was try and talk over Richard Dawkins when Richard was in mid sentence and wasn't allowing Richard to finish his sentences. I hate when people try to talk louder to prove their point. The host seemed a reasonable man but I feel he didn't restrain the mouth of Quinn enough. He has faith that god exists. No evidence exists for this, non at all. Just assumptions that he makes, like matters origin. He has no evidence for god just a lack of evidence for where matter came from. How is that proof?

Faith is believing without evidence.

The origin of the universe is perhaps the biggest question we have. Humans have a concept of time because of this we like to know when something starts and ends etc. We think the universe began approximately 13.6 billion years ago at the big bang but we don't know what caused this or why. If a why exists. The answer could be fundamentally more complex and reality warping than we can perceive at our current technological level and also the level of intelligence we currently have. We are limited by our technology and our capacity for learning. Perhaps human evolution has to increase much further before we will be able to get our heads around an idea that works as well as evolution works for life on earth.

Quantum Mechanics for example is facinating and confusing all at the same time. This is something that we can semi understand. Imagine that the origin of the big bang was 10000X more complex and strange than quantum mechanics. At current we may not be able to understand it scientifically and mathematically but most of all because it could differ from our reality to such an extreme.

Trying to think of 10 dimensional space for example is a mind boggling concept because we live in 3 dimensions (not including time).

198. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1224 by Steven on October 10, 2006 at 5:51 pm

I have to say I am a great fan of Richard Dawkins. His books, opinions and attitude I totally agree with.

I feel that in writting his book and doing all these interviews he is being quite brave. I also feel that he must have magnificent patience. I say this because in a few interviews I have seen him doing people always phone in or e-mail with questions about chance and evolution. He always says evolution isn't chance and people who say this just don't understand evolution and show perhaps read about it from legitimate sources and not from creationist/intelligent design dogma. How annoyed must he be that people just don't get it. Read about evolution and don't misquote or misinterpret it.

I find it hard for anyone to beat him in a debate on this. If the debate is held rationally he can't possibly lose.

199. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #1051 by Steven on October 9, 2006 at 6:28 am

Comment #1035 by Jeff on October 9, 2006 at 2:40 am

Sinners lol. You actually believe in sin? If you went by the strictness of the bible even most religious people sin on a daily basis. If you can sin, then confess and be forgiven wtf is the point in confessing. Since your so called god already knows what you did.

lol

utter ridiculous

200. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #877 by Steven on October 7, 2006 at 8:00 am

Well said Laura :-D.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next