401. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1679 by Anonymous on October 15, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Someone said earlier there are beneficial mutations; I want to see it happen. You often see a picture of a horse with a fifth leg or a sheep with short legs and call them bad mutations; I want to see a good one emerge. In all the science journals text books I see bad ones as examples but never good ones. Don’t use animals that already exist. To scientifically prove this theory we need to see a new beneficial mutation emerge from an existing animal. Don’t use bacteria because it loses not gains to adapt. A new animal (no a liger either).

Anybody?

402. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1674 by Anonymous on October 15, 2006 at 1:38 pm

Option B : God, a vastly complex being did the bits we can't yet explain, well he's been pretty much pushed off the rest of the turf:-) But you can't get off the hook of God. Where did he come from?

Well that is of course if you assume God came from somewhere in the universe (single spoken sentence! but what you do forget however is that God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them... so to say where did God come from you assume hes part of his creation then you are misreading the bible. He created time "in the begining, endtimes". Space "the heavens (plural) and matter "stars, sun and earth" so I assume when the bible mentions eternity then God is eternal. I know for a fact that if the majesty and understanding of God could fit inside my 1300-1400 grams brain then he would not be worth worshiping.

403. Cambridge Speech: The God Delusion

Comment #1618 by Anonymous on October 14, 2006 at 11:48 am

Yes, where is the discussion? I was really most looking forward to the questions and answers. I'm perfectly capable of reading the book myself!

404. Cambridge Speech: The God Delusion

Comment #1613 by Anonymous on October 14, 2006 at 6:18 am

Where's the "discussion" part?

405. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1573 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 8:05 pm

“The meme exploits its host in order to reproduce itself, spreading from brain to brain like meningitis, and killing off the competing powers of rational argument.”—False. Some memes (evolution and atheism, to name two) are all the stronger for their compatibility with rational argument. One might speculate that the cause of the religious meme’s perseverance lies in its immunity to rational argument (“faith”).
“As everyone knows, viruses are bad things”—False. Viruses are like any other amoral replicating survival machine (including humans), and even if they harm humans, they are not in any objective way “bad”.
This entire math episode was a mess, but let’s skip to the end of it.
“Perhaps religion can be compared to maths: its survival has something to do with its truth.” Perhaps. Or perhaps its survival has something to do with the nice warm blanket it provides to people who would rather not face reality or reason. Nowhere does it say that successful memes must be true, only that they must be “sticky” (Is Mozart “true”?).
(You have to love the sun simile.)
“As a matter of fact, an atheist shoulders a far heavier burden of proof than one who believes that there must [be] some kind of explanation for the fact that there is the universe rather than nothing at all. Moreover - and this is something asserted by John Paul II himself - the scientific intuition of the evolution of species does not contradict belief in the existence of God.” 1) His first claim is not at all clear. 2) How amazing that the Pope himself thinks God exists! 3) Evolution does not so much contradict belief in a God as render that belief utterly irrelevant—a cosmic teapot.
“Those nurtured in a mature Christian faith know Christianity's ability to maintain peace in the world around us reflects its gift of peace to the world within.” Classic in-group belief: When there’s peace, it’s because of us Christians; when there’s war, it’s because of the [insert other religion here].
To save space, I will not quote the entire final paragraph though it certainly merits it (as does the entire article for that matter). Only this: “But the act of faith itself - responding to God as loving Creator - is a leap over reason's edge. This does not make it irrational, any more than falling in love is irrational.” 1) falling in love is irrational (from a non evolutionary perspective) 2) “As any clear-headed person will immediately recognise, such an inference is patently not logically valid.” That, Mr. Caruana, is the smartest thing you've said this whole time.

406. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1569 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 7:39 pm

Oh dear, here we go again with these reviews...

I object Christianity and all religions completely because every prescription for life that they offer is based upon a lie. All of the pain and suffering that people endure for either faith is pointless, and all of the good that either has done is attributed to a being that does not exist.

407. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1568 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 7:38 pm

"Those nurtured in a mature Christian faith know Christianity's ability to maintain peace in the world around us reflects its gift of peace to the world within."
Did the respectable author ever hear of such things are crusades, inquisition, or conquistadors?
"And what happens to societies that have been vaccinated against infection - Soviet society, for instance, Nazi Germany, or Albanian totalitarianism (where atheism was the constitutional faith) - do they experience a gain in reproductive potential?"
As always, thou shalt not bear false witness, excpet when it serve thy cause. Does the name Martin Luther mean anything to the author?Is he aware that he was Hitler's predecessor in antisemitism?And has he come to conclude that atheism and Marxism are one and the same?Has he heard the names of secular socities where it is the public, rather than the government, which doesn't taken religion seriously, like Japan, Sweden, or the Netherlands?

408. Cambridge Speech: The God Delusion

Comment #1567 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 7:33 pm

Pure Genius. I can't wait to get this book.

409. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1564 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 5:29 pm

Re: comment 104. I totally reject all your links. I am familiar with yhe christian response. I did everything I could to keep my faith. The Christian answers do not hold up. Dont you think it is strange that wars have been started between (to use your words) people who actually study the bible?

RE comment 120, ever heard of pseudogenes, transposons, gene convertion, and my personal favorite, GENE DUPLICATION as mechanisms of creating new genes? (all experimetally observed)

Re "No one can force you to go there and listen to these deluded nut cases who accually study the bible and blindly refuse science which apparently shows: nothing-Bang-everything."

Yeah, and I suppose God just happened to allways exist without a need to explain why, waved his majic wand and went POOF, everything is created! So, whats your point? Satisfy me on Micah 5:2, Jeremiahs failed prophecy and the lack of early human fossils. Hormonise the genesis accounts. I'm sure many here would like you to stop being evasive

410. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1549 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Brain quote: We live in fast changing world Phil, the pace of change is accelerating exponentially. More will be discovered and developed in the next 10 years than in the previous 1000. Most of these discoveries will continue to enroach on the territory traditionally occupied by religion, soon there will be hardly anything left ...

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

I agree Brian. The world is moving on but exactly the way the bible says. I know there have been many Christian related atrocities but these were from individuals with spearheading attacks (Dawkins watch your path) and served nothing to the teachings of Jesus which few have argued with.

411. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1484 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 2:40 am

Phil – Ive tried to answer your “questions” as best as possible – however I must state that I think that you wont listen to any proof if it came up and slapped you in the chest a few times.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

A) Do you know what kind of process is needed to create fossils? It involves the animal dying in exactly the right place, covered with the right sediment and left undisturbed for millions of year for the fossilisation to occur. But don’t let that get in the way – also theEarth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the Galaxy’s coreand not the other way round.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

A) Creationism? Everything was created by one deity at the same time?
But before that he created other animals/dinosaurs as a trail run or just a cosmic joke to give humans some other reason to kill each other due to religion


(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

A) Stars mainly

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

A) Because without them they wouldn’t be the elements – and quantum physics is such that we’re not sure whether an orbit is the way they work or just a simplistic (and wrong) way of trying to explain how stuff works in the quantum world

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

A) So basically because we cant understand yet God must have done it. Put stuff together with enough heat and pressure and everything can be created.

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

A) The Spaghetti monster – Everything is made from atoms what is life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

A) Ikea

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

A) Yes – survival of the best designs for the appropriate niches needed- Why isn’t it the best way?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

A) High – we live in an infinitely large universe with a infinite number of planets and solar systems and therefore it will happen somewhere at sometime

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

A) Would you prefer one where they don’t reproduce? Two sexes mean that there is less chance of inbreeding and actually strengthens the species. Inbreeding is bad and leads to interesting side effects – look at the European royal families 100 to 500 years ago or Alabama

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

A) There is genetic mutations during gestation and to the eggs and sperm so it’s a process that takes time but occurs

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

A) The organs develop in the species over the time – the mutations that cope better with the environment allow that individual to survive and prosper better than those with different versions – that genetic code is then passed on. How would you explain the Appendix? One of God’s oversights or a joke?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

A) They do. THEY. DEVELOP. OVER. A. LONG. PERIOD. OF. TIME. (Thousands if not millions of years)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?

A) Is it exactly 50%? Also see the infinitly Large universe thingy

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

A) Your further evidence makes no sense? Whats your point? Laws of Gravity were produced by Newton to describe the interactions that he saw around him. At present nothing better has been produced.

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

A) Nuclear Fusion

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

A) Whereas Intelligent Design isn’t?????

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:

A) That’s not a question – that’s just statement of belief

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

A) The age of the planet versus what the Bible tell us for a start. Wheres your evidence to the contrary?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

A) Whereas as intelligent designates you never do a thing like that? Oh no

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Look around and you must agree that sin or something wrong is everywhere in the world. Get rid of God and you will get rid of a meaningful philosophy. Science shows us how to build atom bombs but does not show us when or "if" we can use them as a means of defence, power or control. You can rely on atheistic philosophy if you want but it has no moral base (remember nothing then BANG!) for right or wrong and falls flat to the glory of God and the teachings of Jesus. If you refute the teachings of Jesus then you counter argue with Dawkins and his opinion on the bible. You guys attack religion with passion but using references from the same people who cant even tell if Pluto is a planet let alone where it came from.

A) But sorry the bible cant tell us whether Pluto’s a planet or not. Tell me is it? It’s a small rock on the outer edge of an insignificant solar system in an insignificant corner of one galaxy in a infinitely large universe. If you need a security blankey to make your life feel better, fine, but please don’t try and rationalise it and tell us that it’s the “supreme truth". Religion has been created to try and explain stuff that happens. Why Thunder? God’s angry, why lightning? Its God’s wrath. And on and on and on and on. Religion was created by humanity, run by humanity and corrupted by humanity with no outside help im afraid.

Right thats off my chest Great Book

Anything that upsets religious fruitcakes is good by me

412. Fundamentalist Religion and Science

Comment #1447 by Anonymous on October 12, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Dear all,

Let me start with ANNETTE who focused our attention to the basic issue. Why to discuss hypothetically incredible staff? The LEAP OF FAITH takes you into Narnia which is not real, of course.
Well my friends, the leap of faith is our destiny. Without it we would not get married knowing that 2/3 of marriages brake. Let us go back to the science, after all, it has been the starting point for our discussion. How many leaps of faith a scientist needs to undertake before he gets some concrete and desirable results, which are then just a starting point for yet another leap of faith? Naturally, I understand the phrase "leap of faith" to be an active, ongoing reality which limited as we are, can not manage without. We are not a solitary island in the middle of an ocean. We need to rely on somebody or something. In our discussion we differ in regard to the object of our trust.

LAURA thank you for your input. You have taken time to spell out main objections to the god we created just to make logical objections to his dealings and supposed character. Since he is so strange and queer he does not exist. We also come up with the ideas when and how he should use his omnipotence, omniscience, what should the expression of his love be, etc. This is an anthropocentric picture of god, and does not corresponds to the biblical view of God revealed through Jesus' life.

1. "Why does a 'perfect God' so desperately need US TO WORSHIP HIM?" Actually he does not. We benefit from it. When I fell in love with a beautiful girl 30 years ago I worshiped her, and I taught I was lucky. If you do not worship loving God you might end up worshiping yourself or something else...
2. "God should be able to create humans who have 'free will', but never behave in evil ways." Here we might have some conceptual problems. How much would such "free will" be actually "free"? Could you talk about faithfulness of a husband if he can not run away with another woman? Some say: "Could God create the stone he can not move?" Our God is the most reasonable being, notion, reality, dream, etc. that exists. We just need to give him a chance in our mind and logic. He is not pushy either. Please read again some earlier comments. I do not want to repeat myself.
3. "Your entire religious belief system, and that of other modern Christians, is built around the premise of sacrifice, yet few Christians today seem to believe in the concept of sacrifice." You are right 100%. What can I say about it? Not much. I better DO more for my neighbors regardless who they are, and how much they have. Please read the beautiful story Redzo's Sermon about an outstanding example of sacrifice. Just type Redzo's Sermon in Google and you will have it. I believe that such a moral is a natural response of an atheist evolutionist as well, regardless of his concept of natural selection.

BILLY, I do not get carried by euphoria of football for long. I spend more time in criticizing it. People get really mad about it. The most outstanding achievement of the game is to place a round lather object between two poles. At the same time, tens of thousand hungry and sick children die every day. It is estimated that for the World cup about 150 billion of dollars were spent. Maybe with this amount we could have reduced this world's problem drastically. Notice "WE", I believe it would not be fair to blame God for it.
I'll get back to you about your questions from the OT. They have their context, but also some challenges too.

Now I must go to bad.

413. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1407 by Anonymous on October 12, 2006 at 7:39 am

"It is just astounding to me that anyone who reads Mr. Dawkins' book, if they were theists, wouldn't use their bible for fire wood and wake up to the gorgeous reality of life. People often ask me how is it possible to see any beauty in life once God is done away with. I always say that it's like seeing the world for the first time. I love the connection that I feel to every plant, animal, and cosmos around me. I prefer the feeling of that connection over it's alternative, that I have dominion over it."

Randy, that is exactly how I view the universe as well. Without religious blinders, one can see the physical universe in all it's awesome splendor, and to be both humbled and amazed at the natural processes that formed and shaped it. To know you are a part of it, in the most elemental way, is exhilarating.

No banal, self-serving religious fantasy can even approach it's grandeur.

Every year, around December, I bring out my DVD Collector's series of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", to celebrate his life and achievements during the anniversary of his untimely passing.. One of the finest works ever produced on television, in it the brilliant astronomer and humanist shared his love affair with science, and the heroes throughout history who have added to man's understanding of the cosmos. Dawkins often refers to Sagan, and he does Sagan's memory the highest honor by taking up his torch as a powerful voice for the scientific method, and a desperately needed proponent for reason in a world that seems to be going mad.

414. Richard Dawkins with Jeremy Vine

Comment #1292 by Anonymous on October 11, 2006 at 7:41 am

Best interview I've heard so far. Fair, objective, informative.

The interview did touch on a question that I wish I could hear discussed more, and that is the reasons why the US seems hell-bent on returning to the dark ages. I'm 46 and have lived in the US all my life, and I can see first hand the startling and dangerous path we as a nation are traversing. It scares the hell out of me, and I would like to hear more opinions and theories as to why this is happening. How did we become such an anti-intellectual nation? How did ignorance become so comforting?

Mr. Dawkins briefly answered the one reference to this question, but I would like to hear much more on this subject.

415. Fundamentalist Religion and Science

Comment #1141 by Anonymous on October 10, 2006 at 4:09 am

Dragutin Matak,

The only value of 'faith' is to 'God's ' advantage. It is a requirement that we believe in him without a single reason; an excuse for why a supposedly loving 'God' would allow 'evil' , why he doesn't answer most prayers ,doesn't show himself, doesn't speak to those who would supposedly need it the (most-unbelievers), doesn't save people from natural disasters, doesn't feed, cure, or in any other perceivable way intervene to help millions of starving and /or dieased children all over the globe, and so it goes, on and on , justifications of why our so-called 'father' shurks all fatherly responsibility towards his 'children', mankind , solely in the name of 'blessing' us with the ability to have 'faith'. Pardon me if it feels more like a curse than a blessing, and all in the name of , and for no other discernable reason whatsoever, this so called god being able to feel really good about getting us humans to worship him even when we have absolutely no good reasons to.

If you feel it is necessary to believe in God in order to be a moral person (most atheists , millions of them worldwide can certainly tell you this isn't true), maintain a sense of sanity (rationalist would have something to say about this), overall health (try healthy diet, exercise, yoga, meditation to relieve stress), and ethical obligations to your fellow man( think about secular humanism), ...

...why is it that you believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God and savior to the world?

I personally find the idea of a supposedly completely innocent man(one without 'sin' )being sacrificed (even if, and especially if, he himself chose this sacrifice) to pay for the sins of others, including my own, to be utterly abhorrent to me. It seems apparent to me that in the superstitious era in which Jesus lived the concept of blood sacrifice, even human sacrifice, was not only acceptable, but considered necessary. That in our supposedly modern era so many would still find the blood sacrifice of an innocent man acceptable, necessary, and even worthy of admiration is disgusting and somewhat frightening to me.

That 'God' , a god we are supposed to love and worship, would ask such a thing, which in essence is completely unnecessary as it is He who makes the rules, is an utterly, utterly bizarre thing to believe, to my way of thinking.

Jesus did NOT pay for my sins, as only I, and no one else but I , can be responsible for my behavior and the consequences to myself for it!! A sacrifice is only a sacrifice when one knowingly and deliberately gives up something of value. As I did not give up anything when Jesus supposedly died on the cross, his death cannot possibly be a sacrifice for me , nor anyone else for that matter, as only Jesus and God participated in the decision for Jesus to sacrifice his life.

NO easy way out either , with absolution through prayer. I've got to make this a life worth living, through caring and moral behavior, because I know I will NOT get ANY second chances.

416. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1115 by Anonymous on October 9, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Very Firey debate. Good job Dawkins. That other guy tried to say, "because we dont know where matter came from yet, God made it." That is a silly argument. The same rationalization that our ancestors used. "We dont know where the lighting comes from, God made it." Can you not see the absurdity of that argument? That is an intellectually week position to hold. Just because we do not know the natural causes for something does not mean we have to attribute it to supernatural causes.

-Chairman Mike

417. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #1072 by Anonymous on October 9, 2006 at 9:19 am

Comment180 by D Buckley..

"Your so naive its hilarious."

Oh dear..

Good argument, especially comimg from someone who actually believes in 'creation'!

That has got to be the most naive,infantile theory ever dreamt up.

You like the attention on here so much it smacks of an inner sadness..
Ah well, as long as it makes you feel all warm inside..

418. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #1060 by Anonymous on October 9, 2006 at 7:16 am

Your conveniently ignoring the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to quote somebody you disagree with in order to critique their position.

The people you quote, make these comments all the time, in the context of flagging up issues to be resolved. This is science. It is in fact science 101:-)

It is nonsensical to take their quotes out of context, and make it communicate something that could not possibly have been the intent of the person being quoted. Unlike the bible, we have the actual people here (certainly in Dawkins case) to shout "bollocks!!" and he has. Even rewording later works to avoid this kind of perversion. "You people" are constantly at this kind of obfuscation and it is breathtakingly dishonest. So much for Christian morality.

You may as well restrain yourself when it comes to insults because its like 'water off a ducks back' with me.

Not surprising:-)Given the relentless nonsense you spout, you must come in for a serious amount of verbal abuse. Quite deserved I might add.

Your first job is to prove your ridiculous god exists. You can't do that, so you fall at the first hurdle. The fact that evolution is an elegant and throughly substantiated (to those who actually know something about it!!!) explanation for the origin of life is pure gravy.

419. The Need to Believe

Comment #1010 by Anonymous on October 8, 2006 at 7:12 pm

Quote: "Children are innately irrational."

Perhaps - unlike some adults whose unquestioning believe in the supernatural is totally rational...


Quote: "To insist on the discovery and production of evidence by a child is asking them to think and act like an educated adult."

Yes - this is how children become educated adults - it's called 'learning'.

420. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #964 by Anonymous on October 8, 2006 at 8:22 am

I’ve already stated my view on the effectiveness of arguing with Christian fundamentalists, be they the “hick from the sticks” version, toting a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other, or the pedantic type who revel in their brilliant erudition. The end result is still the same. The wall cannot be penetrated. One either dies from a bullet, or from boredom.

I would like to share however, my own humble views on why religious people find evolution so unpalatable. Mind you, I am not a PhD like many of you, but I have noticed a thing or two in my forty-six years of life.

The debate between evolution and creationism is, of course, the newest manifestation of the eternal battle between science and religion . Creationism, or “intelligent design“ (or whatever euphemism you wish to use), is a transparent attempt by Christian fundamentalists to climb on the coattails of real science to gain some validity for their religiously biased assumptions. I find this amusing, as well as hypocritical, especially since their big objection in regards to the evidence for evolution is that it is not conclusive or comprehensive enough to satisfy them. A curious argument, since religious concepts and beliefs have not a shred of evidence to support them. Indeed, they fly in the face of all logic, common sense and reason.


Science seeks to understand the physical, observable universe through rational, objective, and self-correcting methodology, regardless of whether the conclusions it arrives at are emotionally appealing to our human insecurities and fears. It is constantly updating and revising itself, when new evidence is put forth that renders a former view or theory no longer valid.

Religion, however, possesses no such humility or open mindedness. Ever since it was invented (by frightened, superstitious humans), it either selectively chooses the facts it wishes to acknowledge, or blatantly ignores or misrepresents evidence which does not support it’s immutable and rigidly fundamentalist beliefs.

Man is an arrogant creature, often ruled by an enormous ego, smothering insecurities, and an ever present and overriding fear of death. It’s no wonder that science, with its view of an immense universe indifferent to the daily ministrations of humanity, and of homo sapiens being genetically related to all other forms of life both extant and extinct, provides answers that do not satisfy the needs of those who emotionally require that mankind be the pinnacle of creation.. Most would prefer, indeed, need to, believe that we are so wonderful and noble as to preclude any notion that we can be anything but the product of divine creation. However, to quote Carl Sagan, the brilliant astronomer and humanist: “The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our wisdom and our courage. We are the custodian’s of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable“.

Science has demoted every conceit that religion has stubbornly adhered to throughout the thousands of years of human history. Contrary to it’s dogma, the Earth was discovered not to be flat, but round. The Sun was finally placed in it’s appropriate position at the center of our solar system. And our solar system is now known to inhabit one of the outer spiral arms of a fairly typical galaxy floating in a vast universe, along with hundreds of billions of other galaxies. And on a smaller scale, thunderstorms, earthquakes, and comets are not the actions of omnipotent, vengeful gods, but simply natural occurrences in a natural universe. Epilepsy is not an indication of demonic possession, but a malfunctioning of the neurological system. Science has demystified many phenomena that, before it’s development, were both frightening and beyond human understanding.

This is reality on a scale far beyond the abilities and desires of many humans to comprehend. It’s no wonder that a large percentage of the human population prefers a more anthropocentric view of where we really stand in the grand scheme of things. Religions tell people exactly what they want to hear (and if yours doesn‘t, simply pick another one, there‘s plenty to choose from!). In regards to evolution, the “theory” simply isn’t welcome. This is a shame , because science has revealed to us a universe that is more awe-inspiring and wondrously complex than any of the mundane, self- comforting myths created by the multitude of religions that have existed throughout recorded history. Instead of bowing heads down in supplication, maybe more people should look upward and outward at what’s really there.

In regards to teaching ID in schools, as many propose in this country, I believe creationism has no place near a public school classroom. Let it stay where it belongs, in a mythology or catechism class. In no way does it deserve to be viewed on equal footing with either the theory of evolution, or science in general. To imply it is a science is to endow it with an honor and validity it simply doesn‘t deserve..

421. A question of respect

Comment #924 by Anonymous on October 7, 2006 at 9:47 pm

BTW,

If I had been writing longhand I never would have misspelled 'grammar', even though the letter 'e' and the letter 'a' are not right next to each other on the keyboard. Typing has some kind of affect on some people's spelling, I don't know why. (How many times did I write the word grammar(?) and still accidentally put an 'e' instead of an 'a', and I re-read it a couple of times before I sent it).

I definitely wouldn't have left out the 'u' in
strenuously, either.

422. A question of respect

Comment #923 by Anonymous on October 7, 2006 at 9:25 pm

Sorry about that, my computer told me it didn't go through the first time( that's right, blame the computer:)

423. A question of respect

Comment #921 by Anonymous on October 7, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Paul,

" I look(present tense) at how much of the nitro I drop (also present tense) each time and say..."

Or you could say:

I looked(past tense) at how much of the nitro I dropped(also past tense)...

This rule also follows with:

I look (present tense) at what I write(present
tense)...

Or

I looked (past tense) at what I wrote(past tense)...

Not

I look (present tense) at what I wrote (past tense)...

No one really cares about such a simple slip (except perhaps you), the point is that it is disrespectful to chastise people as though they
are children( and publicly at that ). It is
counterproductive to the entire intention of a sight like this which serves as an open forum.

Poor spellers and poor typists have as much a right as you to enter one of these threads and have their voices heard.

Spelling and grammer are just tools ,and I think it's a bit silly to say we should 'respect' a tool. We need to respect those who use these tools as best they can, even if they use them poorly.

424. A question of respect

Comment #920 by Anonymous on October 7, 2006 at 9:00 pm

Paul,

" I look(present tense) at how much of the nitro I drop (also present tense) each time and say..."

Or you could say:

I looked(past tense) at how much of the nitro I dropped(also past tense)...

This rule also follows with:

I look (present tense) at what I write(present
tense)...

Or

I looked (past tense) at what I wrote(past tense)...

Not

I look (present tense) at what I wrote (past tense)...

No one really cares about such a simple slip (except perhaps you), the point is that it is disrespectful to chastise people as though they
are children( and publicly at that ). It is
counterproductive to the entire intention of a sight like this which serves as an open forum.

Poor spellers and poor typists have as much a right as you to enter one of these threads and have their voices heard.

Spelling and grammer are just tools ,and I think it's a bit silly to say we should 'respect' a tool. We need to respect those who use these tools as best they can, even if they use them poorly.

425. A question of respect

Comment #917 by Anonymous on October 7, 2006 at 8:04 pm

Reminding students to 'check their spelling and grammer is fine', but doesn't mean you can reasonably expect them to catch every error.

I personally have no respect for spelling and grammer, and I strenously disagree with the implication that this is an ignorant position.

Different from most, yes, ignorant, no.

One should work to make statements that others don't have to work too hard at understanding, but nothing close to the level of perfection ( yes you are asking for at the very least NEAR
perfection) you imply is necessary.

I would never presume to ask others to "be careful with their presentation... put some thought into it..."

I would assume they had done their best, whichever side of the issue they fall on. This is true 'respect'.

426. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #760 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 6:09 pm

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Just shut up about what I believe. Stop your attack. If you had a real belief in something besides yourself then we would already know this. Learn respect. Or you are nothing but part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. This will always be a dog eat dog world to you with that level of understanding. .

You just keep spewing out those worn out atheist cliches. Nothing original. You just don't understand. Understand or learn tolerance and respect.Stop the attack.

427. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #757 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 5:37 pm

Your totally clueless. If God came down physically and spoke to everyone in a loud voice then guess what? Everyone would believe in God. You too. He'd be your sugardaddy!

But God's existense transpires many dimensions. This is the lowest level and very imperfect. This is where pure spirit matter is born into the physical, knows God, then learns sin, then makes a choice. Between God or sin. Salvation or hedonism. We choose the type of world we our next world will be.

The only way to seek God is within ourselves. To talk to God. Our souls are the connection to God. Our soul is the only thing we take into this physical world and the only thing that we take out of it. We're just passing through.Who we really are is this spirit. Our bodies are just outside garment clothing the spirit in this world. Physical world, physical body. Logical.

As we pass we either chose to believe in God or chose to believe nothing but what we see in the physical world. It's easier to live a selfish hedonistic life if you refuse to believe in God. Refuse to believe that there are universal laws that govern our life. If we transgress against another we will be transgressed upom. Simple laws but very, very real. That's why you don't see too many old evil people. Except Fidel Castro but his day is coming.

This is not chaos. There is logic and reason behind this physical world it is there. It is God.

God does allow bad things to happen. But God will also intercede at times too. We will never have a true understanding of that in this world. In the next world we will know more and more about God. We will continually spirtually progress.

But hey if you are not interested in God then fine. I am. I want to progress spiritually in this life as far as I can. I want to understand God. I want to be closer to God more than I want to be closer to things in this material world. I could have not a nickel to my name but if I have God's love then I will be the richest man in the world. Richer that the world's richest rich.

That is 92% of the world's choice. Yet you demand that everyone believe that you know the only truth. That there is no God. You makes us laugh. We respect your right to have that belief. But we will not sit idly by while you attack our beliefs. You will get a response. If you are going to preach atheism at me then I am going to preach Christianity to you. The second you stop preaching to me I will stop preaching to you. Go on and be an atheist. But shut up with the talking trash about my beliefs.

Tolerance that's what you need to learn. And respect for others beliefs. There are fanatics in all beliefs. Dawkins is a fanatic in the atheist belief. Christians deal with their own fanatics and deal with them. Deal with your own.

What are you doing to bring down the Atheist dictator (he certainly does not believe in God) Kim Jong Il of South Korea? Fidel Castro? Have you toured the killing fields of Cambodia? Atheist mass murder of believers in God. What you doing to help free Tibet. Return the Dalai Lama?

Leaders of nations who do not know God are positively the worst mass murderers ever on this planet. No God, life has no value. People are cattle.

Tolerance. Or find God. God will teach you tolerance and how to love your fellow humans as much as you love yourself and love God.

God is not going to be our sugardaddy in this life. No,uh,uh. God wants you to come to him. Those are the purer souls. God is perfect. We are imperfect. But we can not be near God unless we become less imperfect. This unseen Creator in this world. But your soul is your connection to God's presence in this world. And God is here. God is everywhere. Whether you choose to believe in God, God is here.

If this was a perfect world then there would be no trial for God to see who the purer souls are. God wants to be nearer those who seek God. To be loved by us. With real love. Sugardaddies get no real love. It is not how many times you pray or got to church. But who you are, how perfect we can become. We will always be imperfect but we want to know God in this life to receive God's blessing and protection and LOVE!

It is all so simple, logical and of sound reason if you believe. But if you don't believe it may seem like chaos. It all has a purpose.

Find tolerance and respect for all beliefs. Or Find God. God will teach you tolerance and respect. I've found God!

428. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #756 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 5:36 pm

Your totally clueless. If God came down physically and spoke to everyone in a loud voice then guess what? Everyone would believe in God. You too. He'd be your sugardaddy!

But God's existense transpires many dimensions. This is the lowest level and very imperfect. This is where pure spirit matter is born into the physical, knows God, then learns sin, then makes a choice. Between God or sin. Salvation or hedonism. We choose the type of world we our next world will be.

The only way to seek God is within ourselves. To talk to God. Our souls are the connection to God. Our soul is the only thing we take into this physical world and the only thing that we take out of it. We're just passing through.Who we really are is this spirit. Our bodies are just outside garment clothing the spirit in this world. Physical world, physical body. Logical.

As we pass we either chose to believe in God or chose to believe nothing but what we see in the physical world. It's easier to live a selfish hedonistic life if you refuse to believe in God. Refuse to believe that there are universal laws that govern our life. If we transgress against another we will be transgressed upom. Simple laws but very, very real. That's why you don't see too many old evil people. Except Fidel Castro but his day is coming.

This is not chaos. There is logic and reason behind this physical world it is there. It is God.

God does allow bad things to happen. But God will also intercede at times too. We will never have a true understanding of that in this world. In the next world we will know more and more about God. We will continually spirtually progress.

But hey if you are not interested in God then fine. I am. I want to progress spiritually in this life as far as I can. I want to understand God. I want to be closer to God more than I want to be closer to things in this material world. I could have not a nickel to my name but if I have God's love then I will be the richest man in the world. Richer that the world's richest rich.

That is 92% of the world's choice. Yet you demand that everyone believe that you know the only truth. That there is no God. You makes us laugh. We respect your right to have that belief. But we will not sit idly by while you attack our beliefs. You will get a response. If you are going to preach atheism at me then I am going to preach Christianity to you. The second you stop preaching to me I will stop preaching to you. Go on and be an atheist. But shut up with the talking trash about my beliefs.

Tolerance that's what you need to learn. And respect for others beliefs. There are fanatics in all beliefs. Dawkins is a fanatic in the atheist belief. Christians deal with their own fanatics and deal with them. Deal with your own.

What are you doing to bring down the Atheist dictator (he certainly does not believe in God) Kim Jong Il of South Korea? Fidel Castro? Have you toured the killing fields of Cambodia? Atheist mass murder of believers in God. What you doing to help free Tibet. Return the Dalai Lama?

Leaders of nations who do not know God are positively the worst mass murderers ever on this planet. No God, life has no value. People are cattle.

Tolerance. Or find God. God will teach you tolerance and how to love your fellow humans as much as you love yourself and love God.

God is not going to be our sugardaddy in this life. No,uh,uh. God wants you to come to him. Those are the purer souls. God is perfect. We are imperfect. But we can not be near God unless we become less imperfect. This unseen Creator in this world. But your soul is your connection to God's presence in this world. And God is here. God is everywhere. Whether you choose to believe in God, God is here.

If this was a perfect world then there would be no trial for God to see who the purer souls are. God wants to be nearer those who seek God. To be loved by us. With real love. Sugardaddies get no real love. It is not how many times you pray or got to church. But who you are, how perfect we can become. We will always be imperfect but we want to know God in this life to receive God's blessing and protection and LOVE!

It is all so simple, logical and of sound reason if you believe. But if you don't believe it may seem like chaos. It all has a purpose.

Find tolerance and respect for all beliefs. Or Find God. God will teach you tolerance and respect. I've found God!

429. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #749 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Atheist cliche after cliche after cliche. All of those responses are so canned. Part of your programming. Won't spend the time right now in my response.

But all of those dictators were atheists. All of them.

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

Vladimir Lenin

Uh, How about the invasions of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, 1940? C'mon crack open a history book. How about Tibet? How about South Vietnam? South Korea? Laos? India? The list goes on and on. Atheists have nothing to be proud of. Nothing. Lots of shame and blame goes your way. Perversion of the truth and trying to revise history makes you look like a fool and a liar.

Do innocent people die or get killed. Of course they do. God does not micro manage everything. God does not want us to be robots. Free will. This world is not menat to be perfect. It is for the purification of souls. But by us following the Holy Spirit's guidance a lot of tragedy can be avoided. Intercessory prayer does save lives.

Teaching the unproven speculation that man and simians share a common ancestor as fact is teaching the religion, atheism, in our public schools.

Just tell the world what atheism has to offer without attacking other religions and you might seem a little bit more tolerant.

By the way which denomination of atheism do you belong to?

430. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #699 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 10:50 am

Just some more atheist propaganda. You atheists take the truth and twist it into a lie. Duh?!? Who is responsible for the flood? The people and their wickedness in their hearts. God (since then) is never responsible for any violent death. Duh?!? Ever hear of free will. God does not interfere if you want to go out and kill someone. You will pay for your crime one way or another. What goes around comes around. God can intervene with intercessory prayer. And does. You atheist Dawkins arse lickers are just so dumb, clueless and hateful. Know what you are talking about if you want to criticize Christianity. You just sound so ignorant with the things you write.


Duh!?! Brian I came to this site which is nothing more that a hate Christians site. You started the hate. I respond to it.

Atheists are anything but rational people. The most famous atheists are mass murderers. Do you call that rational?

431. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #686 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 8:19 am

Steven wrote "because I feel these beliefs can cause people to do terrible things."

Oh uh let's see here. History shows us that atheism and atrheists have cuased the slaughter of billions of people on this planet. Lenin - atheist. Stalin - atheist. Pol Pot - atheist. Milosevic - atheist. Mao Tse Tung - atheist. Hoi Chi Minh - atheist. Fidel Castro - Atheist. Kim Jong Il - atheist.

That is such a lie you are telling. you can not sweep the billions of people slaughtered like cattle by atheists under the rug. Atheism is poison for humanity.

You can not preach about your sacred atheism without slamming other people's beliefs. Yet I can tell you about my beliefs without slamming yours. There is something wrong with this picture.

Atheism is a religion. You believe in science. You have beliefs. And Dawkins is your God. You have a soul. Scrape that atheist crud off of it and use it to get in touch with God. There is your evidence. You have to find it just like I did. God is within you. Your soul connects you to God!

432. A question of respect

Comment #685 by Anonymous on October 6, 2006 at 7:56 am

Well Paul, maybe we al can't be as perfect as you.
You must be a very happy and self satisfied person.
To each his own, mate.

433. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #665 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 6:36 pm

. Comment #612 by Trevor on October 4, 2006 at 2:52 pm

Wow Sarah, you have a point The Christians are agressive and well.. much like the Muslims who cant take a joke they seem one in the same perhaps they are.

SAME WITH ATHEISTS. THEY CAN NOT TAKE CRITICISM OR QUESTIONING. SHOWS HOW DEEP THEIR PROGTRAMMING IS.

434. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #664 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 6:28 pm

That's a good description of the Dawkins cloned atheists...... Nazis!

435. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #661 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Of course this Church of Atheism site is going to broadbrush all Christians in a negative light. They are atheists here and hate all believers in God. If you want truth about any belief in God don't come to this website. This is nothing but atheist propaganda. They have no respect for the viewers figuring that if they repeat the lies about beliefs and believers in God enough times someone is bound to believe them. This website is dedicated to slandering all believers in God and proselytizing their their atheist beliefs. This is Atheist Conversion 101!

436. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #660 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 5:24 pm

Yes, Steven attack the messenger. I have read Dawkin's attacks on Christians and Christianity long enough. What's the matter? Is it a sacrilege to criticize the Pope of Atheism? I guess there is no "free thinking allowed here on this site????

437. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #658 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 5:21 pm

Steven, of course you are wrong big time and your post smacks of incredible intolerance. Explain to me why does atheism, if it is just oh so benevolent like you pretend, has to constantly attack all theist beliefs?

And why do you believe that atheism is the only right way? So it's your way (athesim) or the highway. Anyone who believes in God is nuts according to you and the High Priest of Atheism, Dawkins. Look at his picture. A true demagougue. Is this his shrine you all come to worship him?

"Religion is an archaic concept that we should have outgrown long ago"

What you would have liked to write was "OUTLAWED" instead of outgrown. The atheists in the Soviet Union tried that and now theism is more popular than ever.

Atheism is just another competing religion on the global scene. 8% of the world's population and ever decreasing. It is based on man made dogma, hedonism and narcissism. It exists solely to attack all the other religions as has nothing to offer humanity but hopelessness.

You might be heavily programmed in the atheist dogma but the world will continue to worship God in one fashion of the other.

Learn to be tolerant of others beliefs ok Steve? You say your way is the only way but I disagree. Franklin.

438. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #654 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 4:45 pm

Hello Terry. Dawkins is the self appointed attacker of Christianity and all those who belive in God. He represents himself as the spokeperson for atheists. Why are you here if you've never heard of him? And Pullllease don't thump the Bible at me. I've chosen to be a Christian. What religion have you chosen? Are you an atheist? Dawkins lives to attack theism. He is a Minister of Atheism. I posted a response in defense of my beliefs. Why do atheists always have to be on the attack? Why can't they just believe there is no God and leave it at that. Is this a site of religious tolerance? No. Why do you have a problem with my defending my beliefs against his attacks? Franklin.

439. The Philosophy of Religion

Comment #624 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 2:50 am

Is there away to dpwnload these to files to listen later on a podcast or disc?

440. Collateral Damage: Part 2

Comment #522 by Anonymous on October 2, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Just a thought- not necessarily connected to this page...

Are there any plans to set up an explicitly secular humanist school as an alternative to Blair's religiously funded academies? That would be an excellent use of RDF funds (in my opinion).

441. Misbegotten sons

Comment #387 by Anonymous on September 27, 2006 at 4:18 pm

Hullo again Louis,

Thank you for your reply. I think that you can see that I really am in sympaticos with your points of view. I suppose that the real point of all of this is that I find that folks frequently have a knee-jerk reaction to religion as supernatural, superstitious, and irrational without taking the time to learn about other possibilities. It is a bit like religious folk who rely on arguments that the body or physiology is just too complicated to have possibly been derived via natural selection. This is due to laziness or ignorance. So why should we expect that the study of the Bible or theology has not progressed in the past couple hundred years as well? Bishop Spong's work is a tremendous example of what I would definitely see as progress.

Drew Westin at Emory recently published a study in which he looked at fMRIs of folks who were passionate Republicans or Democrats while they were listening to speeches given by Bush and Kerry. He found that cognitive parts of the brain were working when listening to their favorite candidates while emotional parts of the brain were doing most of the work when listenting to the "enemy." It certainly raises the question of how this applies to discussions and debates regarding religion and whether or not there is a God. Jon Haidt summarizes studies which dramatically reveal how biased our opinions on such matters are by our prior perspectives and beliefs. He also argues that the best way to understand and resolve such differences is to somehow endeavor to argue for your opponents point of view (to play the "devil's advocate," so to speak). This is what I have been attempting to do. I have tried to find the best, most logical, and morally acceptable ideas in Christianity and see how they hold up. Beating the worst of Christianity is way too easy (and is the common defense of fundamentalists, citing Nazi Germany and the communist USSR as the logical outcomes of atheism).

As for your complaint about the nature of words and definitions (as well as similar complaints by TK), what can I say? Uses of words, the co-option of terms and concepts is a regular occurrence. One may object to the use of the term, Christian, to describe kind and humane. But the potentially positive aspect of this is that in it, we have the seeds of using the term to change other things. If Christian means being kind and humane, then it cannot mean hating, killing, and discriminating against blacks, women, gays, Jews, Muslims, etc. Folks who insist that it does are clearly in the wrong, and this is a means to help people see this. (BTW, Google Landover Baptist University for a hilarious spoof on the use of TrueChristian as a registered trademark). But the use of the term in your sentence (That priest who raped that kid isn't a real Christian) is no more nonsensical or strange than this--That atheist who failed his quantum physics test concluded that he isn't really that bright.

TK asked what's the point in folks practicing a religion if they don't believe in the supernatural. This is an excellent question which I hope that TK will try to answer. My particular answers have to do with the benefits of a spiritual community, the benefits of tradition and ritual, the increase in happiness which individuals experience when they try to live their lives according to moral priciples instead of hedonism, improvement in health and immune functioning which can accompany such activity, a tried and true means of experiencing feelings of transcendence, etc.

It is my sincere hope that my country will never have the political will to try to eliminate creationism. I do hope that it continues to teach as much of the best science as possible. I pray that the government stays out of religion altogether.

I think that it is a more realistic goal to confront the inconsistencies, hypocracies, and evils of religion than it is to try to get folks to abandon religion altogether. I also think that it has greater moral justification. What if we found that the root of all this mess was not necessarily religion at all, but rather love of God, love of country, love of family, etc.? What if we could find a way to get rid of love altogether, through a drug or selective breeding or whatever? What if we could convince folks that love and emotions were irrational and bad? What if we could convince folks that sex is just sex? That Samuel Johnson was right when he said that love was merely the gross exageration and idealization of the infinitessimally small differences between women? Would you want to do it?

My final windbag comment is to TK's reference to religion being "pie in the sky." My understanding is that the original reference to "pi in the sky" was a critique of a project which transmitted the numerical value of pi out into the galaxy as a means of trying to contact extraterrestrial life, an early forerunner of the SETI project. Carl Sagan, an eminent atheist, wrote the book 'Contact' to explore the existential implications which such a project might have on humanity. In the book, the heroine finds deep, mystical meaning in her research on pi. In the movie, Sagan makes a plea for emotion, belief, and faith as the foundation for what is best about humanity. He, at least, saw the value and need for this aspect of ourselves. He tried to help us see that it can happen without a belief in the supernatural, although he did apparently appreciate our need for the mystical.

I would strongly encourage people to think more deeply about what we SHOULD do regarding our scientific knowledge. This is a question of ethics and personal responsibility. It cannot be derived from science any better than it can be pronounced by the burning bush or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.