I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what 'Science' and Dawkins choose to see.

When I look at all the artworks around the World, I see that the most magnificent statues, paintings, music, etc, were inspired by one theme : God and His Love for us, poor humans. If all that is a delusion, Art, fraternity, love, self-sacrifice for others, all that becomes void. This is just Impossible ! God is rooted inside us, whomever we are, wherever we live.

@Sandy

Don't waste your sympathy for Mr. Dawkins, he has repeatedly stated that the wonder of nature and creation are, his opinion, demeaned by the existence if God. He see's the wonder and beauty that surrounds us all and is fascinated by it. He is simply viewing it through his own human-scientific lens.

where did basic physical laws come from? the same laws of physics that are used to account for all physical phenomena -including those at the earliest stages of the universe when there were not yet complex structures like animals or even molecules or atoms. So where did these basic physical laws – which allow for the possibility of physical evolution but preceded it – come from? In simpler words: where did the rules of science come from?

Yes, of course there is a God and Jesus–and don't forget Peter Pan, Zeus, Neptune, and Mother Goose.

Life is filled with wonder . period. I for one have no need of a god to enjoy the wonder of life.

What is wrong about looking behond fanatism and into the very science of our origins, whoever choose to believe that God can save , by all means do so. Others may wants to rely on science and have every rigth to do so. If it was for the christian institutions of yesterday, we would still be riding around in carriages pull by horses and the earth might stll be the center of a universe that as beautifully painted by the masters commisioned by the catolic church it really never was or was it?

Looking forward to reading Dawkin's new book! I enjoyed "The God Delusion" tremendously and was elated to read the details of gene selection and meme theory.

Re: Sandy: Life is indeed filled with wonder, and I feel sorry to see folks like you turn a blind ignorant eye to plausible and provable explanations for the wonderful bits and turn to blind personal faith instead. The universe is way bigger than you and the figments of your religious imagination.

There is nothing more wonderfully Human than to explore Science and learn how the World works. We must never stop asking WHY we are as we are.

"Where did basic physical laws come from?"

Why not ask where God came from? If the answer is "God has always been here", then why is it somehow impossible that the universe has always been here? Or that the events which led to the Big Bang have always been here, and last time around the Big Bang got lucky and created a stable universe that could sustain life.

At some point on both sides of the debate, the thinking stops. I side with the scientists, though, since the point at which they stop thinking is a lot farther along.

There's a certain symmetry that Sandy feels sorry for me because I feel sorry for Sandy! As an atheist I don't need to "justify" my existence, nor do I need a religion to provide me with a moral compass. I apply the rule of respecting others unless they disrespect me.

However I agree completely with Sandy about the wonder of the Universe in which we all live. I'm a keen amateur astronomer and was recently looking through my telescope at the whirlpool galaxy. I found myself giddy at the thought that the light I was seeing had left a star in a distant galaxy 23 million years ago, that it had travelled across deep intergalactic space and then finally ended it's journey in the back of my eye. How amazing is that!

But religion didn't want me to know about this stuff. It wanted me to think that the Universe was some sort of clockwork device and that it had all started just a few generations ago. It's only because people were prepared to risk imprisonment and death from the religious in order to find the truth that we now understand how amazing the Universe really is.

So we agree on one hugely important thing – we live in a wonderful Universe. Let's keep it civilized and agree to disagree beyond that point.

Great author and biologist. It's a shame how religiously indoctrinated adults can't grasp what science and evolution is about and prefer to live in eternal infancy while believing in the supernatural... but much worse is how they pass on those silly beliefs to future generations, making them hostile towards those who really bring us answers and cure diseases. Science is light, religion is, well, darkness. Lets not forget the Dark Ages, a time where everyone was god-fearful and obedient... those were the times, right?

There are thousands of religions throughout the world. What makes you think your god is any more real that the other thousands of gods people have come up with? What makes your god and more real than the fairies living in the bottom of my pond?

Richard Dawkins is, of course, right. But humans cannot live without the concept of "God", something presumably animals can. And humans cannot accept that we are "alone" in the universe either. But obviously we are and very much so. Imagination is quite a helpful characteristic of humans (especially when it comes to accept death) but at times it plays havoc with most our lives – and this is what Dawkins, among others, should try to minimize. Maybe.

I am a complete atheist and wonder every day at the magnificence, beauty and intelligence of our world and universe. And for this I do not need the stupid idea of a being like us having created all this. The childish question "where comes this or that from" has an (of course still incomplete) answer from science, an answer that is infinetly more intelligent, more poetic than the religious alternative. And as long as religions say "god was always there" we atheist could afirm "the universe and the laws of nature were always there". If believers do not find this explanation sufficient, then they should tell us atheist how they explain gods origin and why this their explanation should be convincing and sufficient.

Why is it that you never here atheists disputing the existence of unicorns, or the Great Pumpkin? Is it because these things obviously don't exist?

Recently there was a serious accident near our home involving a school bus and two cars and a reader of our local paper commented on how God guided the rescuers, and I thought "where was God twenty minutes earlier"?

Everyone has his/her own God. This is his. Mine is one of unconditional love

First of all, I speak english, but i will write in portuguese, my natural language.
Charles Darwin nao foi um grande cientista, grande parte dos seus conceitos, no que diz respeito a origem da vida, sao simplesmente meras especulacoes. Darwin despreza a ideia de Deus, acha que uma cega e aleatoria evolucao conduziu a vida a este estagio que estamos.
Richard Dawkins e um pobre coitado que acha que sabe alguma coisa, mas so faz repetir o que Darwin disse,vem agora ser o novo profeta do ateismo. Outros filosofos superiores a ele como Bertrand Russel, entre outros, tentaram justificar o ateismo e fracassaram.
Os que creem numa evolucao cega e fortuita creem em algo mais difuso e vago do que aqueles que creem em Deus.
Os maiores filosofos, como Socrates, Platao, Aristoteles, Descartes, Newton, entre outros, nao desprezaram a ideia de Deus.
Richard Dawkins passara, o conceito de Deus jamais morrera.
Como disse Victor Hugo,"Deus e o invisivel evidente.
Davi Lima de Araujo

I think this is a prime example of concealment. Who said that God did not set evolution on its course? Creation and especially man was not created to be a static being, but all is set in a state of change and progress.

It is absurd to tie down God to an idea or observation. If we are to figure out God in his entirety in our physical limited state then he can't be God. The true wonder is that every time an aspect of Him is observed we got lost in His majesty.

Do our opinions really change Him or change the fact that He exists or creator of everything? of course not! At the end we will all checkout of this life and make room for a better generation. This is God's greatness in action.

Was the universe there all the time? If not was it and its laws, created?

Once you let yourself break away from religion, you get to see it for what it is and was. There's no end of wannabe cult leaders, some make it big, most don't – but fairies and gods aside, people are their own enemies for their want to believe in any fantasy and constructed morality. My favorite line is "enlightenment through food choices" which naturally points to the idiocy of religion in regard to food. Pretty much for the rest of religious beliefs, substitute your-wacky-idea in place of food choices and there you have religion neatly summed up.

I have read the book. It isstunning that this man is not trying to convince us that the universe was evolved as well. The arguments in his book are base less and does not hold any water. He is say there is no God or Creator, or whateven then he has to has the answer how the universe and al if complexity came into existance. If not then he has no choice but to say it was made or created, I am sure he do not have the answer, if he has then I will reject God rightaway. If he don't, and I and the readers here know he don't, then I suggest don't waste time, you can make money by other means!

I read his book, 'The God delusion', it made sense to me. See what
Bertrand Russell had to say on page 97 of his book, how true..

dawkins questions and doubts are legit in a free country and tantamount to death and persecution in religious countries such as saudi or pakistan and iran. regardless of the answer to the god question, the free world needs to support healthy debate on issues that disagreement on causes more death than can be balanced by any religion. i say its a legit challenge and will only broaden our horizon and in the end in such an atmosphere of free debatethose who believe can continue believing without necessarily silencing the skeptics

The right to worship as you please is the right babble nonsense as you please. It is one of those rights that everyone should have, but that nobody ought to exercise.

Religious belief is like flatulence. Sometimes a pointless and horrid wind has to emerge from a person. One tries to avoid the practice in polite company, but there are limits to what can be done to curb the practice in the longer and broader term.

"Glory be to God for dappled things-
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise him"

Now, more than ever, religion is completely inappropriate. It is used as justification by the ignorant. Religion is a prescribed belief system for the masses. It is spiritual communism. Religion (amongst other things) is used as license to fly planes into buildings, plant bombs on trains, it has unleashed a tirade of abusive picketing around funerals; the list is as old as the human condition itself, and it continues...

I stand (bravely) beside Mr. Dawkins, and I agree with him. Throw religion away. It's time for something else. What science has shown us about our Universe and where we live is much more inspiring and magnificent than anything we have ever known before.

It is fear is our greatest hurdle, and the only way to overcome fear is to become informed.

Please read the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
God precedes everything!
He "was" before the Big Bang.
The Alpha and the Omega!
"Abba" Father!

Just finished reading "..God Delusion" Yes it does tell me how badly behaved humans are and especially those that believe in God. For some reason he mostly focuses on Christians; well I knew they were pretty bad before I read Dawkins

Dawkins bases most of his anti god thesis on the argument that for God to create it is not logical to have something complex preceding a relatively simple early universe. He seems to miss the point that the very presence of the Universe is still a mystery that Physicists and Cosmologists explain with thinking and thesis that are as grand and illogical as the god notion.

Left with the feeling that Dawkins has a God Obsession and that the jury is still out for this person who has experienced numerous inexplicables!

I think god exist in the country that have all your problems resolved if not you can asked the third world country about god.

I think Dawkins is a bit of a shock-jock, but (most) of what he says is as valid a position to have as any other position that a person can have. When it comes down to it, everything is about belief and faith in something...whether that means you are an evolutionist or a creationist, or whatever else you may believe. None of it is necessarily good or bad in nature...it all comes down to how we as humans act in accordance with our beliefs. If I were to snap judge the group of followers of any particular belief system throughout the ages...I don't know of any group that would have that good of a track record. Some better than others I suppose...

Personally speaking, Dawkins largely fails at what he sets out to do...change hearts and minds. You won't get very far trying to persuade someone to stop believing what they believe. Self realization is the key.

A debate which will never be resolved. Perhaps everyone is correct in his/her own way. There is an absolute truth, well, if there is a truth to start with. Absolute? Perhaps nothing is absolute.
Anyway the simple point is that science is derived from early religions. Some of us who were not happy with the dogmas chose to test some beliefs. Well we have come a long way and we owe a lot to science. But fortunately not enough to renounce God completely. Any scientist who does so is not a scientist but only a philosopher. Just because you can't prove something (that God exists) doesn't automatically disprove 'His' existence, and definitely vice-versa.
Peace is the only truth.

what is the purpose of life? nothing and everything..

I am one of your fans, let's say with regards to your statement "God is a delusion", Don't you think that there must be a "Supreme Being" to control this vast universe and let's call Him God for argument sake...

Let's wait a bit and ask this guy a few minutes before he does of his opinion as he stares and actually senses the gates of the eternity.

Science is a fantastic tool to understand the world around us and the universe we "live" in. However, assuming that science can explain every possible phenomenon that exists in the universe is intellectual arrogance. There is no proof as yet that "science is the only tool that can help us interpret the universe".

Where did the rules of science come from?

Are you asking this question to stimulate a debate on that very subject, or is it a rhetorical implication that the rules of science must have come from god?

Either way, simply because we do not know the origins of the universe and the laws that govern it certainly does not mean that it must have been the act of god. Until only recently in our history did we begin to understand things like plate tectonics and global weather patterns as explanations for earthquakes and hurricanes. Prior to this understanding, these naturally occurring events were attributed to god.

Of course, the origins of the universe will be substantially more difficult to explain through science and inquiry, but that should not stop people from approaching the subject with a degree of objectivity and reasoning.

Both believers and non-believers can be awestruck by the beauty and wonder of our universe. We only differ in our approaches to explain the origins of that beauty.

Every single religions 'God' is based on the writings of men (always men, never women) who were at best questionable and at worst homicidal maniacs.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any of these 'Gods' actually exist. So why are they still believed in?
Many reasons; money and power being the chief ones but also the need for some to make sense of their existence and nullify the fear of death.
The 'Gods' that exist now will not be around in a few thousand years, much like the Greek and Egyptian 'Gods' are no longer with us. Man will find new fantasies to persuade the gullible. Ask certain members of the Hollywood elite.

Why do I need to believe in an invisible super powerful sky fairy to justify my existence or to see beauty in the world?

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? – Douglas Adams

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts

If God is a delusion when;

We could stop investing time in crafting illusions and finally we could step into the next level of existence where everything can make sense.

Still people rather believe and spend a lot of time and energy to nurture a delusion rather than spend time to know the truth.

Knowing the truth is the next level. The great delusion (religion) is the stopper that holds everything back, keeping the mind backward and sorry.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can look at the wonders of the univrse, and not believe in a superior authority. there is so much that even the most highly educated human being cannot understand that there has to have been something guiding it all. every culture has something that they worship, even though they have no teachings or education. from the jungles of New Guinea to the Tribes in Africa, and the Eskimos on the North pole. they all believe in a supreme power. I think there is one, even though it is worshiped in many names and forms. it is all one and the same. no matter how many wars are fought over who is right.

pragmaticism is hilarious

A week ago while on vacation I wandered into a small bookstore and "The Selfish Gene" forced it's way into my hand and made me buy it.
Wow-wow-wow. So current and it was written 30 years ago?

I am not intelligent enough to ask an meaningful question (just "near genius" on the online IQ tests). My only hope is that more people get a chance to read this book and think about it.

After I finish this one the next book waiting is "The Blind Watchmaker" and then on to "The Greatest Show".

The vacation, incidentally, included Niagara Falls and other wonderful natural beauty in upstate New York, in no way diminished by my lack of religious belief.

For purposes of fair play, Becky, you should also feature any one of these just as learned scholars: Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P. Moreland, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Robin Collins or even Lee Strobel. They have a better case to present.

@freeman In a word: physics. Physics of sub-atomic energy in themselves define the rules. Our understanding of the manifestation of why things are the way they are can be shown by physical properties. There is a law in quantum mechanics that states if multiple solutions exist no matter how rare the possibility, then they must occur. This is how complete our understanding is of nature. Scientists then proceed to verify the extremely rare events and so far our understanding in terms of quantum theory has been an amazing success.

2 Timothy 3:1-9
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

With the evidence clearly showing that gods are myths made by man, how can we best help humanity embrace an atheist reality? Is it fact-based science education or possibly more of a passionate appeal to the awe and wonder of the natural universe?

If I ever feel the need for a God, I want it to be Veronica's god....
re.. Mark Good, he asks a great question, 'Where was God when he was needed" Probably because he doesn't exist.

Richard Dawkins should be celebrated and not shunned. He has offered proof for his beliefs. Religion requires faith and is not willing to offer any evidence of a super natural power.

Historically speaking, religion or specifically organized religion has played no role in human development. In fact, science has been our life long and one true friend.

God/Religion condones slavery. If god is the Supreme Being, he/she should have a superior understanding of truth. Most religious text are littered with justification for slavery.

God/Religion is never wrong.

I remember a comment made by Bill Maher which sounds incredibly correct.

If POPE was the head of a child care centre whose employees were being regularly caught/prosecuted for improper behaviour with underage kids, the Pope would have been in jail by now and the organization would cease to exist.

So a private organization could be fined, its officers could be prosecuted and jailed for underage sex, however the church being a religious organization get away with everything.

Every time Science has made a mistake, it has taken steps to correct itself. Religion has done no such thing. It requires blind faith not in god but rather the institution that speaks for god.

Religion was not meant to survive the test of time. While Christianity was formed, people did not know that there is a Hindu living somewhere in Asia. People’s understanding only related to what they could see. In modern times, we have released that the earth is a lot bigger than we imagined.

There is not a single religion in the world which treats women as equal to men.

Virtually all religions have given men unparallel power. How come no religion seems to have a woman as the head of organization? How come it’s always men?

Religion is rubbish.

You need not abandon religion in order to appreciate Dawkin’s views. You simply need open mind.

To the person who asked about the purpose of Life – Life is a gift given to us by God so that we, humans, created in the likeness of God, experience our existence within his creation and therefore the purpose of life is to live our lives as God intended us to, and it is in that only that we attain internal peace and it is through that existence alone that we become true inheritors of his creation.

Richard Dawkins, may, for all intents and purposes, I hope, be fulfilling his role as God intended him to. Or Not. Either way, through free will, he chooses his path to salvation and through his own actions will attain its conclusion.

I stand not in judgement, but in pity of one who doesn't or hasn't experienced the hand of God because it is that person who hasn't understood the purpose of life.

And for those who think the catholic church is responsible for backward science, I shall frame your spectacular ignorance on my wall of shame.

Peace, Shalom.

Mr. Dawkins – Aside from better science education and atheists coming out of the closet, how can we rid the United States of the pandemic scourge of religous fundamentalism?

How can man explain something that is beyond explanation or unreachable by the human brain's capacity to comprehend?

I do not see how the validity of biological evolution is sufficient to justify the belief that "God does not exist" (unless one takes a God-of-the-gaps approach). I find that the law of natural selection is in some sense like the other laws / rules we have discovered (e.g. gravity). Their existence does not threaten my belief in God, but rather supports my view that there are rules set in place to make the universe function.

When one observes all the factors that make life on Earth possible – everything from the Solar System's position in the Milky Way galaxy, to the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and how the Moon's gravitational pull helps with the position of the Earth's axis so that we get seasons (of course the Sun plays a major role too), the evidence can be either used to argue that there is a Creator who put all these together to make life possible, or it can be used to argue that we are just a cosmic accident.

I got no problems if people want to believe there is no God, however I do not think the evidence "proves" this. It's easy to use evidence selectively or to view it through our own worldview, which have philosophical assumptions beyond what hard science can prove.

That we believe the universe we live in is observable and its elements measurable is in itself a philosophical assumption. That it is a good assumption and has worked well so far will be used by some to argue that this indicates there is much more to life and reality than science.

I agree with Dawkins regarding how life could have arisen, but I strongly disagree with his conclusion and the argument that the wrongful actions of religious people therefore proves there is no God or that if there is a God, He is not worth believing in. One must ask whether by such logic we should conclude that the existence of corrupt police officers therefore proves we should no longer believe in maintaining a police force for the good of the public? For all his intelligence, Dawkins comes up short when he attempts to marshall "evidence" to prove the non-existence of God. Dawkins is probably a great biologist, but he ought to stay in the realm of biology, where he can do the most good and not give us half-baked philosophical arguments riddled with erroneous logic.

I have read most of Richard Dawkins books and am both fascinated and dissapointed by them. He tends towards a "fundamentalist atheist" with his own jihad against any form of religion. I suspect that his latest book will be much of the same, but I will doubtless read it anyway. His books help to strengthen my own belief in God.

Atheists and believers alike, please quit bickering. I've got a solution that should satisfy almost everybody – and here it is: Dawkins professes a reverence for the wonders of nature that, quite frankly, borders on the religious, whereas believers attribute such wonders to "God". If we were to espouse pantheism ("God" is creation itself, rather than a separate entity), then we'd all be happy. Of course, such a "God" is not of the humanoid sort, but then again we really ought to wean ourselves from anthropomorphic constructs like "Mother Earth" and "Father Time".

To Paul

Not all religions think the same way check this one out:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive guidance. (31)"
Chapter 21 of Koran

It was not God who created man. It was man who created God!

centuries ago before medical advancement it was stated that our life span is max. 120yrs and that we must die that still holds true today, despite our quest for immortality whether in our works, achievement or in our children. this was stated in the context of men living to more than 500yrs old, and there were no scientist to determine that man's life span would inevitably be 120yrs max. i believe that until mankind can adapt to live beyond 120 yrs or to not die from natural causes then the bible is authentic and its explanation of life and God is true. we are awed by life but we cant give it even moreso we are awed by life's giver who said we are not getting more than 120 yrs of life that is a very profound statement if contrasted with Darwinism then we should by now be adapting or be close in terms of natural selection to attain life beyond 120 yrs and ultimately immortality , so i am open but inclined to view the bible as more plausible (to put it mildly) we cant even regenerate a digit of our finger which can regenerate the nail from time immemorial i think by now we should be able to do that dont you think ....?

Dawkins is great, however..

I'd like to see a panel of atheists including scientists, artists, historians a few nobel laureats, and for good measure a mathematician and a porn star with a measurable IQ, have a tough round-robbin smackdown debate about the two most important topics we face as a planet – topic 1) how to reduce terrorism, and topic 2) how to solve global warming

Now that would be interesting.

Watching Dawkins destroy yet another religionist / creationist with his aikido logic and wry british irony is getting just so passe!

Why can't we stop framing this bitter debate as an either/or issue? Why can't we learn to see it as an AND issue..there is a God, and enough has been cited about the wondersof our existence in support AND there is Science, all of which, heat transfer, wave motion, chemical reactions, cell biology etc etc follow God's principles. All He does is encourage us to continue learning and discovering both what we know from scientific endeavour today, what we will know in the future and what, yes, what we'll never know in the realm of science. That simply will always continue to lie beyond science in spirituality or faith or whatever one chooses to label God's daily miracles

Dear Paul,

Not religions see things the same way, check this one out:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive guidance. (31)"

Chapter 21, The Holy Koran

Someone once said to me that "religion is answers that never change; science is a never-ending string of questions that each get better as we learn more about what to ask and how to ask it." This statement does a good job of exposing the false dichotomy between science and religion: religion aims to soothe people who can't handle reality, and science is the business of actually figuring out how reality works and how we can live better, appreciate more, and become more fully actualized individuals by dint of that understanding.

science is the discovery of facts which created by God, but who created God?

Was it Diogeno or maybe Lucrecio who said, five thousand years ago, that: " Relgion is the consequence of ignorance". ?As I see it is still true and of great actuality.Poor folowers of Plato who mostly got it wrong, but then came Paul of Tarse and the roman emperor Constantin who made it all right ,by means of bonfires, religious wars and more devote hapenings still in vogue.Huray for Darwin

My question is this:

As an agnostic, I find it difficult to exclude the possibility of "God" as creator. I think that our problem as humans is that we have defined "God" in the terms that we want "God" to be, rather than how "God" is. We want a loving, all-powerful being that is concerned about us personally; we want to believe our lives have more purpose than the bug that gets squashed on our windscreen; we want to believe that after this life, eternal bliss can be ours–and so, all religions are created by man to define "God" in these terms, and to explain away the indifference to us and to all other sentient creatures that this universe seems to indicate. But–can we truly exclude the possibility of "God" as creator–that is, as the conscious instigator of the "Big Bang"? It just seems to me that we humans, who perceive such a narrow slice of reality, can't really exclude that possibility. I am sure that a penguin could have an opinion about a nuclear reactor, but it doesn't mean that a penguin understands it. Is it not possible that there is a purpose for the universe, to which our existence is merely incidental? As one philosopher put it, the good news is that there might be a purpose to our existence. The bad news is, that purpose might be calculating pi to a jillion digits.

Thanks for your consideration of my question.

To Juan Gonzalez and other atheists who think the universe was "always here". The second law of thermodynamics makes a complete mockery of all of you. It's a scientific reality that you cannot deny. It goes like this.. the whole of the universe is in a state of constantly increasing entropy. It is winding down. It is a fact that our sun and all the stars are burining out. All known sources of energy and heat are dissipating and will eventually run out. Our sun cannot last forever, it will one day burn down to nothing. The same for all of the stars in the universe. They cannot last forever, therefore they haven't been there forever.

We are all born atheist.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone can look at the wonders of the univrse, and believe in a superior authority. there is so much that even the most highly educated human being cannot understand, that is why, in our ignorance, we think there has to have been something guiding it all. every culture has something that they worship, particularly if they have no teachings or education. from the jungles of New Guinea to the Tribes in Africa, and the Eskimos on the North pole. they all believe in a supreme power. I do not think there is one, even though it is worshiped in many names and forms. it is all one and the same superstition, no matter how many wars are fought over who is right.

What controversial views? The concept of god that has no basis in fact should be the controversial view.

"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."

Romans 1:18-22

I do not have to agree with what mr Dawkins says or claims but one thing I do agree with.. God is a Christian and Islamic delution... He does not exist in those forms... He "does" exist in Nature, in Evalution.. I do readily agree... but in Religion.. NO !! He is not to be worshipped..
I am 90 minus a strike or some... It´s been many many years since I changed my thoughts about Who "God" is..... I must have been under the age of 10, 11 when I told my folks I didn´t want to go to Sunday school no more... They said:- It´s your life.... yo don´t have to.... and that settled everything
The world is a strange experience.. but maybe I am much stranger,,,,
I leave it up to anyone to "Believe" in any way or not,,, but please do not lecture me or condemn me for not being your sidekick....
Donah....

I value Richard Dawkins arguments...and I am a Christian. If we cannot engage in honest and open discussion on these big issues, then how confident and secure is our so-called "faith?" The truth is what counts, always and at all times. Dawkins makes his points elegantly and clearly, in a focused way that is intended to compel us toward an atheistic point of view. It's quite logical and well-reasoned. But I am always left with the sense that he's really missing half of the equation. We know that existence is not logical and linear - indeed, that is the great quandry at the heart of quantum physics. Under our daily reality, there is a great matrix of laws and rules that we can hardly begin to understand - because they defy our sense of linear reality. This is evidence of a far higher power than science currently acknowledges (simply because it cannot prove it through the scientific method. ) Is this power God? I believe that it is, but I have no proof either. That's where faith comes in. Logic presents me with some evidence...but my heart tells me that my world works a certain way, and that people are a certain way, and that emotion and love are forces unto themselves. I believe in science and God. They are not mutually exclusive in my exisitence. Dawkins believes that they are in his. We disagree.

The theory of evolution is not science, it is just as much a relegion as Christianity is. Nobody has ever seen anything 'evolve', thus you have to believe in it, just as I believe in God. There is no existing scientific proof of evolution and there never will be either. Evolution is just a easy way for people to leave God out of their lives because they dont like the idea of God telling them what to do. Richard will never come up with any real scientific evedence for the stupid theory of evolution. Look into it, you'll see im right! God bless

I find it hard to understand how simple uneducated hebrew like Moses could get the chronology of the evolution story so accurate. Neither he nor Adam (first created man) was present when everything else came into existence (this is also true if evolution 'without a creator' was to be believed). Something else had to impart that knowledge to him.

Another point, I will really start listening if some atheist or anti-creationist could explain the spiritual world in some scientific way. There is more than enough proof and evidence (you need to expose yourself to this sort of thing though) that spiritual beings exist.

Dear Mr. Sadurni,
I am so sad that you think that the Middle Ages were dark, and characterized by obedience and fear. Neither is true. There was a well-developed system of university/monasteries where knowledge was discussed, preserved and disseminated. The social order was based on a system of loyalities and governance that attempted to bring order and stability. True, the values were not those of modern life. Do you think that you don't live in a violent, fear – controlled century? Just look at the addictions in our society: sleeping pills, psychiatric drugs, illegal drugs, alcoholism... We keep guns for self-protection. Fear characterizes our perspectives on the future of our dying planet, mankind's perpetual wars, and on nuclear destruction. Our problems are eternally with us. Knowledge and scientific thought, much as it is very interesting doesn't change human essence.

Every day I too am thrilled with the world I see around me. For me wonder and worship are the same. I acknowledge a creator God who is beyond human understanding. That is his definition.

The Idea of a "higher intellegence" is intreaging, after all, Albert Einstein was a devout religious man. This is a debate over a subject which cannot be proven right or wrong. It is a question which has plagued mankind since the dawn of time. in recent generations (the last 2000 years) the word religion has been irrevocably tied to the catholic church, which historical accounts have shown was created as a mesure of controll over the roman empire. The "bible" as it is read today has been re-written, revised, and changed so many times since it was first written that the base ideals which it attempted to teach have been largely lost. Change is unavoidable. It is the nature of the universe. Allready change has come, and the actions of a person today would be incomprehensible to a person 200 years ago. So, we as a human race have made giant leaps of evolution within the last 10 generations.

I am not an athiest. I am also not a "religious" man (as the connotations of this word have evolved to mean something different to what I am). Do I believe in some form of a "god" like power? yes. But, with that said, I am completely open to the chance that I might be wrong, and that science may yet answer the questions we ask.

"Open mindedness is god-like power, for those with an open mind may yet know the secrets of the universe"

Just because people believe soemthing does not make it real. Millions of World War 2 Germans hated Jews, ie thought they were bad. The fact was Jews were not bad. Just becuase one or 1 billion people believe something does not make it so. Although the way the human brain is wired, if other people think the same as we do we are reassured, and may even be conned into thinking it must be so. Just because people can't, certainly as yet, understand something, does not mean there is a god. It just means we can't as yet fully understand how things work. In fact we understand much about this place in which we find ourselves in. Also why just because something such as a galaxy seen by the hubble telescope, is attractive to look at does that mean there must be a god? It is just your opionon it is attractive in any case, or a wonder as you put it. Some other sentient entity may just see it as a galaxy with a certain light refraction pattern in the visible spectrum. Just because you have a certain emotion does not mean anything, except that certain chemicals are having an effect on you in your brain like endorphines etc.... Humans are not special we are just smart, that's all.

Just to make clear that evolution is not a proprietary Dawkin's theory and not even a theory but a scientific fact.

This man is our Saviour..
Salvation from Stupidity..

Richard Dawkins is one of those few men who has the guts to question the fundamental beliefs rooted within us. We believe God exists because we have been taught to since our childhood. It is not the concept of God that he is against, but the commercialization of this concept by men who want to turn things in their favor.

Mr. Dawkins

I had the pleasure to see you at the FLIP (International Literary Festival in Paraty), this year.
Since then, The God Delusion became my bible.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Hey Baron..Art is made by man for man can we leave God out of it. How we discredit man's work and claim it as God's work is exactly why we murder in God's name.
Humans are Gods

It's a sad Life that sees only the imediate suroundings , and disbelieves what is the next expression of Life , for the Faithful , in the Truly Free Spirit of the Pure Presence of the Soul , one with God's Essence ! As is the Egg , the larva , and the Winged insect but a refection of , Humaity has the Promise of the Free Spiritual Soul for all Eternity .... in Faith , and Living acording to God's Will . I believe .

I pitty Mr. Dawkins as he disregard the contents of the Holy Bible. If he can only read both Old and New Testaments, Mr. Dawkins will be able to realize that the Bible is complete. It is a matter of reading seriously with God's guidance, however, only one I know, can really explain all the contents of the Holy Book, from His Existence to creation, to the second coming of Christ and the judgment day.

No book of the Bible has ever touched or explained on evolution, as it never happened at all.

If today, man can discover new evidence of the existence of what God has created, now in billions years ago, there is no doubt, God existed before any of these earthly evidence were known to man.

The only person who can explain well to Mr. Dawkins and point to him that there is God, is Brother Ely Soriano of the Church of God International, which can be reached at http://www.angdatingdaan.com

Why many people say we need a god to justify our existence? i really dont need, i´m not afraid of living in a universe without god, i prefer leave not knowing things than believing in gods and religions that meseems are fairy tales.
Why is so dificult for people to think by theirselves, ignoring religions gods and being free.
No more wars in gods names, no more wars in religions name, think by yourself, be free.
Sorry for my english i´m chinese.

GOD VERSUS CREATOR

You know what kind of funny about all this. It’s not a day goes bye that we humans don’t learn something. If that is so, what in the hell put it out there, for us, to learn it from. Yes, people say Science and some people say God. Now we’re down to the easy part. There both right! Duh! Hell all we are talking about is a CREATOR. The word GOD is a way, of us humans saying CREATOR. Scientist say there no GOD, but I don’t here them (scientist) say NO-CREATOR. We humans just half to have something to say, so which one of us are the smartest ones. So the CREATOR gave us a brain to do what with. ARGUE, is the magic word. The fancy word is DISCUSSION. The CREATOR just wanted us not to be bored. So we have smartasses and women. Thank You for this CREATOR. by T.G.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" debate – acceptance of the theory of evolution is NOT incompatible with religious belief.

I go to church on Sundays, but I don't believe the world was made in 7 days.

So what's the argument about?

How many gods have men created so far? How many of them are not among us anymore?

If god has created the universe, flora and fauna included, how come we have been able to destroy forests and animals without any divine interference on their behalf?

On which side was god during the crusades and the inquisition? And in all other religion-motivated collective and individual assassinations?

Is god also responsible for the ugliness prevailing in all corners of the planet Earth as it is for the beauty around us?

It's very easy to design a custom-made divine entity even today to suit one´s needs. That is what explains everything.

I'm very glad there are people like Dawkins. It's about time people of reason say 'enough is enogujh' to this religious fanatism in the world.

I'm an atheist, and very proud of it.

Dawkins' work on evolution is one of the mos timportant of the world today btw, and his new book is all about Darwin and evolution, and way less about the religious issue.

Just because something is complex doesn't automatically mean that it has to have been designed. That is the beauty of nature and the many universes out there, it contains so much complexity that can be easily explained if only we had the intelligence and the tools to see it. Just because we are still too primitive as a species to fully understand and comprehend all science has to teach us doesn't mean that we have to revert to primitive belief structures and supernatural forces to explain the mysteries still to be solved. There is no god, there never has been any gods whether talking about tree spirits, ladies of the lake, Zues, Jehovah, Allah, God ior whatever name us frail humans have ascribed our collective fear of the dark and unknown. I for one am an atheist, and the fact that I see that this life is all we get, this world is all we have, this universe is all there is means that I truly see the fragile beauty of what is real and do not want to cause it any harm whatsoever. Now, why is it that the most voluble religious proponents out there are the ones that are the most intolerant to their fellow man and the world they live in?

I find it funny how I once used to be a critic and non-believer of the God Jesus, and how I once used to say "I don’t need to believe in YOUR God" as If people were trying to convince me,and there may be some out there that use that technique for evangelism, but truth of it is, ,lots of us Jesus freaks don't do "convincing" and just spread the message as told to do so. Some souls will not go to heaven, and if you can get over yourself, you might understand God and the big picture.

If anyone tries to go back to the origin of man and advance from there to date, he-she will realize that to justify man's existence, nature, animals, insects, the moon, the sun, the stars, the wind, the rain etc. the first humans thought it was due to a particular 'power' and/or 'energy'. The different groups of people around the world chose their own representation of that power or energy in various forms – totems, mountains, rivers, animals etc. in order to be able to honour it. 'Priests' were chosen to create prayers and rituals to honour this power or energy.
These prayers and rituals evolved to pagan religions which finally came up to the monotheistic religion. Nothing was invented – it was a normal evolution.
To be noted that during the pagan period, which still exists in certain countries, each group of believers respected the god or gods of the other groups. Monotheistic religion was supposed to have been revealed by God, and was therefore was the only valid and final truth. However, many centuries later a second group declared it was revealed the new truth and, again, many centuries later, a new group also declared it was revealed a new and last truth. As there can be only one truth, each group fought for its own. That started the wars of religions. Whilst during the pagan gods period, each group respected the god/gods of the others. Their wars were for material reasons.
To make a long story short, people should ask themselves why, if there is one truth, there are so many schisms in each religion, due to a new interpretation of the same religion. Furthermore, why have so many sects of any nature flowered, particularly after the second world war. My answer to that question, is that clever people realize that each individual, influenced by millenaries of beliefs, can be an adept of a new approach – thus giving the initiator a possibility to manipulate new adepts to his interests.
If people ask questions and looks for the answers they will find them.

Please read Isaiah in the Old testement from chapter 45 verse 5 till 8
" I am the Lord , and there is no other, there is no God beside me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me. 6. That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting.That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord and there is no other.7. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create calamity; .....etc....."

What kind of God are we talking about here? Depending on your definition, God can either exist or not. Is it the one that creates Eve out of Adam's rib? Or is it the one that started the Big Bang? Or is it the one that is the same as the Universe itself? Remember that you cannot say whether an object "A" exists before defining what it is.

I'm might be in the minority here, but I find that the fact that God exists and He/She created all things through The Law of Physics is perfectly acceptable (and as a subset to that, God creates us living being through The Law of Evolution).

That being said, I'm keeping an open mind, so as new scientific evidence comes in, and as new philosophical thinking arises, I'm prepared to change position.

Well, it seems we have these debates every 2000 years or so as a species, with science making remarkable discoveries and new religions popping up to supplant the old. So in 4000 AD we will have a raging debate over which is correct, with scientologists saying that their belief structure is the only true way to explain the complexity of the universes around them, and scientists saying that the overwhelming evidence supports their cause and that scientology is a primitive belief structure and about to go extinct in much the same way that Christians, Hindus, Pagans and those that still set out stockings for Father Christmas.

Faith does not equal fact, faith does not equal truth, and certainly faith is not a meaningful substitute for searching for answers, even if the answers are forever unobtainable.
Faith, however, is historically a good reason to detest, vilify, hate, and sometimes kill your neighbor who is of a different faith; that he, your neighbor, (unless he is a believing Quaker or some other non-proselytizing set of beliefs), is no doubt is suffering under the same set of delusions as you are and given the opportunity will slit your throat unless you slit his first.

Richard has no inner peace and joy. Look at the dowward turn of his mouth in this photo. In fact, he oftens looks as if he doesn't believe in God.

To add to my previous comments, I would to say that in my opinion the real religion of man should be :

THE RESPECT OF THE OTHER

If every indiviidual respected the other, they will automatically be in harmony with any religion.

Professor De Lima's English translation from Portuguese: Earlier Commentor-It's not maine!!!

Charles Darwin was not a great scientist, great part of his concepts, what concerns origin of the life, they are simply mere especulacoes. Darwin despises the idea of God, thinks that a blind and random evolucao drove the life to this traineeship that we are.
Richard Dawkins and a poor poor person who thinks that he knows something, me only make repeating what Darwin said, it comes now to be the new prophet of the atheism. Other philosophers superior to him like Bertrand Russel, between others, tried to justify the atheism and failed.
What they believe in a blind and accidental evolucao they believe in and indecision something more diffuse of what what they believe in God.
The biggest philosophers, like Socrates, Platao, Aristoteles, Discard, Newton, between others, they did not despise the idea of God.
Richard Dawkins had passed, the God's concept never had died.
As Victor Hugo said, ” God and the obvious invisivel.
Davi Lima of Araujo

Behold, I am Satan, and I have a question on Tuesday for Richard Dawkins.

My Q for RD:

Have you read "The Atheist's Bible", a novel by Marcus Gibson? (If not, I can certanly highly recommend it. Better than `The Da Vinci Code', and doesn't infringe copyright either)

There, that's my question.

In regard to Religion: I wholeheartedly agree, it is the scourge of the modern world.

We need more films and novels and popular culture that can spread like a meme – and wipe out Religion.

What I am proposing here is a `conceptual virus' that attacks – and then eats – the very concept of Religion itself, inside people's brains.

If we wipe out Religion, we will end most of the wars and terrorism in the world.

- Then again, being Satan, I love wars and terrorism. (So, what am I saying?! Well.. I never said i was smart, just unthinkably evil.)

Another question for Richard:

Q: How come there are thousands of Gods, but only one Satan?

A: Perhaps God was a lie, created by Satan to disguise His (ie My) true motives.

HAHA! Maybe I am unthinkably smart. And evil.

Let me close with a joke:

Religion!

Just kidding.

Ok – no seriously, here's my real closing joke:

Q: What do you call anything good that happens that Science can't explain yet?

A: `A miracle... of God'.

Q: Whaddya call anything bad that happens (cancer, death, serial killers, Britney Spears, etc)

A: "God works in mysterious ways."

If God is such a great guy and all, how come he has no sense of humour? In all the bibles: no jokes, no snappy one-liners, nothing.

Also he has an anger management problem, wiping out whole cities with a single smite and everything.

And the Devil gets all the best lines, eg "All these things will I give thee, if thou Wilt Chamberlain fall down and worship me", and "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it, wearing my new man-fro." etc etc

Q: If "God sees all" (including the Future, like Ben Affleck in PAYCHECK), then, how come he doesn't see exactly what the Devil is up to, and then, like, thwart it – like Batman does with his supervillains?

Speaking frankly, as a superhero, God sucks, has lousy timing and flat delivery.

Cheers,

Satan
(or AM I?!)
(PS – Yes, I am, I was just decieving. Man, I love doing that. Teehee.)

I would like to pose Richard Dawkins a question. I want to know where his consciousness originates. Is consciousness some type of manifestation, other than organic brain matter? If so, what is it? Can he see or measure his consciousness? Perhaps he too, is a delusion.

To John C White,

Just because different people around the world have had religions doesn't suddenly make religion any more true or accurate. The number of people believing something doesn't affect whether or not it is true. If everyone on Earth believed the world was flat or the moon was cheese, it would still be a false belief, and if held in the face of contrary evidence, a delusion.

It amazes me the level of credulity shown by many on the question of god, and willing to accept his existence despite the absence of evidence. No body has ever given a satisfactory answer to the basic 'problem of evil', 'paradox of free will and omniscient god'.

Agreed, science has not provided all the answers YET, especially on the question of the origin of life or 'abiogenesis'. Deducing, therefore god must be true, is a false dilemma.

Science tells us how things work...which is fine....but it doesn't tell us why we are here and why the universe exists. Dawkins and his team only tell us that such questions need not have any answers at all....and that's because they don't have the answers! They just tell us to stop asking such questions.... which is not very scientific!

They tell us that the brain is responsible for all our extraordinary experiences such as NDE's, ESP's and so on. But the brain is just a piece of flesh! How could it know what experiences to conjure up at what point of time? And who is it fooling anyway? Itself?

Is the brain itself experiencing the world? Is it the knower and thinker all by itself? That's nonsense! The brain can only be a means...like a computer hardware....through which 'we' experience the world. So...what are 'we'? Who or what is the subject that is experiencing the world?

The very fact that complexity has arisen in the biological world is indication of some purpose and direction in evolution. If it was just a question of survival...bacteria do the job much better than any other organism. So why did we evolve at all?

Science is doing a good job of telling us how the world works...let it stay with that job. Let it not take on the bigger role of pontificating on larger issues of life and its subjective aspects.

As surely as many people attest to some divine force in the universe, I knew as a very young child that gods did not exist. Gods were a necessary invention to appease existentialistic voids shared by many humans. In fact the belief in supreme beings must have been the first thing our ancestors thought of as soon as they became self aware. Since then, I have had two epiphanies in my life: the first was when natural selection was explain to me in an anthopology class and the second, almost 15 years later, when I read the "Extended Phenotype" by Dawkins. I have never felt a void in my life because I don't believe in gods. Quite the contrary, the awe of I have for nature and the vastness of the universe as "filled" me with all I need. In fact it is the historic circumstances of our existence (K-T impact) and the universal commonness of the chemicals that form life that has humbled me. To those who like to save my soul I say: I fell fine knowing that I am not special and wasn't designed by some intelligence.

I've heard of Dawkins and seen his picture but never experienced him personally. I've concluded that he doesn't really exist.

Richard Dawkins just likes to shock people and cause controversy where he goes. He was behind the recent bus campaign in London, and even he could not totally say there is no God.

I know and believe in God, I saw his awesome wonder everywhere, the beauty of the earth, the stars and galaxies. I have seen what God has done every time I look at the new pictures of the universe seen from Hubble. Part of me knows God is there just saying to us, build a better telescope I have even more to show you out there.

I don't force my faith on anyone, and I respect others beliefs or lack of them. To me God is real and works in the world around us.

God is greater(Allahu Akbar), Jesus Christ(Son of God), Joy Mata Kali(The Great Mother kali), and so many other religion govern their faith/believe through their religious scriptures and dismiss the others in some ways, but always glorify their form of God or Gods. And the followers of all religions are devout, blinfolded, kind hearted, and sometimes hard headed to recongnize or to say kind words toward the other faiths, sometimes these followers takes on other faith, go to war and forget " WE ARE ALL HUMEN", forget the simple law of being Human, what seperates us from all other living beings. They are devout Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jews and many more........ and they will rather Identify themselves through religiously, then the very simple being called HUMAN. They are the same followers will use Science to justify their claims on their religious scriptures only when it favors them( they have christian science for an example) and at the same time they will denounce Science or it's finding when It is not to their favor..... The funny thing is about the religion, None of us really know the Truth about the religion and anyone who is Pragmaist will turn into an Atheiest to their views. Another big thing about religion is that fellowers do charities for a return- say for claiming heaven, get rid of sins, satisfy God to get blessed, and so- which does not makes followers selfless, rather makes them small minded.

I can go on for hours on GOD, but I do not have the time– the last word, how can we benifit though scientific inovaton rather just reciting the words of God from the verces of Bible/Quran/Gita/Torah and etc? Peace.

Doesn't "Darwin's Rottweiler" know that Darwin was a spirit filled christian who, in his latter days expressed his perplexity at the scientific community "making a religion out of" the evolution theory he came up with in his younger days? Research it. Darwin published apologies about coming up with his theory during a time in his life when he erroneously turned from God.
Jesus is Lord

Let me try to apply logic here (I know for you, religious people, it's hard to even spell the word):

1. world is full of wonders so it must be created by somebody who is a superios entity (God) which leads to #2
2. God is full of even greater wonders so it must be created by God's God which leads to #3
3. God's God ...

Got the picture? The churches don't answer the questions, they just build a wall around your minds which make you sleep good at night knowing somebody is up there looking for you. And when someyhing bad happens to you, "it was God will".

Ever since I was a child and was forced to go to church on Sundays, I was wondering what I was being told. All I've been hearing did not make much sense to me, despite my life-long strive to come to terms with the Roman Catholic belief (or any other religious view, for that matter).
Plain reasoning, from childhood to present old-age made me grow into a skepticist on religious matters. The only comfort I've managed to find has been science.
My sincere gratitude to Mr. Dawkins for having had the guts to expose in writing, in a scientifically co-ordinated and authoritative way, what I myself and hopefully millions of people around the world have been thinking all along.

Further to my above post, I have a few questions I would like to ask Mr.Richard Dawkins.

1. Why do DNA replicate?

2. Why does complexity arise in the world?

3. The brain did not create itself...it owes its existence to the stem cells and DNA. So why do we give the brain so much of credit in connection with conjuring up delusions of God and after-life and so on? How can we treat a piece of flesh as though it is a thinking 'being' of some kind?

4. Does the new field of Epigenetics bring back the ideas of Lamarckism?

5. We are asked to rebel against the tendencies of our selfish genes (in the book...The Selfish Gene). How are 'we' different from our genes that 'we' can rebel against them?

6. If memes behave like genes, do they have an independant existence of their own (like DNA) and can they physically be transferred to offspring? If not, how is the comparision valid?

7. Is the mind different from the brain? If not, why not? I personally think of the brain as the hardware, the mind as the software and the spirit as the user. Would you agree?

Thanks & WIth Best Regards.

Sriram

Individual faith is a personal issue and whatever I believe I will fight for the individuals right to his/her faith. I will however say that organized religion is nothing but a political assembly and therefore is against the constitutional requierement of separation between church and state. Furthermore, organized religion teaches children under pain of punishment that any other beliefsystem than the proscribed one is evil. This makes organized religion a true anti democratic force in society. In refusing to allow a debate on the issue organized religion places itself in very bad company indeed.

I was a kindergarten teacher at an international school. This is a real situation that happened some years ago in my classroom after holy week. I found it fascinating...
Students names are fictitious.
Class came from recess and we all sat on the carpet for story telling. Before I began the story I noticed Clara looking very sad and I asked her what happened.
Clara – I am soooo sad ...
Teacher – I noticed ... why are you sad?
Clara – god died
Ana – he did? when?
Teacher – wait class I need to say something. Well not everybody believe in your god Clara. There are people who believe in other gods and they might not have die.
Rashid – In India the gods do not die
Teacher – and In India some people believe in many gods no only one god like you Clara and this is ok, people can be different
Takamishi (from Japan) – what is god?
Abdel – god is Allah and he has many many names, my mom knows them all
Teacher – Class it is better if you ask questions about god to your parents.
Clara – god is the father of all of us
Seth – NO! my father's name is Mark!
Rashid – My best god is (I forgot the name of the Indian god), what is your best god Ms. O?
Teacher – I don't really have a god
Rashid – Poor Ms. O you have to go to India, there are so many gods there, you will find one for you.
Teacher – Thanks Rashid I will think about that. Now class let's start our story time.
At that point I thought, mmmm ... what if these kids go home and tell the parents that the teacher does not have a god. How is this going to be interpreted? Two of the students had parents on the board (by the way they were Opus Dei). To cut the story short my contract was not renewed and from being a praised wonderful teacher who had been teaching at that school for many years I became a dispensable one. The whole situation still puzzles me ...

God is no delusion. I know for an absolute fact–not just by faith–that God, the God of the Bible, exists. Someday Richard Dawkins will also know and acknowledge that God exists. Until then, like many scientists, his mind and intellect is a prisoner of the limitations of science. Although science has been right many times, it's also been wrong many times as well.

If a child tells you he doesn´t believe in parents? Or a bread it does not believe in a baker? A painting tells you there is no painter? What would you answer?

I know that I don´t hold the truth, I cannot even explain myself. So I try to at least be honest and say that I do not know it all, but it seems logic to me that the biggest mystery of all, life itself, cannot fully be explained through science. I think the idea of God or a higher power holds more beauty and more truth, but it does not have to contradict science. Science is also just a human effort to find some answers, but humans are limited, and all we can be true to, is the light we have inside of us...

I had a near death experience and consciously saw my own body lying on the floor. That still didn't change my mind about NOT being religious... religion is simply a control mechanism. But something scientifically unexplainable DID happen to me that day. Perhaps it was "just" an illusion.

What I think all believers and non-believers should remember is that although science has shown us many grand new things and given us so many facts to point fingers with, we are still quite ignorant of fully understanding all aspects of our lives – be it factual, paranormal or miracles (if you will). My philosophy is live and love life to the fullest every single day and be patient and open-minded with your neighbors, family and, yes, skeptics.

This anti-creationism is just a one of the end results of the confusion of the church age; that has only led to unbelief and even denying our very source of life; The Almighty Father The Creator of All – our Lord Jesus Christ- The King of Kings and The Lord of Lords, whose Name is above every Name and to whom every knee will bow and every tongue will confess His Kingship through His dear Appointed Son, the King of the New Creation, The Father's New Jerusalem, His sons and daughters, whom He has freed and delivered from the serpent seed spirit of disobedience and implanted them with the Spirit of Obedience to the Father's will. THAT IS WHY THE FATHER IN HIS MERCY, LOVE AND COMPASSION HAS PHASED THE CHURCH AGE OUT AND INAUGURATED HIS ULTIMATE AND EVERLASTING KINGDOM AGE THROUGH HIS AUDIBLE VOICE ON APRIL 13 2005; THE DAY OF THE LORD; THE REIGN OF THE GOOD, AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE WICKED THROUGH THE VANQUISH OF LUCIFER, THE DEVIL.

Where did god(s) come from?
Why is it a He in many religions?
Does God listen to prayers?
If so do prayers travel at the speed of light?
If so God must be very close to the Earth?
Why is the nearest star Proxima Centuri, around 25 trillion miles away?
Why are there hundreds of billions of Galaxies, contain hundreds of billions of stars?
Why is space so utterly big?
What was god doing before this universe?
What will god do after stars eventually fade in our uinverse?
Why does god make it so obvious evolution is a fact?
Why is the universe expanding so fast?
Why is Andromeda Galaxy heading towards our Galaxy?
Who made God, and who made the god before that etc...?
Why is the earth so small compared to the Universe?
Why so much useless real estate?
Why won't god heal amputees? (especially limbs lost through disease)

Taking the bible literally is our biggest mistake. Our bodies evolved over time but it was our minds that were created in the image of God. God is a mind energy.

If Religion is so comfy, why is it responsible for the highest number of deaths in human history? If God exists, why is he standing by and watching injustice? Religion does not have answers to all these questions. Richard Dawkins just provides us with an alternative view from Point of View of science and it looks pretty convincing to me at least.

I do not believe in religion as well. I agree God, in the form that all of the religions promote does not exist. However, there is a big 'Gap' in the scientific explanation of the universe; yes, Mr. Dawkins does not like 'the God of gaps', but this gap should be filled with something, and I seriously doubt this is going to be science, at least in its Popperian sense.

Questions like 'why evolution turns out to be this way' or 'where the basic laws of physics come from' are valid ones, although we still can not even hypothesize their true answers. Attempts, like Mr. Dawkins', to explain the basic laws of physics through evolution of multiple universes fail to make sense (at least to me). This has the problem that you raise for the Personal God; how do you explain an infinite regression of existences?

Infinity, is just something that human mind can not understand.

Why question Richard Dawkins at all? NO amount of evidence or reason will convince him that there is anything beyond materialism. At least people like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies ask important, searching questions like "Why is there something and not nothing?", and come up with answers far better than "Blind, pitiless indifference did it". The great English writer G K Chesterton put it best "The problem with athiests is not that they believe nothing, but that they will believe anything".

Religion was born in the infancy of our species, when we were so afraid of the dark that we wished there was a Supreme Being, a God, who could hear our plaintive cries and help us out. But Science and Reason have now given us a deeper understanding of the universe. As we grow old we must get rid of childish things. And religion is one of those things we should have outgrown by now. Sadly, most people cling on to it like a crutch, even though they can perfectly walk on their own two feet.

I admire Dawkins for his eloquence in expounding the wonders of evolution. He may come across as shrill and strident to many of his critics, but I would rather hear him speak the truth about life than any two-bit evangelical preacher, priest, rabbi, or mullah.

Religion is a useful thing, can not deny it... We need it as a society and the proof is that exists. Also religion is an invention of the human intellect, an easy answer to a complicate question... Although not everyone can make it to a higher learning, everyone has the right to an answer. God is not relevant to calculate the movement of the stars, but it is relevant to calculate social movements. I am an atheist as well, but God is a factor to be considered in a lot of social equations.

What is so difficult to understand about evolution by natural selection that even today in 2009 so many people would rather dream up some mythical being or tale rather than look and the evidence (or to say "I don't know yet.") Though there are of course complexities in the details, the concept of evolution by natural selection as a whole is one of mankind's simplest, most elegant ideas.

Nearly every day there is some news story, discovery or observation that provides further evidence for it; and not just "biological" evolution but in multiple, inter-related fields of science – like a universal web – and it's fascinating.

Look AT the evidence, I should have said...

Dawkins twists the rules of logic in order to make his point. He sets up creationism as the straw man and knocks it down through evolutionary science. Then he runs around saying how he has just shown that God does not exist.

(There are the other misleading notions, like saying why is one God more correct than another God? The world's main monotheistic religions all trace themselves back to Abraham.)

Like many others, I believe in God and in evolutionary science. They are not contradictory if you understand that God chose not to use the bible to explain quantum mechanics and natural selection. It is meant to teach us about the nature of God, not the complete workings of the universe.

I arrived at my faith by reading the bible – and how many here have done that – and learning about its origins. Then I came to a logical conclusion that reports by eye-witnesses about the fulfilment of prophecies was clear evidence that God exists.

Science is the study of God created Human beings, Beautiful universe & living things. The more you learn science more you know that God exists.

1) I am sure Richard Dawkins can never prove that he himself was evolved. He was born for a wonderful God created parents.
2) The books he wrote didn’t evolve. He wrote/ created it with a God created brain. It was printed and published by people, it didn’t automatically evolve.
3) Richard Dawkins is a fool who doesn’t know the answer which come first Chick or Egg. It is Chick because God created animals and birds and not eggs.
4) Richard Dawkins dosent know who God is, because he dosent know who created the egg.

i suggest god believer's read the book by the eminent biblical professor Bart Ehrmann called "God's problem: why do we suffer", or just do a YouTube search..

i don't believe in a God just as i don't believe in Santa Claus..

I am a very devout "born again atheist" and a frequent lecturer on the fallacy of religion. I read The God Delusion and there has never been a book that I've agreed with more. The religions of the world get their power by lying to people – as long as people believe the crap that religions dish out, they will continue to be in control of the population (and a portion of their income, of course). I applaud Dawkins obsession with wanting to know the TRUTH – which is what every intelligent person should want.

Randy wrote: 'Why is it that you never here atheists disputing the existence of unicorns, or the Great Pumpkin? Is it because these things obviously don’t exist?' This is such a furphy - I note that Randy only cited mythical creations that are supposedly physical in character (ie. if they actually exist, then they actually exist in real life). Thus they are easy to disprove (if we can't see em, they ain't there!).

But now, I'm going to take this to the next level and insist that I have seen the Great Ghost Pumpkin (that's right, the Great Pumpkin in a spiritual form). She came to me one night, proclaimed herself as the real lord and master of the universe and, what's more, made me her representative on earth (that was one great night I can tell you!).

You don't believe me? Well then there is an easy way to solve this. Prove me wrong. Go ahead, prove that the Great Ghost Pumpkin doesn't exist. You can't, can you?

Now I can almost hear you protesting - ' but shouldn't it be up to you to prove that she does exist?'

Exactly. The burden of proof is mine, not yours. And what goes for the Great Ghost Pumpkin also goes for god or spiritual being you can conjure.

Belief is just belief. A debate will only lead to a conclusion of value, if there is an openmindedness towards the opinion of others. Furthermore, if proof of Gods existense is wanted, we shouldn't look outside, but inside. We shouldn't ask of others to confirm or deny our doubts. This responsibility lies with oneself. The wonder of Gods existense is not that he is so hard to reqocnize, but that he is everything. This means that we are all God. Something that even an atheist should take to heart. I am God, I am God, I am God. And so are you. Because the "I" am God, then the idol of God, the picture we have in our minds, is not the real truth. It only serves to cover the ignorance we posses. But it is fine if we choose to do this, just as atheism is okay too. The only thing that is not okay is disrespect towards the existence of others. So as long as there is love between humans, neither atheism nor religion can harm us.

Isn't it amazing just how "human" God is?

That the creator of the entire universe just so happens to hate the very same people we hate, is amazing.

That a being that can bring a univsere into existance in mere days is interested in what we do with our genitalia is utterly fantastic.

That our lack of understanding implies there's a god, is astounding.

John C White –
1. Not all religions believe in "god".
2. Some religions have no god at all.
3. Most African and Guinea beliefs do not have a central "god". that have spirits – a very big difference.

A central "God" figure is mostly an Abrahamic idea – most religions differ from this.

Richards Dawkins books are real eye-openers. But recently I came across a philosophic statement that although Evolution is the only mechanism behind life on earth, we humans are a different breed we need "religion" to understand our world. We are born religious.
In history the only explanation for the World around us was to "blame" all we didn't understand on a higher being like "God". Now as science is explaining more and more (although a bit slow) the world around us, we even slower are learning that not God but Nature did it all.
But we as humans are still longing for that "religious" story to understand who we are and where we came from.
So instead of proving that the great religions were wrong all the time, why doesn't science and Richard Dawkins in particular come up with a or the Great story that unites us all.
This story doesn't exists in such a manner yet for everybody to understand it! But the complete picture of how we became humans is our one and only Great story for every single Human being on this planet and this story is nearly complete in the scientific record.
So if you put aside the great religions you MUST come up with an alternative and explain CLEARLY why we are and have become Humans and what unites us all!

As others have noted, postulated a god simply begs another question – who made god? The wonders of the universe don't prove the existence of anything. On the other hand, when you look at the barbarism in this world, and consider the postulate that we are created in god's image, what does that say about god?

The existance of man is by no mistake, understanding human existance one has to cease to be human first because one can not analyse his existance in the same state since the resources needed for analysis , the brain first,the body and the soul, must continue functioning and that is the limiting factor. Godb created man because he is above man in form ,state, soul. This guy i think has the problem with God being above him, bu he must know that God is no human, has no name, state.everything that God is , is based on our own thinking with our limited brains and inteligency. lastly but not least ,To understand God and Where humans came from, one must first cease to be human, and Aquire another form of intelligence which is non human.

He is not wrong for saying there's no God.

He's just as right as you for saying there's God.

The ignorance of religion that I always see in this kind of thread is astonishing. In general, every religion and every believer gets painted with the same ignorant brush.

People who find wonder in the depth and beauty of the Universe are inclined to believe that *all* people of faith blind themselves to this wonder. This is simply not true. Meanwhile, they blind themselves to the wonder, depth, beauty and understanding that is to be found in the universe of true faith. Not to mention the sustanance and healing power faith provides in process of self-improvement and times of trouble.

Yes, it is true, unfortunately, that many, perhaps even the majority of people who profess faith, limit themselves in their exploration of the wonders of the physical world. But, by far, not all.

There are also people who have done terrible things, believing that they were doing them in the name of God, even though they act in direct opposition to the most basic, core principles of their own religion – The Ten Commandants, for example – and are obviously corrupting their own religion to their own ends.

But not all do terrible things and not all limit themselves and their understanding. Quite the contrary. There are countless people, including myself, and many, many people who I know, who revel in the glories of the physical world, have a good understanding of them, and seek passionately to explore them further and understand them better. I, for one, want to know everything about everything, and my religious beliefs strongly encourage me to pursue my interests, more passionately than I otherwise would. Life is much, much too short to explore all that I want to know.

There are also countless people who revel in their intimate relationship with a loving, caring God who accompanies them on this journey of discovery.

He illuminates and increases their understanding of this world beyond what they could achieve on their own and also inspires them to greater compassion and love toward their fellow man and inspires them to sacrifice of themselves in their service beyond what they otherwise would do.

It's very hard for me to understand why, given that life is so terribly short and there is so little time to really learn and appreciate the beauty of the Universe, and so little time to really contribute to improving the world around us, that people would not passionately explore the possibility that there is a God and a continuing existence beyond this life, regardless of how low they think the probability might be.

As for me, I look only to what we, assuming we survive, will be capable of in 100, 1,000, or a 1,000,000 years to see the plausibility of the existence of God-like creatures. Extending life indefinitely? Eradicating disease, poverty, and providing universal education? Improving our species through genetic improvements? Increasing our intelligence? Technological and engineering wonders that are now only science fiction?

How about a more fanciful list of possibilities? Discovering deeper layers of the physics than we know now that might allow us to circumvent the limitations of the speed of light or other physical limits? Building wormholes. How about building planets? Solar systems? How about escaping into another Universe before this one is destroyed in a Big Crunch or through heat death? And many other things, limited only by our imagination.

There’s nothing here that science fiction writers haven’t written about and scientists haven’t seriously speculated about.

So, if not God-like creatures, then how much of a stretch is the plausibility of the existence of God himself?

I would suggest that not only is his existence plausible, but from this frame of reference, highly likely.

If you had these capabilities, and more, what would you do with them?

0=0, and this is a scientific fact and a mathematical truth. Nothing is nothing and cannot produce something. It is unscientific and insane to say something comes from nothing.
There must be something to produce all the things in the universe and Lao-Tzu called it Tao.
Tao is everywhere, manifested and unmanifested, visible and invisible, in you and in me.
Only the Tao within knows the Tao without.
If you can't find the Tao within yourself, you can't the Tao anywhere.
Everything comes in pairs and works in pairs, yin and yang, the binary system, the double helix of DNA, proton and electron, God and matter and so on indefinitely.

The debate between atheist and theist is going on since the man appeared on this earth and it will go on till end of the human race. Why Richard Dawkins and a lot of other people like him show so much hatred towards God and God believers. Although twentieth century's science discoveries had given strong evidence that this universe has its beginning and end. People like Dawkins insist that the universe has neither beginning nor ending. Just put aside your all hatred and ignorance and think: Why the whole sky became dark at night and bright at daytime? Who give the 23 degree tilt to the earth position so it can give you four different seasons? Why earth is spinning on its axis since billions of years so you can enjoy night's darkness and day's brightness? Why the milk flow in a woman's breasts after a child birth? Your not believing in God will change nothing neither mine belief. Just remember one thing that we are all accountable about our beliefs and good deeds, sometimes hereafter.

Another statment that the evangelical athiests like to make is that religion is a primary cause of wars. It seem to me that greed, pride, and the lust for power is the main source of all conflict. Religion has been the main motivator of charity and selfless behavior down through the ages.

I would also like to add that Mr.Richard Dawkins is talking mainly about the Christian (or Abrahamic) idea of God. He should look into Hindu (Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta) ideas also. The idea of a Universal Consciousness that is present in everyone, does not conflict with the findings of science.

Mr Dawkins, with all the stories of apparent religious nonchalance amongst youth, there still seems to be a growing number clinging to their spirituality, whether it be for pure provocation or ignorant pride. Are we seeing the birth of a new religious fervour or could this be the storm before the calm of reason?

P.S. You're awesome!

PLEASE ASK MR DAWKINS WHAT FACT OF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, SOMETHING ALL OF US CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES AND TEST TO BE TRUE. BELIEVING IN GOD IS EASIER THAN BELIEVING IN THE PROPOSITION THAT OUT OF NON-LIVING MATTER COMES LIVING THINGS. IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, SHOW US YOUR TRANSITION FORMS OF LIVING THINGS, NOT FULLY DEVELOPED ORGANISMS THAT ARE DISTINCT FROM ALL THE REST. IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, GOD IS INDEED A DELUSION.

Hello, I would just like to point out the line: "don’t miss the opportunity to put Dawkins on the spot over his controversial views." is not really fair. Some of Dawkins views are controversial, he is an Atheist. But the things he really propagates, namely evolutionary science: that's not a view and it's not controversial – that's solid mainstream science.

Who Created God?

To Matt:

Such simple questions...here goes .......

Where did god(s) come from? There is only one God and He "came from" nowhere – He was always here.

Why is it a He in many religions? "He" is a human term – He is neither male nor female (nor human).

Does God listen to prayers? All the time.

If so do prayers travel at the speed of light? The prayers do not need to travel anywhere. God is with you all the time.

If so God must be very close to the Earth? God is not only close to the Earth – He is also close to every other planet and star in existence.

Why is the nearest star Proxima Centuri, around 25 trillion miles away? Why not.

Why are there hundreds of billions of Galaxies, contain hundreds of billions of stars? There are actually thousands of trillions of Galaxies, maybe more. Most experts under-estimate the size of the Universe (it's a modern "flat earth" problem). God created them all, and presumably needs them all for some reason or plan.

Why is space so utterly big? Because God is also big.

What was god doing before this universe? The concept of "before" does not work here, since before God created the universe there was no concept of time.

What will god do after stars eventually fade in our uinverse? Create some more if He needs to.

Why does god make it so obvious evolution is a fact? Because Evolution is the beautiful process that God has developed to ensure that life can sustain itself in a changing environment (this is Richard Dawkins' biggest blind spot).

Why is the universe expanding so fast? I'm not sure that it is – I think you will find that it is actually only (our) "observable" Universe that is expanding. The overall Universe is in a "steady state" (yes – the scientists are wrong again).

Why is Andromeda Galaxy heading towards our Galaxy? God will have to answer this one. Ask Him.

Who made God, and who made the god before that etc…? Nobody made God, He was always there. God is eternal.

Why is the earth so small compared to the Universe? Because the Universe is so big (sorry!) .... I'm afraid we here on this Earth are only a very small part of God's Plan. But important nevertheless (I like to think).

Why so much useless real estate? It's not. Every planet, every star, every rock has (or had) its function.

Why won’t god heal amputees? (especially limbs lost through disease). God tries to heal our souls not limbs.

OK ... maybe not so simple then!

I just ate a plate of delicious pancakes that satisfied me to no end. I was down and they lifted me up. I was hungry and they nourished me. They made me feel that I can now go on and face the trials and tribulations of my day. Quite honestly I eat pancakes somewhat regularly and I find they often have the same positive effect on me though I never talk about it much. It's a personal thing. I've even known people who don't care much for pancakes but they never criticize my liking them. What if people learned to keep their pancakes—and religious beliefs—on the kitchen table and start taking care of the real problems that face humanity.

From Richard Dawkins' blog:

"I think we should probably abandon the irremediably religious precisely because that is what they are – irremediable. I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.

You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating us with naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real asymmetry here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much better at it."

To me, these are not the words of a scientist who is interested in "intelligent debate," which is how he is being presented by CNN. They are the words of a schoolyard bully who's interested in changing minds not through the use of reason, but through employing the bullying techniques at his disposal.

Both sides take faith. Neither athesism nor thesism is provable. Neither is evolution or creation, as far as I know. But one has to wonder which has more evidence or probability. If I spotted a sand castle on a deserted beach I would certainly conclude that someone had made it, and that it didn't merely happen randomly over millions of years. If a scientist can't see the evidence of intelligent design in the scheme of things, I can harly imagine that they've been objective, but instead selective in reinforcing their own bias. How can random design ever explain the complexity of DNA? The fingerprints of God are all over the place.

Appauling ! No one has mentioned our God – Mumbootu – as a recent God, he has not maimed anyone, nor has he ordered the genocide of any. He's new ! please let us all support Mumbootu before he gets ferocious like Allah an Jahova and the rest of the God clan. I'm also cordially warning Dr. Dawkins not to piss off Mumbootu. He ain't no delusion !

There are lots of people sharing the atheist faith of Richard Dawkins. Though as I see the matter, actually everyone familiar with the contents of the Bible should be aware that no rational evidence of the existence of (christian) God is available nor possible. This is no news anymore. But the state of affairs seems to be the genuine challenge of living as a christian through the ages. Other opinions?

QUESTION:

Don't you think you are placing biologists in the same position that the church placed priests?

i.e. Those with the 'special' knowledge and skills to divine truth. Whose 'consciousness has been raised by Darwin'? Surely not everyone has the mind or knowledge of a biologist. Are biologists the new enlighteners of the world and are only they privy to the truth of the universe?

COMMENT:

I have enjoyed your commentary on the issue of faith albeit that I don't fully agree – being a theist and Christian. But your contribution has gotten everyone THINKING – both in the Church and outside. And thinking is never a bad thing.

evolution ( a fancy word for development or change) is a method, a process.
but in the very early universe before the development of complex structures there was only unstructured stuff ( not even atoms) obeying the same basic physics laws as we use today. This is the current -albeit tentative as is all science – scientific picture, namely that the same physical laws of nowadays applied back then even though this was before any stellar or biological or geological evolution (no stars or creatures or planets had yet evolved). So where does this constancy in time and place of physical law come from? And even if -unlike the present conventional scientific wisdom – humanity comes up with a testable, consistent theory of evolving physical law wherein physical laws iare not constant for any place and for anytime in the history of our universe but changes with the development of the universe, then this would still beg the question: where did the rules of physics which underly any kind of evolution (change) come from – even billions of years before the change?

As for belief: one should distinguish between a claim to believe and actual believing. A claim to a belief is cheap It's just words or maybe thoughts. And people are good at kidding themselves. An actual belief is confirmed by only by a tangible test of that belief.

God is there and He is alive. PERIOD

Why not put a scientist, like Dr. Hugh Ross, of REASONS TO BELIEVE, along side Richard Dawkins to debate the issues scientifically?

Or invite Dr. Michael J. Behe, autor of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

Religion doesn't have to worry about Darwinism or evolution. Advances in science itself are already showing them to be unfounded, and impossible to justify by science.

Scientists are coming over to intelligent design in droves, and soon the Richard Dawkins types will become an extinct specie, and we will look back on the theory of evolution like it was a fairy tale. Where's the science? Good story, but definitely not scientific.

Dawkins science claim to solve the question whether God exist or not.
However, how does he explain that when we genuinely engage in spiritual activities we feel tangible changes in our very physical existence.

Dr...your face is Prist de catolic church...

Well, I think that it is totaly ignorant blind faith to believe that what Dawkins says, that we are decendants of some type of ape in Africa. I mean really, if you believe that garbage you deserve to have someone calling you an ape. Enjoy your banana!

While some may disagree with Richard Dawkins, his views are at least well thought through and coherent. Much less can be said for many who hold a different view than his, these people usually resort to name calling and damning everyone who does not share their world view to hell; when that do not outright call for murdering/maiming/torturing him. Religious views should be discussed on the same basis that we discuss different political views, with nothing more sacred about one person's view than that of another. Simply resorting to you will burn in hell when someone disagrees with you is not really a meaningful way to discuss things. Those that feel so threatened by an opposing view to their religion that they need to harm others might want to reconsider what it is they truly feel.

I find it hypocritical that people beleive "god" created everything .. who use everything that science has given them.. including the electronics and the internet, don't flinch before contradicting with the scientists who invented these things. I say contradicted because most of the scientists who invented the internet etc don't beleive in the existence of god.

if in a billion years we are able to produce a big bang with physical laws that allow life to form...will we be the definition of god?

Question for Richard Dawkins tonight on Connect the World:

Does not human history suggest that the yearning for transcendence is anchored in human biology? Can we not see the appetite for religious experience as a symptom that our inner experience is wired not to optimize individual (phenotypic) survival but gene survival – that the yearning to go beyond "this" life is precisely an expression of the genocentricity that is Dawkins' greatest contribution to science?

Thanks, AR

Sandy you dont have look for justifications for your existence, its the way it is.. just appreciate THE REALITY.. Im an atheist and have always been.. The quality of my life is waaaay better of those narrow minded and desperate creationists around me, who usually happen to be not educated enough and go to church because of their unfortunate lives..

Why attack Christianity when, as an atheist you know nothing about being a Christian? You do not know how it feels to believe in God. I have no problem with science and all the wonderful things in the universe and all the people who are exploring it. It is fantastic, please continue with it. It however does not give you the right to attack something you know nothing about. Write your book with all the scientific details and leave the God part to the people who believe in Him. I do not know how good your book will sell then. Who knows?

My fellow humans I am not here to judge you at all.
I would like you to go deep in to yourself and research as much as you can to become more informed and aware.
In your own time watch The Arrivals on You Tube, Google The Black Pope and read it and lastly watch Zeitgeist movies.

To our health ,happiness and prosperity.

Does God need us or intend us to be aware of "him"
Does God need us to worship 'him"
I believe that our need for a God serves some purpose I'm not clear about. Religion has some how lodged it's self between all of this and is probably what holds us back from determining the Truth whatever it may be.
I propose to take peoples right to Religion and Guns as a starter. Mankind has relinquished it's rights through it's abuse.

Dear Mr Dawkins,

Are you satisfied that atheism is anything less than characterizing God?

Regards

@ Samuel:
'For all his intelligence, Dawkins comes up short when he attempts to marshall “evidence” to prove the non-existence of God.'

Bluntly and rudely: first you prove to me (to my satisfaction, not yours) the non-existence of the tooth fairy... Get the picture?

@Malcolm:
'The great English writer G K Chesterton put it best “The problem with athiests is not that they believe nothing, but that they will believe anything”.'

Being a quote doesn't make it true... and this vapid and derelict maxim has all the structure of being witty but none of the content. Please find me just one atheist that believes "anything".

Facts are facts. Dogma's are dogma's.
Problems start when these two are mixed up.

People who believe are mostly brainwashed.

Wars start with 'help' of their God's.

People have two fysical malfunctions: their brain and back.
This the one and only truth.

Science is the root of religious Evolution, as science dissproved the old dogma religion had to Evolve to keep up. Science phased out all the old religions and it will continiue to do so with the 'current' religions until ther' none left

1st you had local gods

2nd you had global gods

3rd you had/have univarsal gods

4th none gods left

I sincerely believe Mr. Dawkins fervor in advancing evolutionary theory is firmly rooted in a deep need for acceptance. He wants to know for himself that if he can find no deductive explanations for God but rather find it easier to believe more 'plausible' inductive arguments for a Godless/Evolutionary universe, he will not be held accountable for believing that God does not exist. Deep down he is saying; It is OK not to believe in light of the 'evidence'.

Lastly, I must say that truth and reason are not always made of the same substance. What seems to be reasonable in light of some scientific theory will not necessarily equate to the truth – the truth that Christians believe that God can indeed hide Himself from whomever he wants, including Mr. Dawkins... Psalm 18:26: "with the purified you show yourself pure, and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous".

JESUS IS THE SAME YESTERDAY AND FOREVER!!

If God is so great and all loving then why...
...can't we even agree to what he wants (christianity vs islam vs judeism and so on)
...do we have wars?
...did he create homosexual people and then forbid them?
...why did he place the prostate where it can be touched?
...didn't he build the veil into islamic women?
...did he construct the body so that we can alter it with contraceptive and then forbid abortion?
...doesn't he ever show himself?
...did he create disease?

All in all, god being all knowing and all mighty falls on the basic fact that he'd have to be stupid to create a world as ours.

Professor Dawkins,

I have to say that I am a huge fan.

My first question to you is that we agree that the Arabic and Muslim world unfortunately is going through the dark ages as far as the quest for enlightenment in the aspect of the fact of evolution and the very low probability of the existence of god/Allah.Therefore true Muslim believers are a serious threat to civilization as a whole. What do you think we free thinkers can do or the best strategy to adopt to penetrate the iron curtain of the closed Muslim mind?

My second question is whether you have tried or thought about publishing The God delusion and The greatest show on earth in Arabic Because I think it’s a good start?

Genetic engineering hardly proves evolution, or that God doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins uses genetic engineering as a proof for evolution, and therefore an argument for athiesm. Did he forget that in genetic engineering there's an intelligent being behind the process?

It is my view that many people accept Richard Dawkins world view at "face value" without investigating or checking out alternative views from other leading scientists (eg John Lennox – Oxford University).

Is this because it is convenient for them NOT to believe in GOD. By this I mean if we accept that there is a GOD, and He wants a relationship with us, then we will be required to do something about this and/or behave in a certain way.

By taking the easy / convenient way out this enables us to do what we please. Even Richard Dawkins excepts that for life to develop from nothing to what we have now is, on the face of it, very very unlikely to happen accidently. However, because he chooses not to believe in a creator God his only alternative is this extremely unlikely course of events.

It always puzzles when a man who has acquired knowledge that is principally the result of trial and error (i.e. it is all facts for now – until they are proved wrong – again and again) and purport to be able to discuss God.

Indeed. Muachadoabouthnothing. We have seen such antics before from loud mouths in this field such as Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Nietzche – who were all atheists, yet their personal memoires recall their last moments on Earth begging for mercy from God.

Don't you know that God is too?! The Bible says "He that sits in the heavens laughs at His enemies". That means he is laughing at you Dawkins (i.e. you are the joke!). Somebody tell this lost soul that his arms are too short to box with God!

Dawkins had better join the queue of those (mentioned above) that thought that they were champions in opposing God. Known all over the world for their stance against God – only to capitaulate and give up the farce and ask for mercy.

Your cup is just about full Dawkins.

Religion is a tragic extension of our oft ignorant, fearful species.

to" Higley":since when was Albert Einstein a religious man?????
well done to Dawkins,the world would be a much better place without religion.

To understand GOD, Understand ur self. to undrstand ur self. GET UP EARLY IN THE MORNING(around 2am till 6am) when whole world is sleeping, Meditate on one Sound(any sound-AUM, Jesus, Allah, Waheguru)for altleast 3hrs daily, Eat less sleep less. You will realize that whatever i see around this universe is inside me.

What , but if he is right what you will do????

What I find amusing is that people look at "the beauty and wonder of life" and say that god exists, but conveniently turn a blind eye to the misery, suffering, famine, ugliness and cruelty that exists in the world and should poignantly raise grave doubts in their faith.

Please explain to me why a benevolent and all-knowning god would sit by and let a father sexually abuse his daughter for years, keeping her locked up in a dungeon and fathering children with her? Or why he would let it happen multiple times?!

Please explain why a benevolent and all-knowning god would allow his clergy to sexually abuse little boys, repeatedly for decades?

Please explain to me why a benevolent and all-knowning god would allow SO much suffering, torture and death to be done in his name over so many centuries?

Please explain to me how looking at human history over the past 2-3 millenia you can still believe...?

@sandy and other children:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? – Douglas Adams

religion is evil because it teaches us to accept that we do not understand the world.

god is on par with santa claus.

you have obviously not understood the god delusion which is to noone's surprise.

you are a sheep (metaphorically spoken).

but go on and pay your church taxes.

the dark age is synonymous for "the christian age".

Thank you for the opportunity. Here are my questions to Professor Dawkins.

1) Do you think Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judiasm will eventually die out like the Ancient Egyptian Religion and Classical Greek Religion did? Why haven't they died out yet?

2) If irrefutable evidence was found that a supreme being of the universe existed, what religion would it have most likely founded on earth, if any?

3) Is atheism a truly scientific stance to take in matters of religion? Isn't agnosticism a more scientific stance, which has been taken by scientists like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein?

Quotes:

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." – Carl Sagan; Achenbach, Joel (2006-04-23). "Worlds Away". Washington Post: p. W15.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” – Albert Einstein; Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

"[I'm] not religious in the normal sense...I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science... The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." – Stephen Hawking (Pope sees physicist Hawking at evolution gathering | Science. Reuters. 2008-10-31.)

it is human nature for man to seek his origins.

John Wendt:
You seem to make the most sense in this very interesting discussion.
Of course even yours is only "one man's" opinion expressed
and that brings us to the quintessence: all we can do is wonder -
scientist and believer – and I submit, that in the end "wonder"
is probably all we are left with.
My theory is that in the end it will be different than any of us have ever imagined. ( we all imagine that there will be an end, right?)
I think as long as we wonder and remain seekers we'll be ok
and there will be some sense and purpose to our
existence. As one german King put it so beautifully:
"In meinem Koenigreich kann jeder nach seiner Fassong selig werden. "( In my kingdom every one may make it to heaven on his/her
own terms) Fredrik the Great ( who was an admirer and friend of
Voltaere). Who by the way reveived with open arms thousends of
persecuted french protestants into his kingdom and settled them
mostly in Berlin. Fredrik was a humanist more than a believer.
What does that tell us?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”7

epicurus

Does Mr. Dawkins suffer any uneasiness without the psychological support of an entity which represents hope or divine purpose to our existance?

How Dawkins explains who initiates the Big Bang to start this universe? Who creates the unthinkable complicated and sophisticated human body and makes it male and female? Is human being just a piece of matter composed of electron, proton and neutron? Is Dawkins sure? What is infinity? Can Dawkins perceive and understand infinity? This type of people claim that they are educated and understand a lot! Why you die! Who forces you to die? Nature? Who creates the rules of nature? Try to live on this earth forever, at least several thousands years if you can. Try! So many mysterious in this world, nobody understands those! Is it so easy to say, "there is no God"?! There is no doubt that there is an almighty God exists. But God does not bother to answer the people like Dawkins because Dawkines does not bother God.

It might be a strange question..but in any case here it is..
In the past year my maze with religion this time revolved around homosexuality..to make a lond story short..is there any scientific proof that Sodomy and Ghamorah existed? was there an explosion? was it true it was a city of homos? Islam and Christianity says so what can negate this claim rather than proofing it.
Thanks

if there was a god,i am sure he would apear to everyone to stop us killing each other in the name of religion.one thing for sure ,no one has seen or heard god ....if u haver let me know ..religion is a faith not a fact ....believe what u want ..life is to be lived not wasted in the name of god .if god created nature then religion contradict it

Take note you all atheists the day of judgment is upon us.You are truly the disciples of Lucifer and for all your devilish works and acts you shall surely be punished.The greatest sin one can ever committ is challenging the very existence of God.The question i ask the atheist is who do they fear and respect?Shouldn't we all fear and respect God?If your answer is no then you are doomed.All those who believe in God should pray for the lost souls of the atheist and plead with God to chastise them so that they can begin to understand better.

I was driving into work listening to "The God Delusion" on CD. In this particular chapter, Dawkins describes how precious each individual is. I'm not precious or special because I was magically created by a loving god. But if anything had happened even slightly differently when I was conceived, or when either of my parents was conceived, or ANY ancestor going back 3 billion years, I wouldn't exist. And that's not even counting the immense good fortune that led life to begin here in the first place.

Dawkins helped me begin to grasp the enormous improbability of any one individual's existence.

Since reading that, I feel much luckier to be alive – winner of the ultimate cosmic lottery. That is so much more awe inspiring than thinking I'm the magical creation of a personal but invisible god.

Science and reality tell a MUCH greater, more inspiring story of our origins than any human-created religion could possibly deliver.

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
– Carl Sagan

God is the Father of all Creation. How He actually did it? It's not for us to know right now but the time will come. Only God is the Master Scientist.

God is there that is why all over the world people worship him though using different names.Remember these are the last days for the last fight.Lucifer and his followers are on the prowl ,thus all who believe in God need to pray foir the final victory over the forces of evil.I have no doubt Dawkins is the anti-christ.Woe to you Dawkins for the day of reckoning is upon you.

Dawkins' theory is like his theory questioning Dawkin,s very existence and ability to come up with the theory.A classical case of the creation questioning the existence of the creator. Its nonsensical.

Sorry I forgot to put my question at the end of my comment/story. Could you still add it at the end of my story?
If yes, here is my question:
Should teachers share with their pupils their beliefs about religion? What if a high school student asks for the teacher's opinion about the existence of god? That happened to a colleague of mine who was afraid of saying he was an atheist because many students with influential parents were Catholics.

If there is a God the brutality of nature, the complete lack of any sort of forethought for the suffering of life forms is more than ample evidence, at least for me, that it is indifferent, malicious, sadistic, or mentally ill, unless benevolence and love is now defined as throwing you into an evolutionary shark tank. No wonder believers are so against biological evolution. The true mechanisms of nature are a crime scene and the evidence is the immeasurable suffering of all life as a direct consequence of the design of any hypothetical God.

I'm brainwashed.........100%. Once you recieve the Holy Spirit, you'll be convinced too. But too many of you are convinced you've been "Born right the first time" to be saved and see what I'm talking about. You get baptized, obey his commandments and statutes, and then experience the wonderful promises of God. You have to read the bible. HIS instruction book for life to truly understand.

Why does a benevolent and all-knowing God allow bad things to happen? Because Satan wants to create as much turmoil as he can to keep you from God. Good vs. Evil is a constant struggle in all of our decisions. I'm not jamming it down your throat, just asking you to try it.
You'll be amazed.

science and God do not conflict, they co-exist. God is the source of all thing that are in place, science is a process of discovering these things and how they work. God is bigger than science. However, religion is inconsistant with science, the former are presumptions, make-believe, while the latter is the opposit, they are proven facts.

The mistery of God´s existence, or human creation, development etc resides in one single point: what happens after death? While nobody returns after stop living to tell us how it is, saying, so absolutely, that God doesn´t exist sound exactly in the same manner as saying that he does. It is just dogmatism. He points that out and wait for our acknowledge. And at least, God can explains the very beginning and end of all; the non-existence of God cannot explain how things started to be.

@Jonathan – "At some point on both sides of the debate, the thinking stops. I side with the scientists, though, since the point at which they stop thinking is a lot farther along."

You're right, Jonathan, thinking stops precisely at Mr. Dawkins. I have listen him many times and I have to say that he has terrible problems with – often – elementary logic...

Atheism, by Dawkins, is no better than radical religion and religious fanaticism. Dawkins is so furious and incisive to convince "the people" that there is no God, that he often looks like some Arabic countries fanatic imam... And yeah, it's stupid and illogic to pay for "commercials" on the London buses and to print a text like "there is probably no God"...

Any cell of our body points to a Designer, anybody who cannot see that (or, perhaps, is no willing to do so) has some logic issues. I don't want to start a discussion on that, but THE CELL is screaming design! There are too many things that CANNOT happen by randomness, there are so many things that clearly show PURPOSE, there are so many things that show a PLAN, and – yeah – there are almost nothing relevant empirically demonstrated to be a clear sign of darwinian evolution...

Any open-minded scientist should see that, any doctor should be able to see that, any engineer should be able to understand that, if... AND ONLY IF clears his mind of the evolutionary indoctrination. If you are evolutionary indoctrinated, with a "hard-core" darwinian mindset (like Mr. Dawkins), you simply loose logic...

Personally, I hope God dosen't exist..... the idea of eternal life seems horrible to me, I don't think i could stand it.

Richard Dawkins is the greatest person alive in the world today. Keep up the good work.

I'm really looking forward to this programme. Dawkins's patience and logic are a breath of fresh air in a world polluted by religious prejudice.

Question(s) to Mr. Dawkins: how can evolutionary processes explain the complex and various control systems that exists in almost all eukaryotic cells? How can a decision making algorithm, like IF-THEN-ELSE, that is the basic method for designing a control system, can be explained by (darwinian fashioned) evolution?

Thank you!

Can something be made out of nothing? If not, then that primordial something, that transcends space and time, is the Supreme Something that created the Universe by giving it the initial BANG that placed the Universe in motion and allowed the evolution of everything we now perceive in it.

I wonder how many atheists posting here, are confusing religion with Jesus Christ, or have bothered to find out the difference?

By the way God give us the bible for correction and guidance to choose right, it was and always man choose the wrong one, not God, every problem of this world is not new since the fall of man.
God gave us the freedom of will. well its very clear that we are the problem not God. don't be a fool

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

why do you people blame God for humans failings? if man is evil is that Gods' problem or mans'?If there is a design to the most basic of human Devices then can you doubt an Intelligent design to mans existence?

if God does not exist then God help us all!!!! Mankind has no purpose and no hope, we are victims of our own civilisation in doubting the most fundamental aspects as the existence of an Intelligent design to the natural order.

The whole of existence including "God" and the universe with its mass/energy and space/time might be merely some sort of caleidoscopic projection of mental states, said mental states being embedded in some highly, albeit not entirely robust 4D software simulation with quantum mechanical characteristics (but dont ask me on whose quantum computer the software is running;-)

Even the most villiest dictators this world has ever seen-hitler,,idi amin,pol pot and others which i will not mention by name-acknowledged the existenxce of God,surely Dawkins don't you think you are worst than these guys.

I wish more people in this world stepped out of their own box like Richard Dawkins. He challenges the very assumptions about "God" that people know deep down are not true. Humans unfortunately are scared to challenge something that gives them comfort: "belief without evidence". A old bearded man that is above us in the clouds. That might have helped those people 2,000 years ago cope with their limited understanding of nature. Science has however advanced past this. Religion (especially extremism) does more bad than good.

He live in a comfortable zone...no wonder he dont feel the need of God....

The bible Stood for a test of time and still the best selling book ever,
Jesus said that he will build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. it seems that this dawkins is a part of hell from our lord Jesus own, words be careful people let not your heart be deceived !!!

For everything that we see from sunrise to sunset, and just look in the womb how a baby will form in a miracle way don't go too further just to wonder, for its always God and God alone

I don't think our brains have or ever will have the capacity to understand and explain our existence or the purpose of this existence. No amount of intelligence will ever sort out the mystery of the Universe and our existence or the question of whether there is a higher power. I think the sooner we accept out limitations in this respect the better. Certain things are unknowable and if there is a God then perhaps this is what he intended. If we knew the nature of God then I think life would lose its challenges and meaning. The reservation I have about religion is that, on balance, it seems that it has done more harm than good in human history (to quote Bertrand Russell).

As an atheist in a Roman Catholic country, I'm constantly confronted with the question "why don't you believe in God?" My answer: "Which one?". The fact is that atheists are no more skeptical about the Judeo-Christian god than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but in a cultural context such as mine the debate – such as it is – will always frame non theists as anti-Christian. But in reality those of us who have never had any religious belief are not denying any god or forsaking any specific teaching. We're simply appreciating the garden of life without looking for fairies behind the bushes.

The Bible is an evidence of God so as the israel people, thats why the whole world hate israel, its the same way they hate God, they don't like the truth. How can you define Love and Good without God, since the opposite of Love and Good is hate and wrong and the opposite of God is Evil, Truth from lie etc etc,. if this guy claim is about science did any one see his brain fell out, then since no one ever seen his brain fell off, so according to science everything he said is lie

we deal about evidence and truth right, so i need to see his brain inside his skull that every though that he said is true and it came to his brain

Any one who had ever read the Bible will recognise that Darwin took his ideas, sometimes in reverse, from Genesis Chapters 1-2 and Genesis Chapter 9. It was in Genesis Chapters 9-10 that God separated man and animals.

Therefore the whole theory of evolution is plagarism at best.

The second point is, as a medical doctor, I have wondered what sustained a life. The old mechanist theory did not fit as well as the fact that there is evidence that even at brain death, a person can still continue to live. Thus, the theory of brain as sustaining life failed.

When Richard is able to understand and deal with these two issues, he will come to a spectacular conclusion, from which he will never remain the same -that there is a God in Heaven who is conscious of the Earth including the existence of Richard. May God bless and redeem him!

A question for Professor Dawkins: now that thanks to you and several other high-profile voices atheism is in the public agenda, what can we atheists around the world do to have more political power to change ridicuous legislation? Here in Argentina, the second article of the Constitution says the State supports Roman Catholicism.

So far, no scientist has yet satisfactorily explained the wonders of the physical universe in all its myriad and microscopic aspects like how the universe is created, let alone trying to explain something of higher order than the physical laws.

This is one of the most important facts about the limitation of our current physical laws.

Try to figure out how atoms and sub-atoms or some other primal physical constituents came into existence and how they eventually evolve through causal coincidence to life will be something scientist should first try to explain if they want to convince us there is no god.

If scientists of the calibre like Albert Einstein so far still cannot answer such basic questions like how physical laws came into being which eventually lead to life there is little point in trying to attempt something of higher order like attempting the abstract laws which would be more inexplicable than the physical laws.

Just imagine how the primary life form like the bacteria came about is already full of controversies and something fundamentally inconclusive.

Yet life as we know today is much more inexplicable than what we assume. We will learn to admire life more than the simple bacteria.

Higher than life is the fact the beyond life there exists certain purposefulness like ability to mature and develop and even being able to secrete and develop various sub-system to protect its mere routine existence.

Just imagine how purposeful the various enzymes in our bodies behave reacting to threats in manners which are beyond our belief.

Our various body's organs without any doubt has the purposefulness to develop protections like anti-bodies and immunities against threats. It would be one heck of coincidence to say that our organs secretes enzymes or anti-gens to be better adjusted to environment.

Is there something else in this universe existing in the form we do not yet understand which can help us to explain better why within life there is something so subtle and purposefulness that help life to mutate or develop protectiveness to survive and mature.

Try to figure out how our bodies react to threats is itself an insuperable task to excel within our physical laws.

If we cannot explain fundamental issues like the wonder of life form and how within life there is a purposefulness which exist even more powerfully than mere coming into of existence then we should not try to explain something of higher order than the physical laws.

That the universe seems more purposeful and predestined in a certain way with some end objective beyond our understanding that is something we cannot deny.

Is it some coincidental primal particle like atom or sub-atom or something in light photon we do not yet understand which with higher speed due to gravitational factors result in another existential change of mass like we could deduce from our own physical laws from E=MC2.

Why has no scientist like Albert Einstein not dare to defy the existence of a supreme creator who is above the physical laws.

He probably cannot preclude light particle or wave at a certain higher speed lead to creation of mass and that mass or energy might well offer the basis of our universe.

The tact that we cannot yet explain physical laws enough of mere existence is fact enough that our physical laws is not good enough to explain the phenomenon of life other attendant functions or qualities as possessed within our simple life organs.

Is there a physical law like creation of mass which can better explain how life can be produced on its own accord from energy due to higher speed of light due to gravitation effect as discovered by Einstein?

Let this be food for thought for our our scientific community?

Before trying to deny existence of god as may be deduced albeit not physically proven which cannot be explained anyway no matter how hard we might try by human or physical laws let us not deny as yet there might well be another set of law other than our immediate physical laws.

@Randy:

With whom, exactly, would atheists be disputing the existence of unicorns or the Great Pumpkin?

The Bible is an evidence of God so as the israel people, thats why the whole world hate israel, its the same way they hate God, they don't like the truth. How can you define Love and Good without God, since the opposite of Love and Good is hate and wrong and the opposite of God is Evil, Truth from lie etc etc,. if this guy claim is about science did any one see his brain fell off, then since no one ever seen his brain fell off, so according to science everything he claim is lie

we deal about evidence and truth right, so i need to see his brain inside his skull that every thought that he said is true and it came from his brain.

you see people everything is start in a little faith to believe in God, not a bunch of explanation and evidence, history that thousand of years ago reveals the truth of God and the bible but still many people don't believed it, you know why its because they reject it, thats the main problem

The Bible is an evidence of God so as the Israel people, that's why the whole world hate Israel, its the same way they hate God, they don’t like the truth. How can you define Love and Good without God, since the opposite of Love and Good is hate and wrong and the opposite of God is Evil, Truth from lie etc etc,. if this guy claim is about science did any one see his brain fell off, then since no one ever seen his brain fell off, so according to science everything he claim is lie

we deal about evidence and truth right, so i need to see his brain inside his skull that every thought that he said is true and it came from his brain.

you see people everything is start in a little faith to believe in God, not a bunch of explanation and evidence, history that thousand of years ago reveals the truth of God and the bible but still many people don’t believed it, you know why its because they reject it, that's the main problem

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. don't be a fool!!!

@Mike N,
I totally agree with your views.
But I can hear the people of God arguing with "God is testing you, for if Heaven was opened to all, what is the point?"
To which I would say, "If God is all powerful and all knowing, where is the need to test us? If he knows who will pass and who will fail, why the need for a test? We mere humans do not have such a foresight, hence the need for interviews, test and exams."

Dawkins knows that GOD is the creation of Human being and hence all the problems of evil are the creation of human again. so we have to blame ourself s for the sufferings. The men who created religions also created a set of moral codes. since the advance of science some of the codes become absurd. As we advance in the world we need new set of codes to live harmoniously. Democracy, equality etc.., are the product of rationality.

1. National wealth = GDP

2. Wealth for each person = GDP/No. of people

3. GDP increases with productivity, investment in + NPV projects, etc
The rate of increase in "people" reduces over time as people are better educated and society becomes more secular and less religious

4. The Catholic Church (and some far smaller religions, e.g., Iglesio Ni Cristo) dominate the Philippines to the extent that the elected government dare not oppose or criticize the Catholic Bishops, that when the US funding for family planning clinics ran out, the Philippine government did not pick up the slack, and that it is seen as very odd if one does not believe in God

5. Given the choice between continuing with millions of people who go hungry several times a month, half the population living on US$2/day or less, one of the world's largest child prison population, foreign investors skeptical to invest in the country AND believing in God and one of the organized religions OR being an athiest and actively trying to reduce and eventually eliminate the 300+ yr old influence of the Catholic church in our society, I can only choose people having food and the country developing and must dismiss as self-indulgent people who like to have philosophical pro-God, pro-organized religion positions. Come and see the effect that has in the real world of 92M Filipinos!

It is interesting to see such a heated debate, but many people seem to forget that you can be a scientist and believe in a religion. You can also believe in a religion and choose science as your career path.

To separate the two is bad for both religion and science. Science would lose some potentially good scientists; and those who believe in God would leave out a point of view in their discussion. It's just a point of view, everyone...having his book sold in stores won't hurt your faith.

I have to disagree about the post that most of the higher art and music were inspired by God. Inspired means breathed, and they were NOT breathed by God. In fact, they were PAID for by the church, but most of the artists were inspired by their own desires, and perhaps the desire to get paid. i read The God Delusion and loved it. Another great book I just read is God is Not Great by Hitchens...another great read. Let us hope that the future of the world is ruled by science and not by the childish religious superstitions of the past that have wrought more death than science ever has.

i believe in God. i believe in science. im not going to justify myself much beyond that, except i dont really understand why the two have to be in competition unless you are a fanatical unreasonable christian or a fanatical close-minded "scientist." as far as im concerned, they co-exist. atoms, particles and the laws of physics are everywhere. for me, God is everywhere and in everything too.

Graeme Smith correctly the said the universe is "winding down" so to speak. is this not something which can be said to be parallel to the Bible in that the universe will not exist forever? (at a most simple understanding...)

either way: i dont understand why for some people it has to be one or the other.

If god made us then who made god? When bible punchers come around to my house I ask a very simple question, give me some scientific proof that there is a god? reply er um er the bible says!!!!

Thank Him for this debate, it gives me the chance to say to all non-believers: 'The day you leave this life and meet Him, they will ask you, "Now do you believe in Him?", then if your answer is "Yes" and you ask forgiveness for not believing, you will be forgiven! The Lord is merciful, it is His promise, and He will not fail you as you've failed Him, truly you are only human and He is God!

There is a very common lapse in the reasoning of religious individuals who are willing to accept the existence of a "god" (sorry, not "God") on the premise that science, and humankind in general, is unable to explain the origin of the universe. Similarly they argue that it is impossible to explain the seemingly infinite nothingness that preceded the big bang and therefore a creator must have been at its root. Both arguments are essentially a form of humanoid arrogance rooted in the belief that if we cannot possibly comprehend a certain reality it must be either untrue or of a divine nature. The same way a fish will never fully comprehend quantum mechanics, we humans do not and may never fully understand the multidimensional nature of the universe. We should not sell ourselves short however and give in to superstition but relentlessly pursue truth and evidence.

In the God Delusion, Dawkins points to several adaptive explanations for religious sentiment, including the attribution of agency (you're more likely to survive if you think the big, furry, orange thing with stripes is actually trying to eat you) and infants' innate tendency to take their parents advice verbatim ("do not step off cliffs" "do not eat pork, because god wills it"). Yet religion itself offers no adaptive advantage and, as large parts of the American population bear witness, can be counterproductive for actually understanding the world around us. For example, a Doonesbury doctor once asked a creationist patient whether he preferred a vaccine for TB as it existed in the 1940's or the current incarnation. You decide.

Personally, it seems that people have gotten confused about what science job is. Although my science base is very rudiment to that of many of you including Richard Dawkins, I believe that he and I agree on the idea that science is the search for truth; science itself is not absolute truth. This idea keeps getting brought up in the past centuries as scientist revise and rediscover truths about the known universe. Many people may argue that science and math are the absolute truth in themselves; however, these fields of knowledge are in truth searching for the absolute, they have not reached it. Now this idea raises the question whether or not there is a limit, but I do not seek to claim a side to that debate. It just seems that people may need to relook at what they are calling science.

On a different discussion, I would like to look at the discussion of the existence of a God or many gods. Clearly there is no absolute proof either way, but it seems that one side might make more sense than the other. I find that people bring up the concept of a moral conscience which is widely agreed on, and I personally see that it is a fundamental principal of our coexistence with other humans. We as social beings need moral compasses to live by in order to function together. Without moral compasses that people live by what person would raise a finger against the mass murderers, rapist, child molesters, or oppressive leaders that arise in the world today? Thankfully there is a moral compass which people live by, and people do seek justice. The question of the origins of the moral compass has been brought to my attention and I would like to share it: are religions the origins of morals or is science the orgin? Honestly the conclusion I had to come up with is that religions are the origin of the moral compass people live by today, so whether you are an Agnostic, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, an Atheist, a Pantheist, a Polytheist, or another belief it must be except that morals come from religions. If this thought is true, then religions are not as useless as many people have stated. Lastly I would like to state that we are fortunate to live during a time of such amazing discovery. It makes me very delighted to hear the research of many scientists, and to be a witness to the discussions of the intellectual multitude.

Religion is nothing but a malfunction of the brain's logic circuit.

What is the last thing an artist paints on his or her painting?
Why?
Is it not a normal thing for each of us to want to receive credit for what we have done, especially if it is an amazing piece of work?
I cannot imagine the world with all its wonders as well as the perfect cycles of everything (including our bodies), beauty, colors, taste of incredible foods all happening by chance.
I choose to try desperately to find out who made such amazing things and give credit to him.
Why must some choose to tell us what to believe? Why can't they let us decide for ourselves?

The concept of god(s) was invented (yes, invented!) in times that people had no education, no culture and did not know anything about nature or science. Information was scarce and communication almost null.
Most of humanity was poor, hungry, sick and afraid of everything.
They NEEDED to believe in someone "up there" who would keep an eye on them. And they NEEDED to have the ilusion there could be a better life in stead (after) the life they had. They NEEDED to believe in miracles and would accept any kind of promise even if the argumentation was weak and the facts not verifyable.

Is there anything easier to promise than a better life after this one by decision of an unidentifiable (anonymous, virtual) leader? Promises that can never be either denied or confirmed.... In times of need, people will grab on to anything to give them HOPE. They prefer to believe the promise rather than to be able to verify it's facts.
Religions are not really a believe, not a faith, they actually are a hope. A desperate hope for something better. Inherited from old and dark times, but grown powerful and still deeply rooted in society.

For a time religion could impose itself through oppressive leaders and inquisition, but in modern times and democratic countries where people are free to choose what they think it turns out that the un-verifyable promise and leader just aren't that convincing anymore.

@ fernando torrente – contrary to what you say, I don't think society NEEDS religion anymore. Maybe it was useful in the early days of mankind when they needed something to give hope. But they (the religions) made (and still make) themselves unacceptable when they started to impose on society and actually kept people in the middle ages and complicated human progress for religion's (and power) sake. First the earth was flat, now we know it isn't. They wanted to burn Galilei when he proved earth was not in the center of the universe. And just recently the english church apologized to darwin: http://creation.com/church-of-england-apologises-to-charles-darwin
How many wars haven't been fought and are still being fought just for religious reasons. I wouldn't call that useful.
Have you ever heard of a war being fought for scientific reasons?

By the way, I really need to read that book!

Religion is for common people.

A question for Mr. Dawkins:

I am a Christian and a biologist. Having read Mr. Dawkins before, I have immense respect for his work but find his concept of God to be a bit shortsighted. He often narrows God down to being merely 'an Intelligence.' It was my developmental genetics research as a graduate student that actually led me to find religion.

Renowned atheist Stephen Jay Gould is quoted as saying that "...the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs–and equally compatible with atheism. So those who choose to be atheists must find some other basis for taking that position. Evolution won't do." How would your respond to this, Mr. Dawkins?

Among myriad of books, a book told me that someone once said:
"In the day you (man) eat of it you shall die." Against the choice of man, that declaration is still operational and applicable to all today, and the scientific feat of all the Dawkins of this world put together has not and cannot stop it.

The same someone once said: "You will toil and sweat before you eat." Today, all people, including scientists toil and sweat to make a living.

That someone is God. If these two seemingly simple declaration stand till date, then whatever else He says is true and will stand inspite of what else anyone will say, theorize or pontificate.

You people are all freaking crazy of coarse there is no god. Scientifically its impossible!! You actually need to get a life and start dealing with the real issues!!

God is only a definition. Different cultures define God in their own terms and this definition may change through time as we have seen in the old and new testament.

Humans need a God (or Gods) to explain all that they cannot explain; for that reason the most ignorant people are usually the ones who defend their belief in God with the most force; sometimes with brute force.

These people are very comfortable with what they know and they don't want to think on the various explanations for the phenomena that surround us.

There are many religious institutions that suppor the idea of God because tehy earn a lot of money with it. They make you feel guilty for your "sins" so that you pay them to feel relief. Just look at the assets of the Catholic Church; just look at the vatican; just look at the Pope and his expensive jewelry and clothes; just look at the houses and cars of priests.

Of course, generalization is never good. There are people within these institutions who try to be an asset for the society but they never come to the high levels of the church because that is a political issue.

Cheers

I was initially flummoxed and then shocked on learning that US was seriously debating about introducing creationism inside the classroom.Coming from India,the spiritual haven of world civilization,i can vouch for the absolute scientific education imparted in our schools.Even though i studied in Christian Catholic school in India,the question of creationism never entered the class.It was evolution all the way.As far as to the debate between theists and athiests,i am of the opinion that "GOD exists for those who believe in GOD and does not exist for those who do not believe in GOD".There might be a GOD particle which is the mother of all particles and proves to be the focal point of noosphere of the future universe.But thts all conjecture.I choose to follow the path set by Roger Bacon and the like.

Mr Dawkins,

Too much education does leave the mind fragile and feeble. It starts to believe whatsoever it will. However fanciful the thought. Unlike others, I see your cry for help. I see a grown man crying out to God to prove Himself. Like it or not, Darwinism renders the lives we live, the ones we love and our achievements pointless. Without God there is absolutely no reason to be happy.

You are probably seeking to open up the debate by taking such an obstinate position. It is wise not to be ensnared by one's witty ideation. At some point in your life you don't think God answered you right and hence committed your life to forcing Him to prove Himself. Firstly to you and now to the world. A man cannot armwrestle God into submission. You have thrown quite a gauntlet. I seeyour efforts as a cry for help rather than any serious challenge to God. Denying God is sadly your chosen career path. Sure it has garnered you attention and possible reknown in some circles. My question to you Mr Dawkins, is that when you do breath your last, take one last good look around the room you will be in. You will not alone. Unfortunately, it will be too late for you then.

An old man with white beard that will judge us later....Oh please...........
I believe that the word God has become a close concept....I feel that there are lots of things us humans will never fully understand, or be able to scientificaly prove....
God the one refered to in the difrent holy scriptures has become empty of meaning through thousands and thousands of years of misuse....some use it with great conviction as if they know what they are talking about....Or some argue against it as if they knew what they are denying......! NO ONE KNOWS....OR CAN PROVE IT......!
In the end I really think that science and religion should be able to work together to create a better understanding of the universe.
The holy scripts has some points but is very contradicting,to say the least science needs to have a bigger role to play!

@ Alex the answers to all your questions from a true believer would be that "Humans have free will ,but there will come a day when they'll have to face there acts...hell/heaven...!

I have a question for Dr. Dawkins (I hope this is the right channel to submit questions – otherwise sorry):

"Do you ever find it frustrating that these questions of evidence vs. dogma even need to be discussed to the extent that they apparently do? Is there a specific subject that you would like the discourse to move on to, when (or if?) the more "fundamental" questions (which are not questions at all to people who have been taught to think freely) have been resolved and the zeitgeist has moved on?"

Thanks

I need to believe there is God otherwise there will be no real justice for those suffering (hunger, innocent deaths, .... ) while others are partying.

I take it most of you are the same religion as your parents. Exceptions are merely that.

The most popular religions are those that promote healthy lifestyle and encourage reproduction. The "big" religions aren't any more "right" than the others, they're just better at producing additional members.

Religion also makes people feel better about life/death – if religion didn't exist, then we would certainly create it to ease our discomfort.

Atheism isn't for everyone. Some people legitimately need the fear of God and the comfort of an afterlife in order to lead good lives.

But good people don't.
They can see the merits in helping other human beings for the sake of advancing our society, rather than because a silent, invisible man told them they should.

I think we can all agree that taking the Bible/Koran/Torah literally causes problems. The problem is when people justify their fears and personal hatreds through holy verses.

Afraid of gay people? Write them off as an abomination.
Hate women? Ostracize the menstruaters, discipline those who speak out, and kill the unfaithful.
Hate minorities? Take comfort in Ham's fate.

The Bible can be used to justify discrimination, torture, genocide, castration, enslavement, and murder – and it has been... and it is.

SO HERE'S MY POINT: If you're completely lost on how to be a good person, then the bible (particularly the New Testament) isn't a bad place to find morals. But stay away from bible LAWS. Assume for a minute that a person's soul is/has/was/will be saved – and then ask, will my actions help them?

And for the record:

Banning Gay Marriage discriminates against people for no earthly reason other than homophobia.

Banning contraceptives creates unwanted and/or unprepared pregnancies and MORE IMPORTANTLY is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths from the spread of AIDS.

New sanitation laws makes eating shellfish much safer.

SLAVERY IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Women should be free to have sexual partners before they are married, and should not be murdered if they lose their virginity before marriage.

It's wrong to kill another group of people because they are a different religion than you are.

It was gratifying to see that 32% said they don't believe in God. I was afraid the number would be a lot lower than that.

"offers scientific evidence to back-up his own theory of evolution."

This is a frightfully misleading comment. It is not "his" theory of evolution, any more than Stephen Hawkings presents evidence for "his" theory of relativity. It is terribly unfortunate that a country as wealthy and progressive as the USA retains its persistence with Palestian Bronze Age superstitution to the extent that it is willing to reject the biological fact of evolution to the extent that even the most reliable of news sources reduces it to "someone's theory".

The supplementary comments on this post reveal a deep seated indoctrination by religion that results in sensible individuals "believing" in the unevidenced and retaining blind faith in the unevidenced. More concerning is that it reveals a deep ignorance of what we are, who we are and where we come from. An academic like Professor Hawkins has the intellect and understanding to offer us a window on the answers of our origins and we choose to slam it shut in favour of the shrill, ignorant delusions of a group of uneducated palestinians who had no idea about the shape of the earth, let alone an evidence based explanation for the wonderous display of life that inhabits it.

Nothing is true. It's only believing that makes it true.

I liked these quotes from above so much that I'm going to repeat them:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts"

"Is it not possible that there is a purpose for the universe, to which our existence is merely incidental? As one philosopher put it, the good news is that there might be a purpose to our existence. The bad news is, that purpose might be calculating pi to a jillion digits."

Grame Smith: You seem to have conveniently ignored the first law, and additionally mis-stated the second law. The second law explains that the amount of *usable* energy is winding down. Entropy is simply a measure of the amount of *unusable* floating around... that too with some restrictions – in an enclosed macroscopic system. It doesn't say anything about things at a microscopic to a quantum level, where that energy may still be considered "usable". (Look it up in Wikipedia for a more rigorous technical explanation)
The first law that states that "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed"... ergo energy (i.e. matter – they are interchangeable) was "always there"... which is the argument you were trying to refute.

Paulus, ChrisM, DAVID and others:
A number of posters don't really seem to have read The God Delusion. One of the first things that Dawkins does in the book is clarify his definition of "god"... "the personal God of the Abrahamic religions"... not "the wonder of the universe and nature" and the other such abstract definitions of god.

C. Arthur Young: Excellent question! The difference between biologists and priests is that you can learn biology from first principles, make your own way through it, question it and change it if you find evidence. You can go as far back as you care to... be that the oldest fossils found on the planet or the big band. Religion, typically, does not accord you that privilege. The holy book (of whatever religion) is about as far back as you can go. With science, there's a process that involves proof and repeatabile results with experiments. With religion... not so much.

I'm also going to make a plug about Terry Pratchett's Discworld series and his take on the idea of god. It's a must read and totally hilarious!

I've heard Mr Dawkins speak in the past, and I find his arguements weak and without substance. He has yet to give a conclusive answer as to how we came on earth, i.e. how evolution happened. It requires a lot more faith to believe in the science fiction called evolution, than to believe in God and His creative powers. How can one really believe something as brilliant as the universe, with all in it, come into existence with some random event like a 'big bang' or some other 'theory'?? Clearly, God is the Creator of all, including the realm and laws of science. If Mr Dawkins would only search for God, he would surely find him.

God is an artificial creation by the humanity, summoned to help us deal with the world around us, the many things we could not understand.

But the truth is, the physical realm we live in, is perfectly explainable in terms of the laws of physics. The laws that have been formulated and the laws that will be formulated in not-so-distant future.

God is a redundancy.

Never heard of this guy, but he has a point. God is a delusion, a way of explaining why we're here and why things happen. Religion is void of truth, and it's all based on primitive thinking anyway. When will the mass finally understand that there is more peace in science and discovering the truth than believing in something that's never been there. And will never be there. I used to think there was a God, then I realized that noone is more special than anyone else, so how come they can "hear Him" and I can't?

God's army has been summoned to comment on this article. Yet, pitifully, you are all but foot soldiers of very powerful institutions. Guys, god does not exist. And it is fine, you can all keep your existences, and perhaps try to empower yourselves to become great people because of your own accomplishments, and appreciate art because it makes you think, and accept love from your loved ones because you are a part of millions year old communities (yes, love is biological, and it is fine), and reproduce and give life to your kids. Ah, and even go back to your own churches, where perhaps you will not be as exploited by the institution once you realize you go there by personal choice.

Only after you all realize the inexistence of god, we will finally find peace on our great, beautiful earth.

Mr Dawkins scientist? He just invented his own religion.
If God doesn't exist than everything is allowed.
Evolution doesn't make scientific sense:
First there was nothing!
And even that exploded!
I'll keep and read and believe the Bible as God's Word.
It even explains why Mr Dawkins is an atheist and vetilates his hatred against God. Please, read Romans 1 and 2.

If God is inexistent and the origin of everything can be explained through scientific reasoning, how does a scientist/atheist explain death? You would figure that evolutionary forces would have been hard at work since the beginning of time to elude the most lamentable occurrence of our existence. No success yet. God still reigns supreme!

Mr Dawkins,
Why making such a fuss about someone who doesn't exist (in your opinion)?

Isn't it a fabulous coincidence that among billions of stars, in a timeframe spanning back 13.7 billion years to the Big Bang, you were born within 2000 years and a few thousand kilometers of what your religion (which has a 95% chance of being your parents' religion) holds was the most monumental event in history?

Alternatively, maybe yours is like one of those thousands of other religions that you believe aren't actually true.

"You're as much of an atheist as I am, except I believe in one less god".

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Epicurus 33 A.D."

Sandy "I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see."

You obviously didn't understand the book Sandy.. Dawkins addressed those very issues at length.

There are two major misconceptions on the part of those claiming science somehow renders God obsolete . First, they point to statements in religious texts clearly contradicted by science – such as the world was created in 6 days – as proof that religion has been discredited. Of course writings thousands of years old don't reflect modern scientific understanding – how could they? To suggest they should is ludicrous. Though many believers do interpret these texts literally, I think they are better understood as attempts to encapsulate existential truths by the means of metaphor and parable. To dismiss them because they contain scientifically inaccurate statements is like dismissing the tale of the Three Little Pigs and its lesson that long term planning is wise because pigs can’t speak.

The second misconception is that because scientific proof of God has never been found that no such entity exists. One tenet of every major religion is that God in some mysterious way is the universe – that he/she/it is an infinite being beyond the comprehension of our finite minds. Exactly what “proof” of such a thing should we expect to find? Science allows us to discover how the universe works, in a profound and fascinating way. It can never, however, answer questions about the ultimate meaning of the universe. Science is by definition rooted in details – in the rigourous examination of measurable data. What data should we be looking at to determine if the Universe is all just an aspect of God? Clearly there can be no such data. Of course, many would reply that there is no such ultimate meaning of the universe, and they are of course entitled to that opinion – but they should acknowledge that there are no scientific grounds for such an opinion one way or the other.

In my heart I believe in God. I know that He exists. When I read Richard Dawkins's books I see only theories. It doesn't change what I feel. Please listen to your hearts.

I was a nonbeliever till I took to research and began to clone living systems. Today I am a strong believer of God. My honest communication with nature and life broke my thinking and revealed the illusionary foundation on which I exist. I began to note that that I do not know answers to why gene is a triplet code? Whey DNA is double helical? Why dominant and recessive gene? Why mitotic and meiotic division? Why pairs of Chromosomes? And so on. Will any scientist answer me?

Every cell, every life was speaking a truth that I exist and wok on a foundation that is fundamentally wrong. I left the lucrative field of biotechnology and went in search of truth of life and nature. Modern biology is linked to developments in physical science, so my search led me to the root of science and found that we do not have answers to why free fall acceleration of independent of weight? What gives matter the property of gravity and mass? Why ratio of acceleration of two interacting bodies is always 3, why uncertainty, why speed of light is the maximum speed and so on. No wonder the ancient spiritual scriptures described the present time as an illusionary time and world.

Our picture of the world is built on gravity and gravity is centripetal. The second law of thermodynamics applied to it tells us that it should collapse to a point – Big bang Theory. But scientist have failed comprehend this collapse, and reason for end of the time and origin of time. One thing that nature revealed to me, as began to interact with her in freedom was that life is anti-gravitational. This meant that existence of one living cell can stop the gravitational collapse. Life we note conquers time by three essential force, breathing, mitotic division and meiotic division and reproduction. Nature and her Master then reveled that the day and night cycle and the energy flow on earth resembles the double pump or heart of living system. The 12 month climatic cycle now could be visualized as mitotic division and growth against gravity. This and many more aspect made me to visualize universe as living. On thing that was left was to comprehend was how the meiotic division and conquering of time occurs in the universal system. This answer was reveled in a retreat center when I submitted my mind and accepted death to be touched by the Spirit of God. Here the secret of spiritual scripture revealed it self tome in all splendor

I can now argue with any one on this world to prove that there exists a God a perceiver and controller to this world, who is conscious and intelligent. It is time we review the very foundation of our scientific thinking and advance it to know the truth of nature – explore the site “ awakening to truth” http://sites.google.com/site/awakeningtotruth

Dear Professor Dawkins, I have seen a documentary movie where you ask some religious people questions that put them in a very uncomfortable situation from the intellectual point of view.
Those questions point out not only the falsity of their claims but also the amazing emptiness of their epistemology.
And I saw your face on the screen and I felt really sorry for you, I have been myself in this kind of situations (though not in public) a number of times. Yet, I lost my temper. You didn't. I wonder though what did you feel at the time. Did you feel you'd lost the battle 'cause you did not manage to make those people see that they are wrong? Or you just hope that the spectator will get the message anyway?

The first remark made on this page is "I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence". I also heard this one a few times. I am really curious how do you feel about this fake "compassion", this superiority the atheists get from the believers? I truly admire you but I know I wouldn't be able to do what you do for psychological reasons.

No amount of "debate" will ever bring closer both sides of this argument. While those of us who are unwilling to believe in a god construct our arguments using certain rules of discourse logic, believers base their arguments on self-sustaining faith. It is like having an argument over the telephone between an Arab speaker and a Mandarin one: agreement is highly unlikely.

I am bothered personally, though, by believers in this forum quoting from the book they call "the Holy Bible", as if this were the only "holy book" ever produce by men. What is the basis for the "Holy Bible' being superior to the Mahbarata or the Popol Vuh?

Uncertainty is a big word for Science and for Religion alike. Any Scientist finds God’s work in every aspect. Is there someplace where Science and Religion finds common ground?

Allan said: "Nothing is true. It’s only believing that makes it true."

Actually, a better quote is:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Dawkins is sharing with you all a very well-told version of what is indeed
THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD!!

He is not an evil man – he's very enlightened. Dawkins is simply looking at the trend from history, and projecting it forward:

The Sun – was a God, now explained by science
The Moon – was a God, now understood by science
The stars – were God, now science
The tides – were attributed to God, now science
The seasons – attributed to God, now science
Earthquakes – were God, now science
Lightning – was God, now science
Rain & drought – was God, now science
Health & disease – was God, now science
Schizophrenia – was demonic possession, now science
Epilepsy – was divine possession, now science
Origin of species – was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality – was the soul, now neuroscience
. . . . . and so on . . .

In addition, no story of ghosts/witchcraft/demons/possession has ever withstood scruitiny. There is ALWAYS another explanation (or too little information to conclude). Just ask Scooby Doo!

Supernatural/Divine explanations have 100% FAILED to explain natural phenomena – failed for 3000 years.

How much longer does the Supernatural/Divine have to fail before we finally give up and simply admit: natural phenomena have natural causes.

We may not yet know all the answers, but we have enough evidence to conclude that God is NEVER the answer to a scientific question.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
— Isaac Asimov

Believers come always with the same question "how was the universe created"?. O.K. it makes sense to pose such a question, but then it makes also sense to ask "who created god"? Believers answer: "he was always there". Fine, and what is the proof of their believe? No proof at all! O.K. then we atheist can say with the same right "the universe was always there". Religion is irrational. It is not only unnecessary but it is regularly the origin of evil. Some good good deeds are done in the name of God but a closer look shows the gooddoers did them because of their humanity and their altruism, not because of their believes.

I love this man. He's able to stand up in front up everyone & state his beliefs or dis-beliefs and be confronted with anger, hatred. It's odd where people cannot just shut-up and think 'Hey that's just his opinion'.
It's very sad to me that Atheists have to be so closeted because unless we believe in Jesus or God or that Jesus is God, we're wrong and not entitles to our own opinions, beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is my hero, so shut-up & just think 'Hey, that's her opinion'

Who fired up the 'Big Bang' ?

Go Dawkins!
So tired of religion being shoved down my throat by small minded people who can't think for themselves, so they have to have their hands held threw their whole lives.

Richard Dawkins is a genius, simple like that.

What was there before the big bang, 'nothing'? If God fired up the big bang how did he/her exist in 'nothing' if he/her did he /her must be about 13.5 billion years old. I'd rather believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Man created God in his image... because he was the first creature to evolve on earth to the point where he became aware of his own mortality.

Yes, it's very hard to live with the truth that we are mortal, so men and women continue to invent new Gods.

Yet as our knowledge of our environment and the universe progresses, it becomes more and more difficult for them to find valid arguments for their myth, so we see religious fanatics running planes into skyscrapers or killing abortion doctors: they're all the same.

Dawkins I have question. "Did LTTE people commit sucide bombing on religion" Also Maoist The way they are attacking india "What about that atheism?"

What the bleep is this now!!!! Seems like we are all going down the rabbit hole, aren't we?

Just curious...several commenters have posted the equivalent of "Where did the rules of science come from? There must be a god because they had to be created by someone." My question is, where did god come from? If it is possible that he had no beginning, why is it not possible that the natural laws that govern the universe have simply existed forever, without the intervention of some supernatural being?

God created the BIG BANG

It's interesting to me to see how often the topic of death, afterlife, hell, etc. gets brought up when believers are presented with an outspoken skeptic. They are hot to trot to get the deathbed conversion. I suppose they see nothing wrong with harassing a dying person to see if, in their last moments, their resolve weakens (to say nothing of actual mental faculties).

Perhaps for the sake of contrast, skeptics should seek out believers at their darkest moments a la Job, and cheekily inquire if their god-belief is shaken by their experiences. Would that be wrong?

Richard Dawkins is an ethologist, not an ethnologist. Ethologists are biologists who study animal behavior, ethnologists are anthropologists who study the characteristics of ethnic groups.

Well, there's your problem, Sandy. You feel the need to make up fictional stories to justify your existence. Some of us can accept existence on its own terms by recognizing that life is what we make of it. I think it's funny that you exclaim how "life is filled with wonder" while simultaneously feeling compelled to embellish it with myths. Plainly, you're the one who is missing out.

if actually , man evolved from apes,the process would 've been a continual one.we or our ancestors would have witnessed the continual evolvement of apes into humans.

If God doesn't exist because we can't see (or don't want to accept) Him, then we should apply the same logics everywhere else, and state that just because I have never seen Richard Dawkins, then he doesn't exist (and no, his face on my screen doesn't prove it does, just like an icon or a picture doesn't necessarily prove Jesus or God exist or ever existed).

To Allan You say "Nothing is true, it's only believing that makes it true" Are you serious? Do you want to say to us that believing that the Earth is flat makes the Earth flat indeed?

There is no credible evidence for God's existence, therefore God does not exist.

Faith, by it's very definition, is the antithesis of science. Faith requires one to believe with no evidence whatsoever. Science is based on hypothesis, experimentation, and learning the results. Whatever they may be. Science has a self correcting mechanism build into it. So we continue to learn more through scientific thinking. Religion is the way backward. Nothing to add, nothing new to take into consideration.

It is sad but religion is like a ball and chain for the mind. We need to let it go and break free to progress into the future at all. It did serve a purpose long ago when Humans were afraid of the unknown. It comforted us and gave us some kind of explanation. Why is the volcano expoding? God is angry.... We did something wrong. I'd say we can all agree by now why that is wrong. At least the sane ones can....

God lives in our heart and believing in God is someone personal issue. we as humans should not interfere in someone religion either he/she is atheist or religious. God is for everyone but specially for those who believes in it.

Why won't god heal amputees?

Sandy, you wrote, "
I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see."

You miss the entire point. A scientific worldview, Dawkins would argue is more wonderous than anything religion pretends to provide. At the least, science tells us something REAL.

Good Day Professor Dawkins

I agree with virtually all of your arguments in the God Delusion. However, I have one area where I feel that your argument is weak (although not necessarily wrong). That is the section where you discuss the use of the Anthropic Principle to explain the how the highly improbable first moment of "life" occured on Earth (and the origin of the eucaryotic cell as well).

From my simplistic understanding, you are essentially saying that because we are all here today alive on Earth, there must have been a statistical possibility – no matter how tiny – of this occuring and we're the living proof – literally. Therefore no God was required.

While this may well be a reasonable explanation, it is also a bit too convenient and could just as easily be used by supporters of a God, who could also claim that there is a God (which you find so improbable) because no matter how small the probability may be of God existing, we all got 'lucky' on Earth and that small God-giving probability came about here, and thereafter God created everything (including natural selection) after all.

So my question to you is: Is there any reason why the Anthropic Principle should not equally apply to an argument for a God instead of only applying to your reasoning for no God?

Kind regards
Cliff
Cape Town
S Africa

What a horrible article CNN, you should be ashamed. Don't you have individuals qualified to write about Science?

"will stop at nothing to provoke intelligent debate about the truth of our existence"

This doesn't even make any sense. It is unfathomable that anyone would argue about the "truth" of our existence. What does that even mean? What he does debate about is the existence of a diety. Are there no editors left in the world?

"offers scientific evidence to back-up his own theory of evolution"

As mentioned earlier, you are clearly incompetent. The "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory—like the Theory of Gravity. It isn't Dawkins' pet idea. He is simply a popularizer of this well-established area of Biology.

"don’t miss the opportunity to put Dawkins on the spot over his controversial views"

You have no shame. Dawkins' understanding of evolution is anything but controversial. Just as evolution isn't controversial to anyone involved modern science. Get with the program CNN. I expect something like this from Chuck Norris on worldnetdaily.com. Not on CNN.

Believers will never get it through their thick skulls that atheists can be moral, ethical beings who see the wonder in nature and are inspired by it. Just because we don't believe in your sky fairy tales does not make our existence any less (or more) important than anyone else's.

Ask where the bible comes from. When was it put down in writing? Where? By whom? Once you begin searching for the answers to these questions, you see that it's not a given that the bible is divine or divinely inspired.

Look at the history and the murkiness surrounding the so-called new testament – as well as the koran, the book of mormon and the other (ahem) holy books.

The thesis that god and religion are man-made look much stronger in light of history, to say nothing of science. People can and will believe what they want (need to). That's fine. Just please keep your religion out of our government and our schools.

Why is it the default position to believe a God or Gods are there in the first place. When I finally stripped myself of ignorance and looked with my reason I could not find any divine being. This of course doesn't mean there isn't one out there, but if such a being wanted our worship or wanted us to follow a set of rules, you would think they would be easier to find.

This is why I am an Atheist. The world can be explained by natural causes, both known and unknown. But even knowing how a rainbow is made doesn't diminish its wonder. Just because you are rational doesn't mean you look at the world through cold logical eyes.

Maybe we will find the fingerprints of God someday, and then I will believe God exists. But God would still have to prove to me that I need to worship or follow him. I have seen what blind faith does to people, and I am not going down that road.

Man will never know who God is until he has experienced Him,

doesn't matter who's right or wrong, we're not trying to settle a score here. it's about the true big question: does God exist or not. my answer (although doesn't count because that's just me!) is: yes there is a God.

Can I convince you using my personal experience of God that He actually exists? No. definitely not.

The only thing a person can do to know if God exists is to actually talk to Him & see if there is an answer. I personally did, & I got an answer, & now life makes so much sense (well again, just for me, since I have the experience not you)...

So no matter who you are or what it is that you think, just say to God: "God if you exist, show yourself to me, i have no reason to believe in you, if you truly exist, give me one"

I assure you, if you are sincere about this, you'll either not get an answer and your life will continue being the same, nothing injured.
If you do get an answer, I urge you not to look the other way, again it's not about who's right or wrong, not scoring. it's about the truth!

I am not trying to prove myself here. I'm just trying to show that we can't just sit around wondering for the rest of our lives if he exists or not!!

I mean this Dawkins guy seems like he wants to prove a point and he seems like the intelligent brilliant kind, but he's only human just like you and me & he might change his mind just because he walk up on the wrong side of the bed!!! I haven't read any of his books yet, so i can't say much in response to what he says.

blessings, Walid from Lebanon.

I don't think you can fault someone who makes us think, but maybe Mr. Dawkins has missed something. Let's consider why 80-90% of the world's population is religious...following evolutionary theory, this implies that it has been advantageous for us to be so. CNN did an article on "hard-wired for religion" some time ago. As Dalkins has said, at some point at least, it was advantageous for us to develop larger brains and greater intellect...for this continue, the most intelligent must be the most prolific. I think there is a lot more to the universe than meets the eye, generation after generation we think we have all the answers, only to find out later we were terribly wrong. Consider this "universe" we exist in, why if the cosmological constant varies by the smallest decimal, does the universe not even produce stars, planets, and lifeforms? I think it is still too early to rule out the existence of God.

i do not believe a thing of dawkin´s declarations because he wants to influence people to believe in him in order to sell more books but if god did not existed how could we explain the nature in our planet such wonders that are outstanding and the sciency is too developed do not you think they would have discovered other planet like earth?
ik the have not it means we are only all created by a god who is eternal and mercyful.
i believe in holy bible and in jesus as my savior i know it is through faith cause we do not see but we are sinners to see god, we do not deserve it meanwhile but it is nearing the time to do that.
if the theory of sciency is true how can mercury do not have life cause it is the nearer planet to the sun?
i believe in sciency and its benefits but when the topic is belief i totally say i praise the lord

Look on the bright side, when you die, you won't be able to miss your own existence. It's most likely no different than getting blacked out drunk. So remember, it's not about what you do to get into a good afterlife, it's about how much you improve THIS life for the others around you.

Correction please:

From the main article:

"Richard Dawkins [...] the British ethnologist, evolutionary biologist and author"

Richard Dawkins is NOT an ethnologist.
He's an ethologist, which is something quite different.

God, the imaginary friend for adults.

In a way I feel bad for those who need this sort of thing. But when they start imposing their beliefs on others, for example, through forced acknowledgments to a diety in The Pledge of Allegience or forced participation in silly "God Bless America" songs, I lose the pity and go into contemt and disdain. Religion and belief should be like a hobby and not imposed on others who aren't into that sort of thing.

I have just bought this book and am very much looking forward to reading it, as soon as I have finished Origin.

It is after all, this book we are reviewing, not the God Delusion, isn't it?

I have to say I am so surprised at the reaction to the christian American right wing to Richard Dawkins, somehow making him, and any other atheist out to be somehow evil for not believing in your god. There are many forms that gods have taken over the history of mankind. None any more provable than the last, so you have no proof that yours is any more valid than 'theirs' or that he is even there.

This book is about evolution, and RD admits that it doesnt disprove any god, in the view that a god may have caused the first life form to live, and evolution takes it from there. Evolution isn't about abiogenesis though.

I think it is a crying shame that one of the worlds most powerful countries is having its scientific knowlege stunted by the fear ot upsetting the countries religious right wing, and I say that as an English person, where such matters are not so political, thankfully.

You all need to wake up, or your country will be one of the poorest educated in the world. And your god will not be there to help you, because he isnt real, sorry.

"Controversial views"?
Let's be clear.
Dawkins has no scientific views that are controversial. In biology there is absolutely no debate about evolution. It happens plain and simple and thousands of papers are published each year and none of them contradict the theory of evolution.
His view regarding the existence of god is controversial, but he is correct. There is no evidence for any sort of deity and there is no reason to believe in Shiva, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the One True Christian God that many of us would like to see out of the US government.

I am neither a scientist, nor a religionist.

As we do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe [cosmology] or life on Earth [biology] came to be, it naturally and universally falls upon the human imagination to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. (BTW, to you religionists out there, please quit conflating these two very separate disciplines.) The more is discovered, and the more we find good cause to accept the scientists' explanations [through education], the less we need to rely on bogeymen.

Religion relies on fear. Fear of the things those bronze-age wights did not understand. There's no excuse to consider either rainbows or lightning as deity-driven,....

Hah! The book was just delivered!

...but the various religionist club masters push that fear, coupled with ignorance. The most powerful thing that a motivator can accomplish boils down to mob psychology.

Time to read. Peace,out.

Where did the physical laws come from? Beats me. But if you say "god", then please tell me which god, and how you know this to be true.

"Life is mysterious, therefore Jesus". That doesn't really follow. Why not Zeus? Just because there are things we don't know, and may never know, it doesn't mean that we should accept anyone's explanation without some sort of evidence.

Sandy – you have read a different book.

Dawkins agrees with Darwin in that "there is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed, into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being, evolved"

nonbelief in god does not equate to a lack of wonder... quite the contrary actually.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Carl Sagan

As a physics major and a student of biology myself, I see no evidence for the hand of god or any intelligent designer in the universe or in biological life. The Universe and life can be explained by natural processes. No magic is required.

If people need to believe in the monotheistic gods or a deistic god for their own personal reasons so be it. Simply because someone finds comfort in belief is no reason to suggest that that belief is necessarily true.

I fear that religion although it may give some people a sense of fulfillment in their lives is the number one divisive force amongst humanity.

The Universe is wonderful enough without having to worry about fear of punishment or consume myself with the idea of rewards of heaven.

I believe in life BEFORE death.

i do not believe a thing of dawkin´s declarations because he wants to influence people to believe in him in order to sell more books but if god did not existed how could we explain the nature in our planet such wonders that are outstanding and the sciency is too developed do not you think they would have discovered other planet like earth?
if they have not it means we are only all created by a god who is eternal and mercyful.
i believe in holy bible and in jesus as my savior i know it is through faith cause we do not see but we are sinners to see god, we do not deserve it meanwhile but it is nearing the time to do that.
if the theory of sciency is true how can mercury do not have life cause it is the nearer planet to the sun?
i believe in sciency and its benefits but when the topic is belief i totally say i praise the lord

Dont even bother to argue with the god-bots. You cant have a rational discussion with irrational people.

Really....grown men and women who talk to imaginary friends and who still fear a bogey man.

These people aren't to be reasoned with. They are to be left alone up there on the hills they stand on, waiting for Gawd and Jebus to take them away.

I can't count how many times I've seen people say that they pity those of us who don't believe in God because it somehow voids life, love, art and beauty of meaning, mystery and importance. Let me say now that you all have it precisely backwards.

I believe in a world with no simple answers. How much grander, more elegant and fantastic is our lives if its every facet, from the rising of the moon, to the war in Iraq, to the shirt on your back has arisen from the chaotic life and death of ancient suns? Why is simply saying that God "made things this way" is a deeper more satisfying answer than the nigh incomprehensible assertion that we and all we hold dear is inextricably linked in a chain of boggling causality to the whole of creation?

How much more important is art and love and freedom if we are the very font of meaning in an otherwise indifferent Universe?

if actually , man evolved from apes,the process would ‘ve been a continual one.we or our ancestors would have witnessed the continual evolvement of apes into humans.

This is the dumbest thing I've read on the internet today.

I have no problem with God, as long as she has no problem with me.

The level of ignorance here is astounding. Keep your farie stories if you like, just don't try to make laws according to them and don't expect me to give you any more respect than if you told me you believed in dragons and unicorns. Respect must be earned. Show some evidence of your god and then I'll be impressed.

Religion is a poison.

There is no evidence for god. However, there is much evidence to demonstrate I am real. There is equally much evidence which demonstrates the universe exists. Therefore we can conclude we exist without god.

"In the absence of any proof, the thumb alone would convinced me of the existence of God" – sir Isaac Newton

I find it odd that a God would not allow adopted children to on average experience the same type of intense doting love lavished on them that natural born children do from their parents. A lot of adopted parents do a wonderful thing adopting children but cannot have the same intensity directed towards a genetic non-familiar as they do towards their natural born. You think a God would find their act so wonderful that he would grant them the same intensity, but alas they cannot. Also, in adults, romantic love is only directed towards the young and attractive. This makes a cold and impersonal universe more comforting than a malicious God.

Who ever wrote the text for "Connector of the Day: Richard Dawkins" has already started the coming event with a TOTALLY biased perspective of this man. Did he/she ever read the books, or Darwin's books? I doubt it.

Nice going CNN. Such honest and fair reporting.

His "own theory" of evolution? Wtf is that supposed to mean?

It's /the/ theory of evolution. He's not wading into any of the biology controversies with this book (unlike the Selfish Gene).

My question is this: Why in the world can't Christians learn how to spell or use appropriate punctuation? Coming across as an illiterate boob doesn't help your case.

I'm an atheist, but i'm also aware that the reason why i'm an atheist is because I live in a country that does not oppress my liberties and allows me access to all the information possible, allowing me to build my own point of view. The same thing cannot be said for most 3rd world countries. How do you convince someone that there is no god when it's the only thing they have to hold on to, the only hope they may have of a better day? Its not real, obviously, but hope is a powerful thing. I often wonder if I would like to know what I know were I living in some slum somewhere, or would i rather have the hope of a better life that only God could potentially provide.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god. There really isn't much more to say than that.

I largely share professor Dawkins' views on the non-existence of a personal god as described in the 'holy books' which to my mind can only be the product of the human psyche. A product, it must be said, which has been successfully used for centuries to enslave the minds of countless millions.

However I would like to hear his opinion of the idea or notion that reason may well not be the only epistemological tool we are equipped with as seekers of truth and knowledge. I would like to know what he feels about the idea that humans may have other strings to our mental bows of which perhaps the vast majority of us are as yet unaware. What are his thoughts on the evolution of human consciousness? Does he feel there are realities of the universe(s) and existence the perception and comprehension of which cannot be grasped with mere reason, but that would require man to make some kind of evolutionary quantum jump in consciousness in order to begin to be understood?

The next time an idiotic godbot tells me that someone dying a horrible death was "part of god's plan", I'm going to insist that this god person is charged with first degree murder – after all, he "planned" it, right?

EVOLUTION CANT BE RELATED TO GOD.

GOD IS A CONCEPT.
GOD APPEARANCE IN HUMAN WRIGHTINGS IS JUST A LOGICAL EXAPLANTION FOR ANY UNKNOWN
AND, EVEN TODAY, WE CANT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING

SO, IF YOU CANT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING,
WHY TO ARGUE AGAINST GOD (USING ANY THEORY)?

"...offers scientific evidence to back-up his own theory of evolution."
HIS ????? what about THE theory of evolution. Clearly the person that wrote this doesn't even even have a clue of that the theory of evolution is, or what a scientific theory is for that matter.

Thomas Henry Huxley PC FRS (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) was an English biologist, known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

I wasn't aware that Dawkins had been bestowed the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler".

I agree with Christopher Hitchens as well in his pronouncement that "religion poisons everything".

Since DNA is encoded information – where does the information come from? It has to come from somewhere – or someone who has the information.

If there is no God, then how is babby formed?

Having an open mind is a good and healthy thing but having an empty mind is hopless. If you are so intrested in claming that God does not exist, prove it. All I have seen and read is a lot of hot air. I feel sorry for you Dawkins. Where is your open mind or may be yours is one of those empty ones.

Mudasir,

"I don't know" is a good enough response. It's better than making stuff up.

The world is exactly as we would expect it to be if there were no gods. Good, bad and everything in between.

Looking to the Bible (or any other religious document written by men) for guidance on how to live is tantamount to reading GONE WITH THE WIND to garner facts about the Civil War. No reasonable person would do it. You can be spiritual without being compelled to believe in unprovable myths!

If you questions about the origins of the universe, laws of physics, etc with, "God did it," you might as well just say, "I don't know, I don't want to admit that I don't know, and I'm too lazy to try to find out."

Goddidit is one of those things that answers everything by explaining nothing. It's useless because it can be used to explain completely contradictory outcomes. If the earth is flat, goddidit. If the earth is round, goddidit. There's just no content to supernatural explanations of the natural world. There's no predictive power in it. There's no understanding, no meaning, no information to be gleaned from that mother of all cop-outs: goddidit.

From the article: "The fervent atheist and anti-creationist is often referred to as “Charles Darwin’s rottweiler."

Right.

Searching for “Charles Darwin’s rottweiler." on Google yields 5 hits, and one of them is this page. That is not responsible journalism.

I am without any God and have never been more content and happy with my life. It is really as simple as not needing fairy tales to survive anymore. I am also alright with not knowing exactly how the Universe began. I do know that it most likely wasn't started by some invisible unprovable all powerful God.

And everyone wonders why this world is in a crises both economically and naturally.

God is a concept, by which we can measure, our pain. I'll say it again: god is a concept, by which we can measure, our pain. And so, dear friends, you just have to carry on. The dream is over!

For John C White who thinks that all the gods of the world are actually the same god. Here is something to think about:

That would give a pretty schizoid deity. So presumably, Prometheus, having previously decided to help humanity by stealing fire (from himself, of course, since he is also Zeus), and having made great personal sacrifices out of his love for humanity, suddenly decided to manifest himself as Qetzatcoatl, and demanded that people murder thousands every night by ripping their hearts out. Then he turned into Thor and started smiting giants, before getting bored with that, and decided that he would fight on their side instead as Loki. He then turned into Set, and murdered himself (Osiris), before avenging himself as Horus. However, before he did that he became Isis, and resurrected himself (Osiris), but unfortunately he (Ra) wouldn't allow himself to stay in the land of the living, so he decided to rule over the land of the dead, with his son and self (Anubis) as the judge of the dead. He found ruling over the land of the dead rather lonely, so he turned into Hades and kidnapped himself (Persephone) so that he could be his queen. This caused him (Demeter) to be rather upset at losing himself (his daughter Persephone), and so he stopped his duties as fertility goddess in order to look for himself. This upset himself and himself and himself, because he was worried that the mortals would die and he wouldn't get any sacrifices from them. Fortunately he (Zeus) was able to negotiate with himself (Hades) and allowed himself (Persephone) to spend half the year with himself (Demeter) and the other half with himself (Hades). Then, after spending some time as the feminist goddess Artemis, he then became Yahweh and founded a mysoginistic religion.

The Trinity is crazy enough into combining only three gods into one – but it is quite rational compared to combining every god which has ever been thought of.

Some people need to believe there is a big invisible sky daddy who watches their every move. They simply can't think for themselves and form their own opinions based on reason. They are the ones shoving their beliefs down other people's throat to try to validate their choices. There is no god, simple as that. Now, stop worrying and start enjoying life.

Mr. Dawkins, what you mean exactly ,... claiming that God is a delusion, "our`s" or "God`s delusion"???

Richard Dawkins is a genius. Can't wait to get a hold of his new book.

"There is no credible evidence for God’s existence, therefore God does not exist. "

On the contrary. There is plenty of evidence in the living world that there is a DESIGNER. Ingnoring the evidence means IGNORANCE... And that's exactly what is happening in the last 100 years in the scientific world...

You know, you cannot put God in the tube and test Him in the laboratory, but you can take a look on His creation... And you can see a lot of things that points to the Ultimate Engineer...

I am in the process of completing a book to be titled – Humanity's Faulty Psychology Exposed. which will outline how god like everything else is a product of the brain – and of course were humans have got it totally wrong is we believe beliefs to be true set in concrete –
as soon as you believe something to be true i.e god, astrology, psychic powers etc you have in fact shut the brain down and continue to contribute to the dumbing down of the human race. Dawkins is an advocate of keeping the brain moving us in foward gear.

Really, people! Aren't you a little old to have imaginary friends?

@Cesar A. Manluco Jr. We Atheists ask the same thing? How can you possibly explain that there is a God, who was allegedly first brought to our attention by a bunch of desert dwellers who were mostly illiterate and who by all definitions is so complex that we cannot even find a single shred of evidence for his existense?

"Send us your questions and we’ll select the best ones to ask him."

Richard Dawkins, do you ever get frustrated with know-nothing Christian creationists who think they have a better understanding of biology than all the world's biologists?

As an atheist, I would like to state my word of thanks to Dawkins for his wonderful writing ~ I enjoy his reason and candor. As an American, I'm continually embarrassed by the ignorance in this country and the poll numbers like; only 39% "believe" in evolution. Wow, no wonder we are falling behind in this global economy!

Humans created god(s) and prophets so that the could make money and get power. If you did not pay taxes to the church in the dark ages, you were to be punished and to burn in hell.

Humans also use their beliefs in these fairy tales called the bible and koran etc. to think that theres a life beyond death and are therefor in the belief that they are essentially immortal.

If I had my way, the world would be rid of religious people all together. They just don't have the capability of critical thought, and thus are worth nothing but a life of meaningless labor.

Sandy Said: "I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see."

Hey Sandy, we don't need your pity. The universe is even more wonderful than your religion makes it out to be. We do just fine without a magical sky wizard, thank you very much.

God and religion are just extended superstitions. I believe its a civilization thing, as we learn more and progress more, there will be a day under the
Sun when God/religion will be seen as a thing of the past. However its a real pity that, that day may not come in our life time.

Really excited about watching Mr. Dawkins tonight, for us, the free thinkers, he is the God himself!

@ j reuben freeman "where did basic physical laws come from?"

Where did God come from? It's the same question really. You've just chosen to add another layer to it by introducing a fictional supreme being.

Do you know whats really full of wonder: evolution. Simple biological rules that have created so many amazing creatures and billions of years of natural history.
To me its much more amazing then your bible. That was written by "talibans" 2000 years ago and NOT BY GOD!!

Although I don't agree 100 % with RD's views, he still makes a lot of good points in his "God delusion".
People just want to believe in something because it often helps them through difficult times. But believe is just that. Througout history people believed (and even killed for these believes) in ideas that turned out wrong.
Believes are useless. Throughout time people believed in many ideas that eventually turned out wrong. People BELIEVED that the sun circles the earth, they BELIEVED that the earth is flat and the BELIEVED that other people are posessed by demons and burned them on the stake.
Even today, people kill for their believes !!!!!
In our modern time there is neither room nor need for believing in such idea as a god.

I feel the need to say my opinion in this so I will. I see religion merely as a coping mechanism for our natural fear of death. I think people cling to it because they are scared about death and about what happens afterwards. But this also leads people to not care enough about our current life, what is happening now. I can't remember where I got this from but some atheist once said Religion's heaven comes after life, as an atheist I want to make my world now my heaven. The idea of there being no God is scary, imagine people like murderers never getting punished for what they have done. Religion gives us the feeling that no matter what you do, someone will always be watching, you will always be held accountable for your actions, either now or in the afterlife. Either way I don't consider myself an atheist so much because there is no proof God doesn't exist but no single religion has given me substantial proof to think he does. I don't need religion to give me my morals.

@ Joe Farhat "I think this is a prime example of concealment. Who said that God did not set evolution on its course? Creation and especially man was not created to be a static being, but all is set in a state of change and progress."

I'm happy that you accept evolution, but why are you inserting an unnecessary component (God) into the explanation?

If it wasn't for what religion has done to retard human progress, we could be having this debate on Mars.

Richard Dawkins has completely misunderstood science. Very sad indeed.

Even if there was a "creator" in the beginning, that created the universe, there's no reason to believe we know his/her/its thoughts. Thousands of religions have claimed this over the centuries. They all conflict to the point where it's safe to say that the people are making it all up. Wishful thinking, if you will. Even within Christianity, there is confliction. How many denominations are there? Why? Because god is a man-made concept!

who fired up the big bang? why does there have to be a "who?" No need to anthropomorphize physics, friend.

And let's say god did create the universe... if you can't get something from nothing, where did he get the stuff to create the universe WITH?

Okay, here is one nugget of knowledge that I will share with the other commenters in the hope that it will save a lot of wasted effort:

If you make an argument of the form: "X is so complex and wonderful, it must have been magic/God", you are committing a fallacy called an Argument From Ignorance. So, if you are tempted to do this, please take a deep breath and restrain yourself, and try to come up with something logically sound to share instead.

We Atheists can tolerate other types of belief, until it gets printed on our money, and until we are changing the original pledge and putting the word god in it. We tolerate it until our ex-president bush creates a faith based initiatives program which funnels money ONLY to religious entities.
I could go on and on about how religion steps on my life, but you must first understand and agree that we have a secular constitution (we are not a christian nation) *please see: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god

Christians are ok with violations of church and state. I have heard it in politics from Palin to Huckabee to the old mayor of NY. Wonder how they will feel about a seperation of church and state when muslims dominate our population, or when the catholic church becomes the default denomination?

Christians, Atheists, Humanists, Muslims need to group together and join the freedom from religion foundation to stop this lack of seperation. Sorry for the spelling, I have to be quick.

Please, keep in mind that science is not in contradiction to faith. Many top scientists believe in God, even Charles Darwin did. However, what is in contradiction to science is demagogy of any kind.

ethologist, not ethnologist

Mel September 22nd, 2009 1800 GMT

If God doesn’t exist because we can’t see (or don’t want to accept) Him, then we should apply the same logics everywhere else, and state that just because I have never seen Richard Dawkins, then he doesn’t exist (and no, his face on my screen doesn’t prove it does, just like an icon or a picture doesn’t necessarily prove Jesus or God exist or ever existed).

Then what you are denying is not the person but your own expectations of what photographs, videos, books written by the author mean. Athesit do not believe in God(s) b/c there is no direct evidence of a God(s). The fact the universe is here is only proof of the universe existing nothing more... mostly on this comment feed the best people are coming up with is the God(s) of Gaps theory... we don't know how it all began so it must be God(s)

@Lime,

1) Do you think Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judiasm will eventually die out like the Ancient Egyptian Religion and Classical Greek Religion did? Why haven’t they died out yet?

Nothing lasts forever. The four major religions certainly bare little resemblance to what they were in the years they were founded and could hardly be considered the same at all. The religions will evolve with society and will likely die out.

2) If irrefutable evidence was found that a supreme being of the universe existed, what religion would it have most likely founded on earth, if any?

Add up all the religions that have ever existed, plus, and take the reciprocal. That is your probability.

3) Is atheism a truly scientific stance to take in matters of religion? Isn’t agnosticism a more scientific stance, which has been taken by scientists like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein?

Atheism is not a scientific stance. It is a statement. The statement is: You have not provided any evidence for the existence of any God or Gods, there is no reason, therefore, that the God you purport should exist.

Agnosticism is not a scientific stance. It is a waffling philosophical stance and does not rely on science.

Carl Sagan was an Atheist, Albert Einsteit was, if anything, a pantheist. Stephen Hawking? I don't know. However, none of them have brought forward evidence that a God might even exist and you mention their names and mine their quotes relying on the authority of their names. Does that ring any logical fallacy bells?

Dawkins lays out time and time again why it's really delusional to believe in things that have no validity to it. What else would you call belief in things that are contrary to reason? Delusional!

Wow, it's raining fallacies like there's no tomorrow from people trying to argue for the existence of their gods.

And the majority of these fallacies do not even come close to arguing for the specific god they believe in, at best, these are almost all arguments for Deism, not any particular (personal) god.

While a discussion on religions can be interesting, it really would help if people would put a bit more thought in their arguments. Nobody is coming here to hear preaching, yet, with these arguments, that's all that non-believers are getting.

question for Dawkins...

when will these xtian nutjobs go extinct?

miediakumo T. A. September 22nd, 2009 1758 GMT

if actually , man evolved from apes,the process would ‘ve been a continual one.we or our ancestors would have witnessed the continual evolvement of apes into humans.

___________________________
Couple of items here, Man is an Ape we are one of the Great Ape, along with Chimp, Bonobos, Orangutangs etc...

We did not evolve from Apes, the we and the current apes all evolved from a common ancestor.

miediakumo T.A.: "if actually , man evolved from apes,the process would ‘ve been a continual one.we or our ancestors would have witnessed the continual evolvement of apes into humans."

Er...no. We didn't evolve from the apes of today, we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. They are our cousins, not our ancestors. You don't understand evolution.

The fact that one ape (humans) has evolved in this way does not mean that all apes will. Not all birds are the same, so why would you expect all apes to be?

The times are a-changin'.....
I find it rather amusing that the American population, whatever the percentage, can see the lies brought forth by such controversial topics, such as health care, 9/11, the bush administration, watergate, etc,..and voice their concern with the power of rallies, protests, media outlets, and so on,but back up over-the-top religious claims with utmost urgency, sometimes resulting in violent behavior, whether it's physical (killing of abortion doctors) or verbal (threatening with the wrath of god). Both believers and non-believers will never have the final word.

We should just agree to disagree. After all, you're right, I'm right.
What's wrong, is not for the both of us.

If you ask a mathematician if the number zero exists, he will likely respond that the perfect zero does not. You can get extremely close to zero, to 'nothing', to an empty and void number that has absolute no value, but never to a perfect zero.

An atheist by definition believes in a perfect zero. That evolution, from absolute nothing, was created by biological and astronomical transformations. But something must have triggered that transformation and the gap between absolute nothing and the very first cell I believe is God.

Mel: "If God doesn’t exist because we can’t see (or don’t want to accept) Him, then we should apply the same logics everywhere else, and state that just because I have never seen Richard Dawkins, then he doesn’t exist (and no, his face on my screen doesn’t prove it does, just like an icon or a picture doesn’t necessarily prove Jesus or God exist or ever existed)."

God doesn't exist not because we don't see him but because there is no evidence whatsoever for his existence. Evidence is what counts.

There is quite a lot of evidence that Dawkins exists, other than photos.

And you are right. A PICTURE doesn't necessarily prove existence. A PHOTO or VIDEO however (provided it has not been tampered with and is not ambiguous) can.

Religion tends to comfort those who seek it but divides the world. The merchants of religions with recycled merchandise from God`s graveyard control the masses and slave the believers. Religion is a social drug. For those who seek the higher avenue of
sprituality, "God" is within, so is the "Devil"; that is why they are omnipresent: they are everywhere you go because they are inside of you. "God" as such is not delusional. Looking for eternal life? Life is a process and is already eternal. Just do Good.

You can not have an argument when there is no reason, also god and religion believers won't get into the discussion because they know they can not prove that god exist, instead they tell you they feel bad for atheists hoping for their holy something to forgive them, yeah whatever!!!

Mostly what we atheist want is to have religion out of government, public schools, military, etc... a secular state!

And taxes should not pay for religious organization either.

in your new book do you reveal anyting new about evolution that hasn't previously been presented?

I do not believe in anything for which there is no empirical evidence, including this so called "God."

Behind all this partially understood scientific theories that stop right at the point where five human senses can't go further, i believe that some where at a lonely place Mr.Dawkins would be praying for GOD to bestow upon him all the knowledge that he and others like him just can't reach and can't even begin to comprehend when he sees GOD's creation at work. But what can you expect, when you believe that you descended from apes, i suppose understanding GOD would be too much of a mental work.

Isn't it enough to know a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies behind it?

in response to: When I look at all the artworks around the World, I see that the most magnificent statues, paintings, music, etc, were inspired by one theme : God and His Love for us, poor humans. If all that is a delusion, Art, fraternity, love, self-sacrifice for others, all that becomes void. This is just Impossible ! God is rooted inside us, whomever we are, wherever we live.

If we had chosen to believe the tall tale about pecos bill creating the grand canyon by riding a puma through it . . . i contend all the architecture and music would be about him instead of the tall tale the world seems to have glommed on to.

"God created the BIG BANG"

And who or what created god? And which god? Zeus? Allah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

God and religion are just extended superstitions. I believe its a civilization thing, as we learn more and progress more, there will be a day under the Sun when God/religion will be seen as a thing of the past. However its a real pity that, that day may not come in our life time.

Really excited about watching Mr. Dawkins tonight, for us, the free thinkers, he is the God himself!

My favorite are the people leaving Bible quotes as comments. Yeah, you'll win us heathens over that way, by spouting off nonsense from your magical book.

Dawkins is brilliant. He never claims to have the answers to the universe, but doesn't believe that some human-like magical man in the sky created in either. Science doesn't have all the answers, but that's because human technology is not advanced enough yet. Earth is insignificant in the universe as a whole, and that is too scary for people. They close off their minds and stop thinking, using religion as a security blanket.

The argument that almost all cultures have religion doesn't mean that god/gods are real. If a billion people believe in a stupid idea, it's still a stupid idea. I can't believe that in this age of technology and scientific advancements, it's still taboo to be an atheist and that elected officials can't outwardly declare themselves atheists. Religion is still part of the swearing in ceremony for presidents in the US, a country that is supposed to pride itself on the separation of Church and state. It's sad, really. The leader of the free world has to believe in an invisible sky zombie.

Question for Mr. Dawkins: I know you have fielded questions regarding your delivery of your message before, but my question regards the masses that you move to come out and state their Atheism/Agnosticism. Do you fear the zeal for Atheism, by its followers, will give the wrong message and have a negative impact towards main stream acceptance? I ask because, as an Atheist and fan of your writings, I feel like I speak louder about "the message" thus becoming more like those fervent supporters of Christianity and other religions. Is this your hope?

Life IS filled with wonder, and science doesn't belittle that in the least. For me, it only adds to the wonder–the "magic" if you will–of the world as it explains pieces of it and show us how much more we have yet to learn.

I'm also saddened, and kind of confused, by how many people feel so strongly that they need a religion, or religious book like the Bible, to behave morally or to have meaning in their lives. I don't need a sky daddy to tell me that stealing and harming others is wrong, bad for individuals, and bad for society. Common sense and a look at the big picture (mess with your neighbors, and they'll probably mess with you) is plenty to be a moral, contributing member of the community.

I view this life as all we have, and so I treasure it, and the time and quality connections with family, friends, work, nature, and all the marvels that surround us. Compassion is important to me, since there won't be a second chance to get things right.

Just this atheist's two cents.

"Mr. Dawkins, do you think that the theory of evolution has an influence on the issue of God's existence from a philosophical perspektive (not the "scientific" one)?"

What is your favorite argument against religion?
Do you believe religion could co-exist if they were more tolerant towards 'non-believers'?

God is a lie. Long live REASON.

It's nice to see someone argue for thinking rather than believing. Pathetic that I even have to write the previous sentence. The fun thing about arguing for the ability to argue instead of follow is that it sets so many followers afoul and aflame.

"I had a near death experience and consciously saw my own body lying on the floor. "

I have temporal lobe epilepsy and when I have a seizure I sometimes have the same thing happen. It's really cool but it isn't because there is a god.

Prof. Dawkins,

Do you feel that the format of requesting questions from anonymous internet readers attracts a higher percentage of credulous idiots than other methods?

A couple great concepts that I was told when I was little that deals with both the concepts of evolution and creation....

1) To question anything is to questions God's own design, his own will, is OWN plan.

2) Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night; God said, Let Newton be! and all was light. – Alexander Pope, 'Epitaph: intended for Sir Isaac Newton'

Are we truly meant to know the answer? or are even anyone of these ideas the right ideas?

I like questions....not answers ,-)

Come on. Even the brightest minds believe in a higher being. Take Albert Einstein as an example. Science won’t explain anything and neither will religion. Either of the two will have cover to the blanks of each belief.

@Orlando

There are certain quantities that can be zero, and there are certain quantities that can't be zero. As far as life coming from nothing, no scientist says that. What they say is that life arose from existing chemical and physical processes in a young earth. Evolution says that once those processes were able to catalyze and self replicate, life arose. There is no process yet which shows God working. There are no processes that have shown God to have placed a hand. You can speculate all you want, but when it comes down to hard science with real data, God is unnecessary and just not found.

For an example of a true zero quantity: The number of black holes that people have fallen through in the past hour.

I have an actual question to ask (not in any way related to God's existence, I'm sure Mr Dawkins will be pleased to know).

I realise it's not his area of expertise, but Dawkins refers several times in his books to the "fine-tuning" of the universe, that is to say that the conditions of the universe appear so perfect for life that the laws and fundamental constants could not have occured by chance. (For example, if the neutron:proton mass ratio or the cosmological constant were slightly different, then the universe would not be inhabitable).

My question is, while I can see that a slight change in the fundamental constants might cause, say, stars not to form, and thus render our universe uninhabitable, how is it possible to tell what would happen if several of these constants were quite radically different? I remain unconvinced that there is only a narrow range of possible universes that could support some form of life.

While many of those who have posted here, and believe in God, have kept a relatively civil tone, don't any of you hardcore "Faithers" realize that you are losing today's poll? I disagree that this is an argument that has no impact.

I was raised Catholic in a tight community. While I enjoyed the moral fiber instilled by my faith, I quickly found I disagree on the hypocritical policy of "loving thy brother" while promoting discrimination of homosexuals, calling them "evil"

This skepticism was only further fueled by the religious talk–anti-homo in nature–around the family at Christmas and Thanksgiving get togethers... Even though my cousin is openly gay...

College was the final straw in renouncing my faith. I learned of the atrocities that were carried out in the name of religion. Most close to home for me was the slaughter of Latin American culture. My ancestors had Catholicism forced on them quite brutally. Why should I celebrate that? If this is the work of God I want no part of it.

Anyway, those of you unable to open your mind: maybe it's time to switch your "news" source to FOX.

I am an atheist who strongly appreciates the light shone on theism and theocracy by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Coyne, Myers et al. But, like them, I am also a religious pluralist committed to freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) in the SECULAR democracy of the United States of America, founded as it was by nontheists who established the wall of separation between church and state. Secular government is now the sole standard in modern countries, even as theocracies around the world continue to crush the liberties of "their" subjects.

These rights of protection don't give the religious carte blanche to do anything, though, and, having emphasized that nobody is trying to take your beliefs way, I would ask the following of you religious, and predominantly Christian, Americans:

1. Your religious beliefs, however inane or unsupported by evidence they may be, are constitutionally protected, and their expression in churches is tax exempt and favored at all turns. So please don't make out like you're the oppressed one. When Dawkins or his American counterparts criticize religion, they are exercising freedom of speech against centuries of religious taboo, stigma and one-way reasoning. Religion enjoys a uniquely priveleged position in America but nothing can or should shield it from the same kind of criticism that other ideas, like political or scientific ones, receive every day.

2. Please respect the wall of separation and keep religion fully out of our government, including our schools and biology classes. It is part of constitutional law that we do so. I would also ask that you stop voting for individuals for public office on the basis of their "faith", when the evidence is vast that many self-proclaimed theists in government are chronic hypocrites when it comes to their own ethics, and there is zero evidence that theism leads to good officialdom.

3. Please think about the common slander that says that atheists and secular institutions cannot be moral, even attempting, ludicrously, to link them to the actions of Hitler (a Roman Catholic, incidentally) or Stalin (an authoritarian nutjob). The evidence actually points to the contrary (compare crime rates or infant mortality in Sweden or Denmark with that of the US, for example, or explain why prison populations are, on average, much more religious than the general population, rather than full of atheists as they should be). Atheists can be, and are, at least as moral as a group as the religious and the churches get away with a shocking slander when they push the myth that we are not.

If you can take this on board, we can all live together nicely.

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question His wisdom?

Believers – doesn't it bother you that you put more logical thought into choosing a car than you do in choosing a god? Dawkins asserts that forcing your children into your religion is a form of child abuse. Once indoctrinated, there is so much guilt about extricating ones self from the fold. Isn't your religion about free will? Teach your children, but let them make their own decision.

Debating the existence of god is a complete waste of time. Until you can prove your god exists, keep your religion out of my government!!!! I am sick of politicians making policy based on bronze age gibberish. For years I sat idly but no more. Focus on your own family and stay away from mine!!!

BTW, What is it with yahweh that he has such a fetish for foreskins.... It's clearly delusional....

To anyone who floats comments like, "So where did the laws of nature come from, huh?. A creator necessary to establish these primal criteria..."

While this line of reasoning sounds appealing, it makes no sense under scrutiny. And that's why Dawkins has tried to make this point clear: to envision something gradually gaining in complexity (matter>atoms>elements>cells>RNA>life) is a vastly better explanation than just asserting that everything was created by a vastly complex being–whose origins would be massively more unlikely....

i

The question keeps coming up:
"How can the thousands of millions of variables necessary for the initial creation" be explained without reference to a superior mind mind guiding the process"?
I propose the following:
According to the latest scientific theory, the on-going creation of all things began, possibly with the 'Big Bang', thousands of millions of years ago. Each step of the increasingly complex system can be considered to have taken x processes; let us consider that x+y successful "accidents" to the system are necessary for a minutely altered system to replace the preceding one.
Just as we really cannot truly envision the number of light years one would have to travel to traverse the universe, an impossibly large number, just so, we are not equipped to comprehend a length of time measured in billions of years. Hell! We think that the history of civilization, measured in a few thousand of years, is inconceivably long.
Development during that time, what the religious can only believe as a God driven miracle, natural mathematical statistics allow for the creation of everything now existing and all that once existed but is no more.
Just so the evolution of life on Earth, again according the the latest scientific evidence, began some nine to ten thousands millions of years ago.
If "accidents" were caused only by the intense radiation emitted by radioactive nuclei over the entire face of the earth, one might conservatively estimate that at least 100 changes per second must have occurred to the many, many different atomic structures that existed even on the barren, lifeless, rocky surface of a three-thousand million old virgin Earth. Of course one might add the accidental chemical changes caused by the lava flows erupting from the still extremely hot molten core of the earth, or other changes from a list too long to bother with.
So then, given only 100 accidents of all kinds per second, one can estimate that 31,536,000,000,000,000,000, or 31.5 quintillion changes were made during those first ten billion years.
Even given that not all the changes resulted in permanent changes to the status quo, can anyone really say that he or she fathoms what that means.
We are hard wired to comprehend 24 hours. Perhaps in some fashion, the body of a woman apprehends the 28 day merry-go round of the menstruation cycle. But other than those two elements, all other measures of time are conventions made up in order to regulate our lives; the second,minute,hour, week, year, decade and century, etc., etc., etc. measure things outside of our natural perception.
I maintain that, in not naturally comprehending what billions of years mean in terms of evolution, most of mankind, and more than others, true believers, are incapable of recognizing that natural miracles are a sufficient explanation of everything; God is not necessary to start, maintain, or much less complete the wonders of the universe.

I haven't read his new book, but I would like to soon. I would however, simply like to respond to a previous comment that stated someone was sorry for Dawkins and that the life of an atheist lacks a sense of wonder. While I can't address the particulars of the book I can say that while I was raised a Lutheran I quickly changed paths and became disillusioned with the church. In science there is wonder beyond the doctrine of religion. Science is vibrant and alive, every day a new discovery may be made. While we may never have the answer some of us seek, it is the quest that makes our lives worth living, as each piece of this infinitely complex puzzle is put into place it fills me with a joy that no religion ever could. To stare into the vastness of space and to see mystery is to be human, even if the puzzle is never completed and the answer is never found the mere thought that perhaps time and space truly is infinite fills me with hope and wonder. In short, as an atheist I love life and know that every moment is beautiful and precious, if I should die tomorrow I have no regrets, I need not fear hell nor worry about weighing my sins against good deeds, I only need know that I lived, was happy, and in my existence made other people happy. Perhaps in the infinity of time or the uncertainty of time, I will exist again or perhaps not, but I know with 100% certainty that atheists are not empty people and our world can and should be as wondrous as that of any religious person's.

Jesus Christ got it right when he said 'with God, nothing is impossible', although not in the way He meant. The basic law of the universe (or universes) is, 'it is impossible for there to be nothing'. (Yes this is an old idea but it seems to be the most satisfying.) All physical laws must conform to this and it is partly reflected in the word for God that translates 'I am'. It implies that the correct form of Einstein's equation must not allow the null solution. Since it is impossible to define God (everything ?, the set of all sets ? – a mirage) Professor Dawkins cannot know Who (the 'I am') he is talking about. (Just my thoughts.)

I think religious people should be referred to as D.A.F.T .an apt name for someone suffering from a Delusionaly acquired faith trauma .don’t you think!

Assuming this comment isn't buried.....

@sandy, I read comments like yours, and I feel sorry for the people that wrote them. What you don't realize is that all of these magical, mystical things you think can't be explained, usually CAN be explained by science. Science is everywhere, in everything, you need to stop being so closed minded and realize that.

God and religions are two different things. God has nothing to do with religions, but religions have everything to do with god, all kinds of gods. Where there are religions, there is no peace or harmony on Earth.Christians against Christians, Irish Catholics against British Protestants; Muslims against Muslims, Iraqui Sunnis war against Iranian Shittes; Pakistani Muslims war against Indian Hindus; Israeli Jews war against Palestine Muslims and so on ,indefinitely
The ultimate freedom for mankind is the liberation from all kinds of religions, cults and sects
Religion is the root and source of all conflicts and wars, the Crusade, The Holy war, the Jihad, the Catholic Inquistion and murder of heretics and doubters, and the terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine
and the recently ended civil war in Ceylon between Buddhist and Hindus.
Socrates was given Hemlock, because he question the religion of the time; Jesus was crucified because he was against the religion of that time, Buddha question the religious practice of that time and so will many and so with every enlightened individuals.
Sadly and unfortunately, new dictatoial religions replace the old religions andmade every human a sheep, tamed, obedient and domesticated to be lead by a shepherd.

Actual question for Professor Dawkins:

I am a huge fan of yours, but the people in this country who deny evolution see you as the enemy. What makes you think they will actually read a book written by you?

@sandy and any theist's response:

If the world were up to you, we'd still believe the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe. Wonder has nothing to do with blind faith and everything to do with wonder. Just because I don't believe in something I can attribute the universe's wonder to, doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

Religion is man made, obviously. Which is why for the most part, it doesn't work! This has nothing to do with God, who has given us free will, and the world to darkness in a 6 day test (6 days = 6000 yrs). From Adam 'til Abraham 2 days, from Abraham 'till Jesus another 2 and another 2 days 'till current day. The majority of the media and films, books and documentaries over the past 5 years have reprogrammed humans to "not" believe in God. Scientists have not yet discovered the quantum physics associated with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, how then can they rule out that God miraculously put these souls into these vessels, or capsules we call bodies.

Dinosaurs and millions of years of evolution fit perfectly into the history of the world, but this does not negate the fact that God created his children in His own likeness, to rule this planet for 6 days.

Atheists are blinded by limited human understanding of science. Remember that scientists are only students of merely some of the awesome creations of God.

@Sandy, yeah, definitely better to just make things up to keep like mysterious and interesting...

Dr. Dawkins, if God did not exist, then why did you need to combine your "delusions" in a whole book to prove it.
As for sceintific evidence, pls dont forget ...... two sides to a coin.

It is as simple as this...... there is only one God..... "La illaha illa Allah"

Gods are just another childish fairy-tale that we, as a species, are long overdue to outgrow.

There is PRECISELY the same amount of evidence for each of the following:

- An intelligent designer set off the Big Bang and sat back to watch it all unfold.

- A Christian Biblical God created the Earth in a great flash in 4004 BC, in October.

- A giant Mbombo vomited up the heavens and Earth to relieve his stomach ache.

There are people that believe completely in each of these. These myths have equal evidence, equal validity, and equal merit.

But as history has demonstrated consistently for 3000+ years, there are:

- things that can be explained by natural causes; and
- things that have not yet been explained by natural causes.

The garden is no more beautiful if you imagine fairies at the bottom, and our reality is no more amazing if you imagine an invisible deity.

If you're not satisfied with reality, you're not looking closely enough at it. Read Dawkins – he looks closely at reality and truly appreciates it. Let him help you appreciate it too.

I find it funny how some fanatics here try to pose their subjective opinions as evidence. Anyway, no one really knows where all this shit [everything] came from. Of course, an Atheist like myself simply admits that fact, whereas some religious always seem to think their unproven faith equals knowledge greater than any amount of research.

Oh, and can the religious people please stop using arguments from authority. And about Albert Einstein:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." – Albert Einstein.

Why are you still looking for a way to "justify" you're existence? Life is filled with wonder and while the imagination is quite an amazing thing, wonder isn't produced by closing your eyes... it's produced by opening them to the nature around us. It was science that showed us that the earth revolved around the sun and religion that dogmatically refused to believe such "heresy". What we choose to look for is truth and that is justification enough for our existence, that journey, that search. You think you've already found the truth but that is your delusion.

Interesting...that so many stating that they do not believe in God feel it necessary to go further and denigrate others who do. Religions do not start or fight wars, people do. Evil people use religion as their tool...evil is simply self serving behaviour. Seeing there is no evidence of altruism in any of these arguments...Dawkins is right, we are actually becoming less intelligent

"... don’t miss the opportunity to put Dawkins on the spot over his controversial views."

His views are not controversial. They are rational. They are well thought out. They are NOT controversial.
An invisible bearded universe daddy who takes credit for human ingenuity and authors a book describing how he has ordered millions killed for not worshipping him is controversial.

I find it funny how people deny the existence of God. Like someone said before, where did the laws of physics come from? From the big bang theory, a point mass of infinite density exploded. So, where did the this point mass come from, did it always exist? So I find it funny that people can believe in an object that somehow existed forever rather than a God that existed forever.

Bravo Professor Dawkins! The God Delusion was an excellent book, even if a bit misunderstood by those not used to approaching their religion from the lens of science. I suspect we'll be seeing more from Dawkins and other atheists as the years go by. Excellent!

To people who ask where the laws of nature come from, it is actually not much of a problem. Most of the laws can be explained, even many of the most basic laws. For example, the inverse square laws of gravity and electromagnetism follow from the fact that space is three dimensional. The conservation laws of energy, momentum, angular momentum and electric charge follow from the fact that there is no special point in time or space, and no special direction.

So, there is no need to invoke any of the gods to explain it. But even if you think a god made them, you still haven't actually explained how they came to be the way they are, so the god hypothesis explains absolutely nothing.

Dawkins is controversial only because he makes far more sense than millions of pastors, priests, ministers, tele-evangelists, charlatans and shamans ever do.
When I look out the window, I see a world filled with wonder, beauty, and diversity, but also, a natural world filled with predators, parasites and pathogens. It's a world that is far better explained by discovering natural causes than by conjuring up a mythical entity.

"His own theory of evolotion"? The theory is not Dawkins's. He's just done a good job of explaining it.

Also, it's "ethologist" not "ethnologist".

Is dropping out of high school a requirement for CNN editors now?

Our advice to Mr.Dawkins is that his answer concerning our creation is found in The Holy Book (The Qur'an).

To all the folks quoting the Bible, I'll just say that reading the Bible cover to cover three times got me on the road to atheism. The Biblical god is a really nasty, petulant bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.

Christians tell me that if I don't believe in their god then I'm going to hell. A "loving, benevolent" god would give me eternal punishment if I don't believe in it? What an jerk he is. Any god that sadistic isn't worthy of my belief.

Please don't tell me there is no god.

I was touched by god as a youngerster..

Touched by His Noodly appendage.

Long live FSM !!

i think this guy is great. he tries to make people think instead of just going with a fairy tale

Surely Richard Dawkins deserves to judge himself by his own criteria? He claims religion (especially Christianity) is a delusion, foisted on the world by bigoted fanatics. I picked up a copy of "the God Delusion" and (as someone holding a Masters degree in Biblical Studies) I found his comments on the Bible riddled with factual errors. there were more errors in 1 chapter of text than he was able to identify in the whole Bible! He has been challenged on these errors in his book, and has refused to correct them, justifying his attitude by saying that "you don't need to get all the details right to know that your general argument is valid". So if religion is a delusion, Mr Dawkins, foisted on us by fanatics, what should we conclude about your form of atheism?

Sandy, I feel sorry for you that your understanding of science is so narrow that you don't see the wonder in it.

For the last word on this subject, how about a dash of H.L. Mencken?

http://www.donparrish.com/EssayMencken.html

It is encouraging to see that such a large percentage (66% as I'm typing this) are sane enough to realize that there is no invisible guy living in the clouds.

Someone left a comment about art and how it was; "all inspired by god and it is beautiful". Obviously this person has not actually seen much art inspired by religion. Visit Europe and see it sometime. See the paintings of people being murdered. Woman, children, old & young being beheaded. Beautiful art... not! Let us also not forget those that were hired by the church to paint had to paint religious scenes otherwise it was off with their own heads!

Richard Dawkins by the way is almost sure there is no god. He is not so arrogant to make a claim as there is no god without any proof which is exactly what delusional religious people do. They are certain there is a god with no proof... that is arrogant.

Science consists of questions that may never be answered.
Religion consists of answers that may never be questioned.

As long as I have lived, Christians have made sure that I understand these simple facts: Christianity has NO place for people who aren't Christians. If you cavort with the hell-bound, you're joining them, in that religion. Regardless of how humane a person is, if they're not Christians, that's it. They're eventually going to burn in the Christian hell. Christians use the good ideas of humanists while ignoring the overriding point of humanism, which is that humans should help humans, and not a god.

Religion is a scam. All religions, all denominations. One look at world history should make Atheists out of everyone who takes that look, but sadly religion still stunts millions of minds.

Atheism is the ultimate liberation: Freedom of the mind.

Well Professor Dawkins certainly has his biological accolades and have given much to the scientific field. As far as I can tell, however, his expertise ends at philosophy. If christians and other theists believe that Dawkins and Hitchens(who I am a fan of) are the pinnicle of modern atheistic thought and give the best arguments that atheists have, well they are quite mistaken. Youtube alone is filled with people like myself that consistently debate religion and offer more consistent arguments than Dawkins does. Again, his contributions to science should not be dismissed but his philosophy is lacking.

The one single difference between an atheist, and someone who believes in any religion is .. RATIONALISATION ! .. atheists accept common sense and science, religiously inclined folk accept " faith " and books written during the stone age ! Religion deserves to be scorned and ridiculed, it's the bane of a sane mind in this era of discovery and enlightenment.

Good discussion here !
It's funny though, we talk about god existing or not, but nobody here actually defined god.
From my experinece, people have very differing ideas what god might be.
"god" is just a word. To give it meaning we have to define it. For some, God is a old man with beard sitting in heaven (hopefully there are not too many of those believers around), for others god is simply the source of everything there is.
So what actually is the definition of god ?

As someone who is a PROUD Atheist, I am happy to be without superstitions. Here are some of the reasons why;

I don't think that my life is barren without a "God", I find my life to be worth MORE because I know that there is no afterlife. Reasons to live? I have dozens. From reading a new scientific discovery to reading the latest in the funniest webcomic, I live to the fullest.

I don't think some supernatural force is behind disease, it's germs, microbes or some deficiency of the body that can be remedied to, and we keep finding out better ways.

I am happy, that I don't have some archaic rules telling me that women are inferior to me. I can appreciate a lady for being a fellow human being, not the "weaker sex".

I am happy that I don't have to go to church and pretend to like the people that go there, because of what might happen if I DON'T do so.

I am happy that I can see how far humanity has gone, from simple relatives of the chimpanzee, to being an almost space-faring race of sentient humanoids.

And there are more, all of it godless.

W01f

I do not believe in god. I have not seen a shred of sufficient evidence for one. I therefore have no logical reason to believe that one exists.

QUESTION FOR DR DAWKINS

Natural selection and it's contribution towards the complexity and diversity that we throughout the living world today is more often than not a difficult thing for people to grasp.

What in your opinion is the simplest way of explaining evolution by natural selection to someone who has no understanding of it?

Kind Regards

Matthew Lavagna

One more thing. All you religious folks would be more credible if you weren't simply following beliefs your parents AND your geological position instill in you. If you're born in the west, you'll predominantly be christian, in the east maybe buddist, the middle east muslim . Untill you can prove to me OR anyone with just a tad of sanity, that YOUR god is the correct one ( simply based on your parents faith and location, not to mention era .. aka zeus, odin etc ) kindly keep your idiocy to yourselves !

"humans cannot live without the concept of “God”, something presumably animals can"
that is wrong. humans can live without god. I do and so do many others. that is the sort of thing one might hear from a drug addict "I cant live without heroine" and what do most people think when they hear it from a drug addict? they think that it is bullshit, god and religion are no different.

When I was about 13 years old I asked my mother why in religious education class they said we were made by God and in science they said we were descended from apes. She said she didn't really know. I wondered about it for a while, until one day I watched a series on the BBC, Dawkins produced about his own Selfish Gene theory and wondered no more.

Dawkins explains complicated science in a way that makes sense to ordinary people, just as the parables and folklore of the bible did, when it was written. So much of his exposure in the media is about his views on religion it is easy to forget he is primarily an exceptionally gifted teaching lecturer and research biologist—and I for one can't wait to read his latest book.

The poll results are showing 66 percent don't believe in god.

Times are changing and I think it is high time we stopped lieing to ourselves. There is no afterlife so be good as this is the only shot you get!

I am an athiest and my middle brother is a born-again christian who believes the bible happened as written and was dictated by god. We have come to an agreement whereby he never talks about it and neither do I. I began to feel this way in my early teens, even though our parents took us to church every week; I hated going. My brother is worried I won't be in heaven with the rest of the family because I don't believe in god. I told him a recent survey said most people think a person will go to "heaven" even if they don't believe in god, if they live a good life. He absolutely refutes this and says i must accept Jesus as my personal savior (no way, Jose). So. We are at an impass. He says how can I look at everything around me and say there is no god? I say, tell me where did god come from? He has no answer.

We need more people like Dawkins, who's not in any way apologetic for his tendancy to think for himself... .
Religious people often get so offended when their asked to explain their beliefs and the rational thought behind it, I'm assuming because religion is supposed to be the easy-way-out/ answers-unneccisary approach.

Question for Professor Dawkins:

What do you believe is the most damaging or prevalent misconception about evolutionary theory?

I would concede that disproving the existence of Hindu, Shinto, Shaman, etc. gods, because those gods have limitations. The Abrahamic (judeo-christian-islam) god, can quite easily be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, by ONLY making assumptions that I'm sure would be accepted by the overwhelming majority of believers. For example:
Assume that . . . . .
1) God exists
2) God is omnipresent (is everywhere), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnibenevolent (all-good).
3) The act of mass murder is not good.
Was god not in NYC on 9/11/2001? If not, it is not omnipresent.
Did god not know what was happening that morning? If not, it is not omniscient.
Was god not able to stop it? If not, it is not omnipotent.
Was god not willing to stop it? If not, it is not omnibenevolent.
If god was present, knowledgeable of the events about to transpire, able and willing to stop it, it would not have happened; yet it did. Assumption #2 is clearly invalid, and since it is based on the Abrahamic definition of god, god by that definition does not exist. I'm no more inclined to believe in the polytheistic gods, but it seems difficult if not impossible to disprove them. So from that perspective, belief in them seems more rational than in the omni* god, but then there is Occum's razor.

god is dead, long live god! man has changed his perception of God through the ages to suit himself. God giveth and he taketh away. If it rains, God smiles on us. If their is drought it is God's wrath. Where will it end. If a small child is raped, is God there to sooth her pain? I think not. Read Sacharya Sitchens " 12th planet " It explains where our God comes from and why he seeded the planet with human life.
He had a need for us. God has no control over what humans do, The human race is a sick, vile, creation that went wrong. Look at siamese twins, babies born with deficiencies, etc. It can not be God's will if he is said to be a loving, compassionate God.

Sandy,

Turn your sentence on it's ear. Non-Christians have exactly the same meaning in their lives as anyone, with the exception of worshiping a perceived fictional character. Choose which fictional characters you don't worship and atheists add one more.

You don't need a pretend god in order to see wonder and awe in the natural world. You read Dawkins' book with your mind closed. Try it again with your eyes and mind open.

jbs

I love science, discovering the nuance of nature and I look with awe at all of the beauty adn diversity and I smile. It reassures me and confirms my faith that God is real and Awesome.

Thank God for Dawkins!

No God/gods, no problems. Nature is wonderous and wonderful all by itself....a creation by and of itself.....

"The new analysis shows a high correlation between personal insecurity and countries which are more religious than others. Indeed, personal insecurity is the single most important factor in predicting national variations in religiosity."

pull quote from http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/332

Thank you Richard for doing your best to enlighten the world.

atheism is really on the lips of men but not in their heart for they do follow something if not god.

God doesn't exist just like unicorns and leprechaun, be rational.

The god concept is for the weak minded.

I haven't read the book, but I now plan to. It seems that Mr. Dawkins has simply published his findings in a thought out, logical manner. As far as faith goes, that's just it, faith. It's not a certainty, it's a belief. It's a psychological security blanket that people can choose to either help, or hinder their neighbor. Faith is certainly a human quality, and therefore, prone to err. We have examples of this not just in Christianity, but all other religions where believers have given a small group inordinate amounts of wealth and power. I applaud Mr. Dawkins for his research, and I question true believers who truly think that the physical universe is something that can really be summed up by two words.

May the ONLY TRUE GOD, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, have sympathy and leniency on all of you unbelievers!

Don't like it, huh? Now you know what it's like for an atheist. I get this all the time from Christians. When I was in the military, we were forced into prayer all the time, even marched to the post chapel. Religious freedom is like swinging your fist. It should stop at the other guy's nose. Don't force me onto your religion, any more than you want a Muslim forcing the Koran on you. And you must realize, any time you tell me there is a god, I have every right to say there isn't, and vice versa.

If the christian god exists, then all meaning in life is demeaned by the fact that he is offering infinite reward for virtue, and infinite punishment for sin. Talk about twisting your arm.

As even children know, be good for goodness sake. Otherwise, all good that you do is suspect.

Only a nonbeliever can truly do good deeds.

To anyone who says "just wait until you're on your death bed and then tell me you don't believe"....yeah, been there, done that. It's a black nothing that's so nothing it isn't even black. Not even a random firing of neurons at the back of my occipital lobe to make me think I saw a tunnel of light.

Dawkins is an egotistical prick and an intellectual elitist to boot, but you've got to admit that he's got logic on his side. All the fanatical believers have is anger and denial that makes them scream persecution and conformity. I'll have to err on the side of logic every time, even if I think the person behind it is an ass.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." –Buddha

Did God create Humans, or did Humans create God? That is the question. I have met many Humans, but I have never met a God, and therefor must accept the latter.

I find it sad that so many Humans cannot accept the wonder that is this universe without demanding a personal significance from it.

God has many fan clubs across the globe known as religions. These groups mainly argue among one another about God's sexual preferences and dick size, with the controversy often escalating into mutual butthurt. The two biggest religions are Christianity and Islam (Buddhism is for fags). Conflict has arisen over whether God raped Mary using his mind powers, and whether his illegitimate son is now fused with him and some randomer called the Holy Spirit in an eternal three-way gangbang. Disputes between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland have resulted in numerous bombings, because there is some disagreement between the sexual attractiveness of the Pope. Fortunately however nobody cares about the marsh-dwelling Irish. Some hissy fits result in regrettable occurrences on a superlative scale, such as 9/11, The Crusades and the Thirty Years War.

"Come on. Even the brightest minds believe in a higher being. Take Albert Einstein as an example. Science won’t explain anything and neither will religion. Either of the two will have cover to the blanks of each belief."

Einstein believed the laws of nature are God. Theists are so good at blurring the line of what is God when they appeal to authority and then redefining the line later towards their particular definition of God. He did not believe in the supernatural. He did not believe in a prayer answering being. Would it make Christians happy if everyone thought this way? Certainly not. So stop bringing up Einstein. He's closer to our side (atheism) than yours.

Pascal had his wager that we should worship a god, just in case he does exist.

Can we atheists perhaps postulate a wager in rebuttal?
How about:

Given all the science has done to dispute theories on Creation, Noah's ark and zombie Jesus rising from the dead, is it no a safer bet to adhire to a moral code as dictated by our current laws and zeitgeist and pay no heed to "God" as if he/she/it didn't exist? Does not our bowing, scraping, marginalizing and killing in his/her/it's name only ANGER said god?

I wonder how many of those who believe that there's no God have read the whole Bible and studied it in detail? I wonder how many know about the thousands of biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled? I wonder how many know about world history and the history of Israel and the Jews? I wonder how many know that many "great minds" have tried to discredit the Bible but have failed miserably?

God's Word stands forever. It never changes. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Science changes every minute. New scientific discoveries continually prove established scientific knowledge to be wrong. So is science a reliable basis for determining the existence of God? Yes and no.

Yes, for establishing God's existence, because what the Bible says about the physical world has been borne out by science. No, for establishing God's non-existence, because scientific knowledge is necessarily limited and continuously evolving.

If Richard Dawkins could prove that anything in the Bible is false, then I will believe that there's no God. If he could prove that there's a single prophecy in the Bible is wrong, then I will believe that the Bible is not the Word of God. Unless he is able to do this, I suggest that Dawkins and his elk stop misleading innocent people with his unproven, and unprovable, "scientific" theories. Being the scientist that he is, perhaps he would like to calculate the probability of each fulfilled prophecy, and also the probability of all fulfilled prophecies as a whole, and then compare them with his own belief that there's no God.

Psalm 14:1 says. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’.”

Proverbs 14:12 declares, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

I applaud Mr. Dawkins for bringing us atheists to the forefront. I'm tired of being looked down upon just because I choose to not believe in a God. You wouldn't believe the responses I get by living in Appalachia. It's terrible, and these right-wing fundamentalists are killing the progression of this country.

Shalom My Yeshua Jesus is the Only Savior and He is the only way to Salvation,Hes About to Come for His Bride and Take Us up in The Rapture be Warned YAH IS GOING TO JUDGE AMERICA AND THE NATIONS,FOR DIVIDING JERUSALEM,Yeshuas Mercy and Shalom be with you! There will be many dissapearences soon,because Yeshua/Jesus will come for us,Judgment is Coming ,Many will dissapear vanish,suddenly your loved ones,who were people of true faith taken to Heaven by Yeshua,will judge this nation beacuse of the shedding of innocent blood the little (ones)REPENT NOW SAYS THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL AND YESHUA THE LAMB!

Physicists treat both electrons and holes as real, having mass and spin and charge, but holes do not strictly exist.
Similarly doorways dont exist physically but they are real and useful.
Even we people probably only really exist as thoughts in our own minds, the rest is just mollecules and cells.
Based on this logic even if god only exists in the minds of people
god is more real and influential than any one person.
Long after richard dawkins and myself are dead god will still be
alive and well.

Michael Mckeon

j reuben freeman asked where the fundamental laws of science came from if not god?

well let me ask you a question, why would god in all his wisdom create a system; science.

that would grant us access to things like electricity, medicine, the cell phone, space travel and all other true, measurable human accomplishments, give us this perfect system of logic and reason under which rules we can understand all that science has given us

why give us these concepts and grant us all they do,
but when we point the lens of science at god himself
the logical, reasonable scientific answer is that he simply does not exits?

Two things:

1. To address many previous comments: Yes, there IS a great deal of wonder in the world! Tremendous, amazing things.. that doesn't mean there's a God. It just means we're small minded.

2. If believing in a religion makes your existence easier, by all means do it. But keep it out of politics, policy, and my life.

All hail Odin the Mighty!

Those dirty Zeus worshippers shall be smote with Thor's hammer.

God is a lie, period.

Who says that god and evolution have to be mutually exclusive... I'm sure both can exist together.

It's really quite disturbing, though not shocking in the least, how many of you have to distort the things Dawkins argues in order to disagree with him. (A lot of you also lie about Einstein and Darwin, I notice.) Hell, I doubt most of you anti-Dawkins ranters even know that evolution is only meant to explain biological diversity, not the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Either your religious belief or the efforts of the religious zealots to stamp out real education have made fools of you.

HOWEVER, religion isn't a particular issue in his latest book, not unless your religion requires you to believe in a literal seven day creation around six thousand years ago. The simple fact is that evolution is true and if you can read Dawkins' book and still deny it you're biased to the point where your biases are making you stupid. We who accept evolution do not accept it on faith–this book shows how we don't need something so fragile as trumped up wishful thinking. There's evidence. Gobs of it. And Dawkins has broken it down and laid it plain before everyone. Read it for yourself.

And if you have questions on other topics, Dawkins does have a website with a forum with many, many knowledgeable participants who would be glad to give you answers so long as you follow forum rules and refrain from proselytizing your religion there.

What I don't understand is why some people seem to believe that it takes faith in an invisible sky wizard in order to fully appreciate life and all its wonders.

What also grinds my gears is that the only people advocating the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in schools invariably favor a Biblical explanation for how things got the way they are. "We just want a diversification of opinions on the matter of existence"? B.S.

I personally would love to see the evangelical church in my neighborhood converted into a public library. Maybe I'll live to see that happen.

if god exists, nice, if not, o well, either way, enjoy life, kthxby

In the Name of GOD Most Gracious, Most Merciful

"They never long for it, because of what their hands have sent forth. GOD is fully aware of the wicked."

Sura Number 2:

The Heifer

In fact, you will find them the most covetous of life; even more so than the idol worshipers. The one of them wishes to live a thousand years. But this will not spare him any retribution, no matter how long he lives. GOD is seer of everything they do.

Sura Number 2:

The Heifer

It is they who brought the straying, at the expense of guidance. Such trade never prospers, nor do they receive any guidance.

Sura Number 75:

Resurrection

I swear by the Day of Resurrection. And I swear by the blaming soul. Does the human being think that we will not reconstruct his bones? Yes indeed; we are able to reconstruct his finger tip. But the human being tends to believe only what he sees in front of him.

Muhammad Scripture

I was absolutely shocked at the high poll numbers that do not believe in a higher power. No wonder our nation is in such turmoil and nothing is working as it should.

If you're sensitive to the energy around you, you know beyond a doubt'. If you're not, you can't understand people who are. Thus you believe there is no God.

I'll tell you one thing: I'd rather live as if there is a God and be wrong, than to live as if there is not a God and be wrong.

Sandy, did you even read The God Delusion? One of the main points of it is how wonderful and awesome the universe is. That was one of the best chapters – this guy knows more about how wonderful everything is than you do.

Plus, are you content to justify your existence with a false supposition?

Give me the truth, and keep your "faith."

It is interesting to me that if Mankind did finally discover the mechanics of reality, from the beginning of the Universe to the prediction of its end, atheists would assert that this disproved the existence of God, while the Faithful would say it merely demonstrated his methods. My point in this is that faith has everything to do with what we don't know, and probably never will, while science is the extension of what we think we do know. I'm not sure why they are so often at odds, except that too many misunderstand one, the other, or both.

"Dawkins has published a new book: “The Greatest Show on Earth” offers scientific evidence to back-up his own theory of evolution."

HIS OWN theory of evolution? Are you serious? The theory of evolution is CHARLES DARWIN'S.

I hope this was just a grammatical error, because evolution is not Dawkins's theory.

Maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, but doesn't this show ignorance and bias on the part of the person who wrote this online entry?

The sooner we can move passed this whole "god" delusion, the better off our world will be. Religion has no place in the age of intelligence.

Thank you Mr Dawkins for your fantastic work.

Science requires critical reasoning – something that is so rarely taught in schools today.

Most people simply adopt the beliefs of their parents without question. No amount of belief will ever make a fact.

Only through advanced scientific literacy can anyone hope to understand the way science works and, therefore, formal education in the sciences is the key.

It is always the ignorant that have the strongest opinions. As ignorance reduces, so does the need for a god. There is nothing more dangerous than just a little knowledge.

The day the world relinquishes its need for religion, is the day we come of age. We will then realise that there is nothing out there to save us...that is our responsibility.

For that day to come, we must strive to grow out of the delusions that take up so much of our thoughts, efforts and emotions.

Brave people such as Richard Dawkins, as Carl Sagan would say, is the candle in the dark.

There is no God as described by any religion I have ever heard of, past or present. That much is clear. There may be a "god", a creator of the universe who arbitrates the forces and nature of matter, but there is no evidence that such a creator takes any active role in the actual running of the universe, not on a day-to-day basis or even over the course of many billions of years. Science, so far, cannot tell us why we are here or how the universe really got started, but it sure has done a heck of a lot better job than any man-made religion.

To believe in the god of the christian bible (if taken as the litteral truth) one has to believe in all sorts of silly childish things: Like Talking Donkeys, Unicorns, Dragons, Talking Snakes, and a pethora of contradictions and paradoxes. One might as well believe the Lord of the Rings is the true inerrant word of god, it has the same amount of fantasy in it.

The incorrect facts on this comment blog are down right ridiculous.

1st and foremost -– Theory is fact look up the definition

Louis Eitner

"The theory of evolution is not science, it is just as much a religion as Christianity is. Nobody has ever seen anything ‘evolve', thus you have to believe in it, just as I believe in God. There is no existing scientific proof of evolution and there never will be either. Evolution is just a easy way for people to leave God out of their lives because they don't like the idea of God telling them what to do. Richard will never come up with any real scientific evidence for the stupid theory of evolution. Look into it, you'll see I'm right! God bless"

Wow. I think this statement is the the most moronic I've ever read.
If you think there's no evidence for evolution. I suggest you read
anything about science. Anything.

DD September 22nd, 2009 339 GMT

"Another point, I will really start listening if some atheist or anti-creationist could explain the spiritual world in some scientific way. There is more than enough proof and evidence (you need to expose yourself to this sort of thing though) that spiritual beings exist."

That can be a complex answer. Some people think that anything that is "supernatural" is not possible. But by definition it could be slightly described as that. Dr Michio Kaku believes in parallel universes,
and if crossing those boundaries could be possible, if only in an
ethereal sense. That could "appear" as spiritiual.

Higley, G. S. September 22nd, 2009 347 GMT

The Idea of a “higher intelligence” is intriguing, after all, Albert Einstein was a devout religious man.

This is a complete falsehood. Using the term "god" was,
in those days, a reference to all that was not understood or
taken as immeasurable. Almost like a philosophical reference.

JUAN MARIANO F. BARCENAS September 22nd, 2009 449 GMT

I pity Mr. Dawkins as he disregard the contents of the Holy Bible. If he can only read both Old and New Testaments

Trust me HE HAS

ughhhh

religion is primitive

Being filled with awe is natural. It does not justify or propose a god.
We are made of star-stuff. 4 basic elements.
You, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, are more closely related to the bark on that tree you wonder at, than you are a bacteria, yet you are even related to that bacteria.

Evolution is a tree grander than any redwood in California, and with more branches and twigs than you will ever find on an oak.

Living for a God that damns you from birth unless you accept him for killing himself to save you from the damnation he created for you is the most foolish thing I can imagine.

A request vs a comment:

In the sweetest way to convert people to Athiesm, please ask your audience to read the book they follow from COVER to cover.

WITHOUT a friend/collegue constantly interjecting thoughts of 'But that is not what John meant. In THOSE days....'.

God is an archaic concept and the only way to blast it out of human conciousness is to make people read the full book they follow instead of letting them take the lazy approach and have OTHERS read/explain their book FOR THEM.

Using an opponent's greatest argument as the means to destroy their idea is the sweetest (and most honest) form of destruction there is.

Dennis, you don't get it. Religion is a belief. Science is not a belief, it is a process. Scientists come to believe that which has been proved true, or, in the case of a theory (such as gravity), highly likely. So don't equate religion and science as belief systems.

The scientist says "I'll believe it when I see it."

The religionist says "You'll see it when you believe it."

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Sandy said: Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see.
___________

Response:

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

I can't help but wonder how it is we don't have more intelligent people in mainstream/public forums as Richard Dawkins (aside from Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens). The secular message needs more exposure and the world needs more intuivite, rational, free thinking yet skeptical individuals at the fore front of media outlets. Individuals such as Dawkins teach us to approach life with a mindset such as "Here is the problem, now lets work at finding the answer" where as religion would have you think in a manner more occordance to "here's our answer so whats' your problem". The bottom line is that religions and their beliefs are archaic and outdated at best, and a cancerous plague on modern society and the progresson of CIVILization in a close minded, hateful, an at times murderous fashion at worst. I could go on ranting or i could simply end this with a proper and well deseved THANK YOU to Richard Dawkins for all of his hard work, as well as the other individuals who promote rationality throughout society.

so,here is a question for all you non beleivers...you beleive that something was created from nothing?...something has to exist to create all of the universe...
PROVE to me that God or a supreme Being does not exist...you can't.

he just wants the world to be a miserable as he is!

I believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but as a Christian I can't see how anyone would think that all of the Universe was created by chance... statistically impossible... I don't know how anyone could feel like we.. the human race could be an accidental combination of elements that just happened to evolve into what we are today...

If each one of you can sit in awe of the great universe that we enjoy, alone, no one around, just you and the universe, and feel that all exsistance has come about by scientific means... not take into account of a higher exsistance that created even the means by which science can be determined... not to wonder what is after or even care... can you say that there is a peace in your mind and heart? Does science answer all of your questions about your life, your exsistance to your satisfaction? Do you truely make it through life on your own, your own thoughts, feelings, no help from anyone? What is your support system? Family? What if they were no longer around? It's just you? You and this Universe? It that enough for you?
You really need to think on these things... dig deeper, search your mind and heart, especially your heart, be honest with your mind and your heart, be true to the heart as it carries the truth.
The answer is not in science...look deeper...The Truth is still waiting for you to find The Truth.

Let me get this straight, believing in God is foolish because he isn't real.... But believing in global warming is ok?

DO YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LIVE FOREVER THAT YOU DON'T DIE TO. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT ON THAT QUESTION ? IT IS APPOINTED ONCE TO DIE. YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOSE HEAVEN OR HELL BEFORE YOU DIE WHICH ONE IS YOUR CHOICE BEFORE YOU DIE. JESUS IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AN LIGHT . ILL PRAY FOR ALL THAT DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD. HE REAL AN HE IS LIVE.

Sandy, you are so fool

God doesn't exists.

Horray for Prof. Dawkins! We need more clear-thinkers and fewer who blindly follow Stone Age superstitions and myths!

This day in age, There is no need for a god. We should have faith in each other, in the Human Race, Not made up gods.

God only hold us back, Putting Limits on what we can do but slapping a label on the Problems we face by saying "god has a plan" . It keeps us from going to the next step, which will be needed if the Human race wants to keep on going. If we want to save the planet. We can't hope that an all powerful god it will fix things.

I see god as a bane to the Human race, even if I give the idea of a higher power credit for controlling the massive enough with fear to keep us in line in the past. I strongly feel that Religious Morals are so out of whack with the times now they need to be removed from politics. Religious Morals are Mean when boiled down to the basics. They are based in Hate, Fear and Pure Evil because in the end they put such a small number of the human race in the grace of their gods love and the rest of us heading to Hell. Just that alone should cancel out god if it is this all caring all loving.

My fear is the pain and blood shed the Human Race will do to each other when the first, then second Religious Nut (Christian or Muslim) Uses a large weapons against the Other. The death toll will be insane.

The War we are in the middle of today... is thanks to the Religious Nuts we have in Office. ( Bush was #1 ) They Used God, and the fear that comes with Religion and twisted the facts to get God Fearing people to agree with something that was wrong to do.

I can't wait for the day when the US vote in the first Atheist. but I see ever other group getting a shot before that happens. The first woman, even the first gay, but Atheist will be last, and the problem I have with this is anyone that runs for an office and says they believe in god and get their morals from a god, is lying to get a vote.

This is not a poll that reflects what America believes. This is simply a poll showing what "Clinton News Network" readers believe. 80% of this country claims to be Christian of one form or another.

God was created by humans and it is possibly the most destructive creation of all time.

@Sandy, who wrote "I feel sorry for this guy. Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see."

Don't feel sorry for Mr Dawkins because he's not as gullible as you. You should be feeling sorry for yourself! It's sad that someone could chooses to justify their life by something that's so *obviously* a fairy tale.

Life is filled with wonder, way beyond burning bushes, talking snake stories, martyrs on crucifixes, and various silly and trite creation myths made up by superstitious, uneducated tribesmen!

I am at a loss to explain how an educated human being in 2009 can find any solace in something so patently silly!

And you don't have to be an atheist to believe this about Christianity, by the way. Any devout Muslim would back me up, I'm sure.

I'd like to know how Richard Dawkins feels about people like me creating Atheist groups on Facebook which have grown larger and larger in size and contain very well thought out debates and discussions with other Atheists as well as those are have Religious beliefs as well. Here's my group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23062929599

It's just one bit. It's either zero or one.

The facts as told have come down through the ages and are facts. We may develop a theory as to how things having life developed from the original cell, but science stops there. We can agree with the master minds whose painstaking research have given us a real picture of the physical facts of the material world, but are not bound to stop where they stop because they cann't yet see the hand of GOd. THe scientist may neither affirm nor deny the existence of Spirit or a Supreme Intelligence, yet in his inmost self he feels the impact of consciousness, thought, memory, and ideas emanating from that enity we call the soul. He knows his inspiration does not come from matter.

The fact that man, everywhere at all times, from the beginning to the present day, has felt the im pulse to callupon something he believed to be higher and more powerful than himself, shows that religion is innate and should be scientifically recognized. Whether man has endowed a graven image with his feeling that there is an outside power for good or eveil is not the important thing. THE REAL fact is his acknowledgment of his Father in heaven. We who have acces to the knowledge of the world should not look with scorn at the crudities of those who have gone before or of those who now do not know the we as you see it. Rather, we should stand in awe, amazement and reverence to see the universality of man's search for, and belief in, a supreme being. Is it not his soul that feels akin to the Supreme Intelligence ? Do we fear to assert that the religious impulse found only in man is as much a part of an intelligent being as any other attribute?
Its existence is as much an evidence of the purpose of the Supreme Intelligence as is the material but marvelous brain of man, in which resides his sentient being.

NO Atom or Molecule ever had a thought, no combination of the elements ever gave birth to an idea, no natural law ever built a cathedral; but, obedient to certain impulses of life, certain living structures have been made which contain something to which the particles of matter are, in turn, obedient, and we see, as a result, all the wonders of civilization. What is this living structures? Atoms and molecules? Yes. And what else? An intangible something so superior to matter that it dominates all things, and so different from the material of which the world is made that it cannot be seen, weighed or measured. So far as we know, it has laws to govern it. The soul of man is "master of its destiny" but is conscious of its relation to the supreme source of its existence. For man it has developed a code of ethics which no other animal has or needs. To call this entity an outgrowth of combinations of matter because we do not know by the test tube what it is, begs the question. It exists and manifests itself by its works, by self-sacrifice, by its control of matter, and, above all, by its power to lift material man out of human weakness and error into harmony with the will of the Supreme Being. This is the essence of God's purpose. This accounts for the innate logging of man for contact with things higher than himself. This discloses the basis of his religious impulse. This is religion.

Science recognizes and gives full credit to man's craving for higher things, but it does NOT take seriously the dogmas of the hundred and more jarring creeds, though it does seee in them all paths which converge toward God. What science sees, and what all thinking men know, is the unbelievable value of the universal faith in a Supreme Being.

Man's advance to morality and a sense of obligation is the outgrowth of faith in God and belief in immortality. The richness of religious experience finds the soul of man and lifts him, step by step, until he feels the Divine presence. The instinctive cry of man, "God help me", is natural, and the crudest prayer lifts one closer to his Creator.

Reverence, generosity, nobility of character, morality, inspiration, and what may be called the divine attributes, do not arise from atheism or negation, a surprising form of self-conceit which puts man in the place of God. Without faith, civilization would be come bankrupt, order would become disorder, restraint and control would be lost, and evil would prevail. Let us, then, hold fast to our belief in a Supreme Intelligence, the love of God and the brotherhood of man, lifting ourselves closer to Him by doing His will as we know it and accepting the responsibility of believing we are, as His creation, worthy of His care.

I am an educated and wealthy 17 year old boy.

I don't believe in "god" because I think it is a ridiculous and primitive concept.

Only uneducated fools living in the stone age believe in such nonsense.

The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God' yet the Wise still seek Him. Only the Eyes of Faith can see Him

Lord, Creator of Heavan and earth for Your Name's sake show your self strong!

Question:

Why have we not found any other big bangs and any other places with life forms. What happened to the missing link and what sustains life... and why have we not been able to create living organisms from purely non organic material using a big bang.

I am not a scientist of any consequence so my questions may be simple and not very intelligent but please indulge me.

My question for him is very simple, and this is it
"how will he feel when he's dead and gone and standing before the very God he is claiming does not exist"?

God hates religion, people made religion. Read history again, many great minds have come the conclusion, at the end of their lives that some entity must have created our existence. Just because you don't understand everything about life does not justify the existence of God.

Just look at your own self, and find how wonderful you are; how in the world you can accept that your great great great... granpa was a monkey who came into existence by a blast?

You just need one little "special experience"... like coming close to death...

God has no low self-esteem, so don't feel sorry for him... he's rather compassionate.

When you can love your neighbor as yourself, then you will know.

@Sandy and others: My life is _more_ meaningful because it is not predicated on the belief in a god. My life is _more_ precious because I consider it to be my only opportunity instead of a transition. What wonder can you feel when you believe you've received the only answer from an invisible source?

The bigger question to me is, do I believe in an after life? Maybe, I can't answer this question, I don't think anyone is qualified to answer this question. However do I believe in creation or the Judeo Christian God? No, just from a morality standpoint alone, no God can be this corrupt and evil, like the God portrayed in the Bible.

I can't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ because I don't speak Aramaic. Religion is a tool to control the feeble minded.

The fastest way to stop curiosity and looking to get to the bottom of the issue: God did it or God wants it that way.

I don't think we live in a world made by God, I think we now live in a world that uses God. – Think about it.

Religion is indoctrinatiation from child to adulhood. Your kind of worship or religion is from what your parents are,, and where you were born. Awakening is difficult. Fear is the greatest enemy of mankind. If you openly suggest that there is no God,, you will be judged social outcast on the spot. Just have yourself read and make reseach of ancient history. Do not focus on preserved, preorchestrated txtbooks we've learned from the school.Originally, religion was created to protect the royalties.and oligarchs.and for guidance to the golden rules..least someting to fear for submissive purposes. Updated sciences can prove the arguments.

The anthropic principal is such a pedestrian explanation for the existence of consciousness; Yield, reality, to my glare and my inspection, for I am the awareness of matter and in my inglorious reign over myself, I shall make the bold claim that I am only an accident and my existence proves nothing but coincidence.

Who are you to question me? How dare you point to something higher! I am the highest that matter has come and there is no further to aspire!

"Do you know whets really full of wonder: evolution. Simple biological rules that have created so many amazing creatures and billions of years of natural history."

Oh, yeah!... Where is the damn proof for that? I mean real scientific experiments that show us first the ORIGIN OF (the reach) INFORMATION contained in the simplest cell on the Earth?

Second, where are the damn experiments that show us the chemical model of life risen up directly from prehistoric mud, with no (intelligent) guidance at all? WHERE IS DA PROOF, gentlemen, for the "common descent"?... There is none. Only hypothesis and more than a hundred years of sterile research and spent of a huge amount of (public) money, money spent for nothing.

No offence, gents, but "The Evolution" and common descent is a wonder only in the mind of ignoramuses, close minded and indoctrinated scientists and those who applaud them, unaware of the dangers that are hidden right behind the corner... One of the dangers is loosing the FREE THINKING, the bases of scientific research.

Atheism is becoming dangerous...

I think this is deeply insensitive. There are millions of people in the world who believe in God. They have lived their lives believing in God and suddenly, "God is a delusion"? A whole book of evidence supporting this? I won't shout out religious outcries or anything to provoke any atheists, but this is just stupid.

Just the wrong time, with all the Islamic extremists...

I'm flabbergasted by the amount of ignorance displayed in this board by both atheists (some of them) and theists. There may or may not be a god or creator, but the truth is, none of us actually know for certain. While some atheists deny the existence of a deity, atheism is not a position that automatically implies that. I am an agnostic atheist because I don't believe there is a creator, but as I said, I'm not certain of it so I'm in no position to make such claims as facts.

”Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics.”
C.J. Keyser

"Believers – doesn’t it bother you that you put more logical thought into choosing a car than you do in choosing a god? Dawkins asserts that forcing your children into your religion is a form of child abuse. Once indoctrinated, there is so much guilt about extricating ones self from the fold. Isn’t your religion about free will? Teach your children, but let them make their own decision."

Mate, I do not want MY CHILDREN, being INDOCTRINATED with YOUR (atheistic) RELIGION, either, using tax payers money (that means ma money, too)!
Keep the damn evolutionary fairytales out of the public schools!

Yes, I do believe in God. He is the source of my life and everything in me. Without God, there's no earth for us to live. Those who does not believe in God ( Jesus Christ ) will not have eternal life and shall be condenmed as the Scriptures says.

A question for Mr. Dawkins,

Do the Islamic extremists surprise or intrigue you at all since they have caused a lot of activity in the name of their God?

Croire en dieu, c'est comme croire au père noel...
Respectueusement a tous et bonne reflexion

Automatiq translation

Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus ...
Respectfully to all and good reflection

Mr. Dawkins is an inspiration ~ He gives me hope for humanity by reminding me that there are still people who believe in science over superstition

Atheists are a quickly growing population in the US, yet very few of us ever speak out publicly. Aside from a lack of organization and society's stigma against atheists, why do you think so few outspoken atheists in the arena of public policy? What do you think we can do to galvanize this force of people to stand up for themselves in the political square and to better protect secular government against constant attempts by religious groups to cross the line between Church and State?

Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for being a voice for reason!

[err, slight edit / rephrase of question above)

Aside from a lack of organization, and society’s stigma against atheists, why do you think there are so few outspoken atheists in the arena of public policy?
What do you think we can do to galvanize this force of people to stand up for themselves in the political square, and to better protect secular government against constant attempts by religious groups to cross the wall between Church and State?

Yes, I do believe in God. He is the source of my life and everything in me. Without God, there's no earth for us to live in. Those who does not believe in God ( Jesus Christ ) will not have eternal life and shall be condemned as the Scriptures says.

Santa is to kids as Jesus/God is to adults. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is real. I feel sorry for all you suckers.

Richard Dawkins has far more education and awards than all of you fools combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Sandy writes: "Read God Delusion and it left me wondering how people like this justify their existence. Life is filled with wonder, way beyond what ‘Science’ and Dawkins choose to see."

Perhaps you should read his earlier book "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder", which is about how science should encourage and foster poetry and wonder, and it is the spirit of wonder that moves great scientists. In it, Dawkins writes:

"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite."

To all atheist: If your science is true, then why can't you make time turned back? and let us see that we are not created by God? What all of you said is only THEORY..theory of big bang, etc.... some say science makes this world magnificient...yeah, it is...you could simply erase a country with just one nuclear warhead...see how magnificient science is? you can say that science true and God is false...coz science is here and God isn't.... but what God said to us(believers), is have Faith in Me for I am God that will never leave you nor destroy you...

This is a sensitive subject...
The term God can represent many beliefs. It is mostly representing the God of the Bible.

1- If the interpretation of the Bible is personal... In my opinion it is a wonderful story book that helps us discover part of our history.

2- If we use God as a term that represents the love that humans share (also with nature), I do believe it could be beneficial for some. However I would never attach a "code" to a belief like that.

The most important for me is that if God, as in the Bible, does exist he would understand the things I do; because I try to do the best I can.
If he does not exist I am not at all wasting my time, I am enjoying my humanity.

Kind Regards,

P.D. What Dawkins writes is not a Bible, and even if it was... Books are not piles to live upon!

Richard Dawkins is absolutely right!

any man that will only rely on his five sense to analyze life n live life is the most pitiful of men....
God is against technology but on the contrary is only bother about what man is intent on doing with it.....
Mr darkwins pride himself with his repertoire in evolution science but let him not forget that two great scientist of our time "newton n einstein" believed in God and most especially inventors like thomas edison, franklin all who were great thinkers better than him had reverence for God. well just like gravity if u believe in it or not it doesnot change the fact it exist....

Dear Dr Dawkins

Here is a question for you:

Why could God have not created the process of Evolution?

(and you cannot use the answer "because God does not exist" because this would be a circular argument ... so, please bear with me and play fair ... please open up your mind to the possibility of God and then ponder on the question)

Your answer is eagerly awaited ..............

Best Regards

Dr Reeves

What I find most amazing is that if believers applied the very same level of sceptism they have for evolution to their own faith, they wouldn't believe their faith either!

Most faiths are far more outrageous than anything Darwin or Dawkins ever proposed.

Talking snakes, sea monsters, unicorns, walking dead, flying horses, talking burning trees, zombies, etc – and believers try to say evolution is crazy.

I've never seen a unicorn or a talking snake, and very the reason I do not believe in any God is the very same reason I do not believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

[...] Leave a Comment Categories: Uncategorized So, while perusing CNN, I came across this page about Dawkins. While the little snippet is pretty much a press release: Richard Dawkins tore into [...]

tosan – “newton n einstein” believed in God

Newton certainly did but he also practised alchemy, believing that lead could be transformed into gold.

Einstein, on the other hand, had this to say about 'god' :
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".

Einstein was no believer.

@ tosan Two very good quotes from Einstein

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
-Albert Einstein

“Thus I came…to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true….Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience…an attitude which has never left me.”
-Albert Einstein

mark kram:

Oops! "The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died at age 122 years and 164 days."

Your premise is horrendously flawed to begin with but even so you should really check your facts.

The Holy Bible predicted this:
Romans 3: 10-12, As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

Because of original sin, man is born hostile to God, 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Being opposed to God is a normal reaction and does not make a person who doubts God and the Bible unique to others born into our world. The reason, Romans 3:20, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Man’s sinful nature and pride causes him to justify himself through works as being a good person. In Ephesians 2:2-3 the Apostle Paul explains man’s natural condition, “Ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

Bible verse John 20:31 says, “But these, are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

John 12:48-50 says, "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Summary – man cannot and will not choose to beleive, trust, fear or love God on his or her own. Man can reject God and as stated in the above verse of John 12,; this rejection will be judged by Biblical scripture. Only by reading the Bible and being quickened in the word can man come to faith in Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:17-20 sums up how man comes to believe when the Apostle Paul says, " I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms..."

Without the faith in Jesus sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection from the dead, seen by over 500 people as documented in the Bible, we are all deserving of and will be subject to eternal damnation. The answer is readng and studying the Holy Bible, the only way a person can be made spritually alive. Romans 3:23 "everything that does not come from faith is sin." Galatians 3:22-23 "But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed."

We must believe what the Bible says in our hearts before we die. This is faith!

Dawkings talks a lot of about evolution. Well can any of your secularists show me one transitional fossil between a hominid and angels? Just one? Or from talking snakes to the untalking snakes we see now? Nope, I thought not. Evolution is just made up by some old guy writing what ever wanted down in some book. As a TRUE Christian I have not time for old books written by people with an agenda to get the rest of the world to believe their fantasy. Case closed.

1. Atheism is a "belief", like "bald" is a hair-colour.

2. A "belief" is not a "truth", though one can believe something that is true.

3. Don Gretel 1: "God" could have used evolution, but by any stretch of the interpretation, evolution certainly contradicts the Bible and many other religious books – this is why evolution is so contentious in the USA.

4. Don Gretel 2: According to some interpretations of Buddhism, if you don’t “believe” you won’t be re-incarnated. So why must I, as you put it, “… believe what the Bible says in (my)r hearts before (I) die”. Surely what the Buddhists say is faith?

Why shouldn't I believe the Buddhists, their belief afterall is very friendly?

Actually those who have God's ear and .
tell him what he is,

what he should be,

what he wants it and why, where, and how

what he should judge as good or bad

which bible is his true gift to mankind
and so on and so forth ad infinitum

are perhaps lacking just a bit in modesty before the creator of all things. ...If they really believe in him, that is.

How nice to see someone with the courage to face down the religious rich and speak plain truth and facts.

They will howl and complain and trot out the same tired old phrases, "I feel sorry for you" "What if you're wrong?" and other stupidities.

The facts are there is no evidence of any god at all, and if there is, he is certainly am immature, vindictive, fool totally unwrothy of anything resembling worship.

None of that will affect the true believers because obvious facts have no place in their world view. I just wish they would go away and leave the intelligent people alone.

@ Alan Reeves: "Why could God have not created the process of Evolution?"

He didn't have to. Evolution is a statistical inevitability, once anything that can replicate emerges, and that replication is usually reliable, but not always.

The concept applies to behavioral modes as well (e.g. "instinct" in animals).

i don't believe in god..god does'nt exist and people does'nt need "dog" sorry god ,to live their spirituality.The pure spirituality does'nt need god.It is to be linked to the rivers,the nature,the stars....to feel the life...

Do you think brothers and sisters,that the super-powerful!!!!!god needs us to be happy?or to know that he is god?

This essay is more meant for people in the US, although I think it applies to the world in general, due to the horrible moral imagination people posses:

It’s almost without fail that the religious will claim that the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, Not Freedom FROM religion.

This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that’s their point?

In the documentary, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', when Ben Stein asked you if intelligent design could explain the beginning of creation of all life on earth, you claimed that life could have been "seeded" on this planet. Although you claim the movie to be a religious front, that you were 'bending over backwards' for them and probably would have answered differently, in a secular sense, could you entertain the idea of intelligent beings somewhere else in the cosmos coming to earth and -seeding- life as we know it?

Very many comments refer to a Superior Being to justify our existence in the world and universe. When mentioning a Superior Being, one seems to refer to God, they should realize that it has nothing to do with the way God is described in the monotheistic religions.
If one belives in a Superior Being, he is not a religious person but an agnostic. Meaning that as there is no explanation yet as to creation, there could be a power or energy which are totally different from the Gods as invented by men.
One should try to think that when the bible was written, it referred mainly to the middle east and countries with which it traded, as far as China. There was no mention of North and South America and Australia, discovered respectively in the 15th century and 18th century. These areas were inhabited and their people also believed of a Superior Being which they honoured according to their environment, in a very similar way as the people in middle east, before the introduction of monotheism. How is it that God never mentioned these continents and their inhabitants? Lots of question and lots of answer can be found, if one really searches.
As long as people beiieve and in their behaviour they respect the other, they are respectable and may continue in their belief. But as soon as faith and religion delivers people who do not respect the others and react violently against those who do not have their beliefs, then starts the dangerous areas, which we are experiencing today with the religious fanatics and the violence which is a new way of life.
Education of children should be based on the respect of the other, and never mention the differences. As soon as a child, reared in the religion of his parents, realized that another child is not of his colour, origin or religion he becomes diffident and afraid of the other who is not like him.

To prove that God does not exist is a question which comforts a believer, because no one could answer it, however, one should ask to WHICH GOD they refer?

Read Rael's books. We were created by extraterrestrial scientists.

rael.org

@Jim R.

(My Q.) “Why could God have not created the process of Evolution?”

(Your A.) He didn’t have to. Evolution is a statistical inevitability, once anything that can replicate emerges, and that replication is usually reliable, but not always.

I think this is a circular argument – the reason that Evolution appears to be a "statistical inevitability" is because of the very process itself. Who created the process (ie natural selection rules, etc)? Evolution clearly has a process and it is not as simple as Dawkins suggests. There is still much to learn about the Evolution process. I do not believe that the Evolution process is purely random and have yet to see such a proof.

To those who raise questions and comments like:
. . . Why couldn't god have created the process of evolution?
. . . Science is right about the physical laws, but god created those laws.
. . . Atheists should prove that god does not exist, but they can't.
. . . There are many wonders in the universe that scientists can't explain, therefore god must exist.

With all due respect, I think your assumptions are absurd. Do you suggest that we should believe in the existence of anything that cannot be proven not to exist? Please prove to me that one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters (1E1HFPPEs hereinafter) do not exist. If you can't, then you obviously believe that they do exist. Ok, here is an easier task: please prove that 1E1HFPPEs did not create the physical laws and the process of evolution. You can't? Well then, obviously they did. There may be much that scientists cannot (yet) explain, but 1E1HFPPEs can certainly explain them. If you don't believe me, just ask one the next time you see him. But you shouldn't have to ask, because you should have faith. In 1E1HFPPEs we trust.

Each of the complexities of the universe that evoke wonderment and awe from all of us, has taken billions of years to develop. Give a good scientist a comparable amount of time to unravel it, before claiming he can't do it.

Kay Lee wrote:
"I was absolutely shocked at the high poll numbers that do not believe in a higher power. No wonder our nation is in such turmoil and nothing is working as it should."

I have to admit that I am largely in agreement regarding your first statement, given that CNN is a US based network, and a rather conservative one at that (in absolute terms, certainly not relative to FOX). I had thought it would take centuries for the US to overcome it's religious epidemic. It seems the cure being delivered by people like Mr. Dawkins is more effective than I had imagined it would be.

Regarding your latter comment, I think you got the cart before the horse. I think it is in large part *because* of the turmoil and bloodshed caused by religion – slavery, rape and murder in Central Africa, bombings in Ireland and the Middle East, mass-murder by B747s in NYC, and so on and so forth – that people who were once content to turn a blind eye, and blindly follow religious authority for fear of castigation thereby, have finally gotten fed up with religious murder and mayhem, and are now turning to voices of reason and rationality. I would certainly include Mr. Dawkins among those voices. It is encouraging indeed. How peaceful the world would be without religion!

I've never seen faith move mountains,
but I have seen what it can do to skyscrapers.

"Dawkings talks a lot of about evolution. Well can any of your secularists show me one transitional fossil between a hominid and angels? Just one? Or from talking snakes to the untalking snakes we see now? Nope, I thought not. Evolution is just made up by some old guy writing what ever wanted down in some book. As a TRUE Christian I have not time for old books written by people with an agenda to get the rest of the world to believe their fantasy. Case closed."

Bobby-Joe, thank you. This is priceless. I nearly split a gut.

It's sad that people relegate their gods to take the space otherwise occupied by their ignorance. Long ago, it was thought that the sun was carried across the sky by a god. And not too long ago it was thought that lightning was thrown from the heavens by the gods. And some books would have you believe that a tower was being built too close to heaven, and that the moon was a great light in the sky and that there was a great flood and so on.

Science is revealing that each extraordinary claim has failed spectacularly. With each scientific revelation, the role of god is pushed back. Now we do know where and how and why the Earth is here. We see other stars being born.

So now the pious must scramble and find roles for god in the nooks and crannies where science yet has no answers. And the intellectually dishonest amongst them will claim that science is wrong only because the findings are not palatable nor compatible with their flavours of an ideological reality.

Now people are relegated to saying "well science can't prove everything" or "scientists don't know how XXX happened" when X is something minute or so specific when the details surrounding or near to it are rather well known.

Piteous are those who pigeon-hole their god of the gaps so it can be hidden only where science cannot yet see; especially when their teachings had glorious divine presences showing to countless myriads, only because CNN and video cameras and forensic evidence collection wasn't there to evaluate the claims.

"In my heart I believe in God. I know that He exists. When I read Richard Dawkins’s books I see only theories. It doesn’t change what I feel. Please listen to your hearts."

I tried your suggestion, but the only sounds emitted from my stethoscope would seem to indicate that my heart only pumps blood. I guess I'll have to continue doing my thinking with my brain. The inevitable result of that strategy is the conclusion that gods, angels, fairies, etc. are simple fantasies.

Without using the F-word ("faith"), that is what you seem to be referring to. I don't have any, I never have, and sincerely hope I never will. As a child, I was brainwashed to believe that I was somehow defective because of my lack of faith. No matter how much I wanted to be accepted by those around me, I could not bring myself to believe something for no reason. Years later I came to realize how fortunate I am. Nowadays, I am perfectly happy to embrace reality, and no longer look for opportunities to escape therefrom.

I saw the interview with Richard Dawkins and have to ask why the interviewer was so abrassive?

Could it be that this person was trying to look seriously sceptical in case some fundamentalist threatens not to watch CNN again?

Truly an appalling interview that helped nobody.

As could be expected the question as to the existence of God or its non-existence attracts immense interest around the world and we can see what a multitude of opposing opinions and views exists on the matter.
Gods have been an invention of man millenaries ago and has evolved accross the millenaries to reach the monotheistic religion, which has grown into such a great number of schisms within it.
This should be a very important item on which to reflect.
The monotheistic religion was introduced by very intelligent and clever group of the elite of the time, to give the people, who lived dissolutely at that time, the revelation that a unique God – who rejected immediately all the other existing Gods -has revealed his existence and given the ten commandments and the bible to the people who accepted to believe in him. Even the people still believing in pagan gods respected him. The commandments meant to regulate the human behaviour, and the bible – the word of God – meant to explain the creation. In stride, it indicated that God would judge people on their death and mentioned that the 'good' would go to heaven and the 'evil' to hell. At the time most people were uneducated and usually followed the advice of their elders. Thus began the story of the monotheistic religion and the faith to believe in the Almighty God – although he admits the existence and powers of Satan – which grew through the millenaries into believing it was the truth without asking doubtful questions.
With the various interpretations of the first truth, started the wars of religions and the forced conversions and death to those who refused.
History details the violent and ruthless reactions of the 'believers' versus those they considered 'unbelievers' to their truth. One can realize today that anyone who declares he has the truth about their God becomes a real danger. We are experiencing the return of the violent and reactions today, in spite of education, access to historical facts of the past. In other words human beings never learn from past experiences and their behaviour is in total contradictions with the values revealed by religion.
In the twentieth century, the country who had a great number of the best historians, doctors, psychiatris, scientists, musicians and inventors, was able to reach the worst of man's instincts, which gave the world the gaz chambers and the idea that its people was above all the other species living in the other countries. This is an experience which is only about 70 years old and still vivid. We see today that it had no real impact to improve definitely man's behaviour.
Whilst discussing lengthily about creation, evolution and the existence of God, the world has created a new religion with a new God. POWER AND MONEY.
The present crisis gives us where this new religion can lead us and yet, it is being adopted by most.
Only 60 years ago, there were banks, entrepreneurs and inventors who created conditions to improve the state of people. Democracy gave the possibility to all citizens to judge their leaders and vote.
All the workers, employees and executives worked in their companies for years and, in fact, a certain paternalism existed but it gave some assurance to the future.
Inventions were slow to put into practice, and people had the time to understand and experience it. With the new technologies, which have developed exponentially in the last three decades, new inventions become obsolete very fast. These new technological inventions brought to the individuals a supposed attractive new way of life, by having new advanced televisions, portable phones, computers whcih links them instantly to the rest of the world, portable music, and new possibilities in the financial world, as everything was done instantly.
As for a new invention, one is enthusiastic about the new possibilities offered him, which one side of the coin, and are not aware of all the dangers of the other side of the coins, until we experience the consequences.
The new technologies made people very individualistic, spending hours in front of their teleivions or computers. The loss of using good language and the interest to read books – the computers provide all they need.
Simultaneously, the banks, industries. factories, companies have started to realize that the new technologies gave tham the possibility to make more profits and use less workers or employees. At a time when the world population is growing exponentiently there will be less work for people and more possibilites with the technologies. On the first January 1900 the population of the world was estimated between one and a quarter to one and half billion people.This since the begining of Homo Sapiens about 40000 years ago. On the first January 2000 the population of the world was estimated to be about six billions – a quadruple increase in just 100 years – and now stands at about 7 to 7l.5 billions. Unemployment will become one of the most dangerous problem of our time.
Whilst the banks, entrepreneurs, industries, factories and different enterprises looked only to profit, which automotically put the individuals as unnecessary pawns.
The banks, instead of being – as they were in the past – the complement of the big and small entrepreneurs, loaning them the money they needed for their activities, found with the new technologies the possibility to make more money out of speculation. It was not interesting anymore to take the burden of studying the propositions of the small entrepreneurs and make a small difference of interest on the loan, whilst they could make more money in speculation which have mushroomed the need of traders, who received enormous bonuses in case they succeded to make a lot of profit. The banks executives and the board were very enthusiastic, because with more profits they received enormous remunerations and bonuses. In the meantime, the bank services were reduced tremendously and the cost mushrooming. To have access to your account and money you pass thru ATM's or by giving instructions by computer. There are less and less human contacts and the reduction of the staff puts more work and responsibity on the working staff. That is why we see unions' reactions and lately the number of suicides of working people has increased – when in the old days it was practically an unknown reaction.
In spite of the crisis and the help given the banks with taxpayers money, the banks are again speculating and fighting to retain the high remunerations and bonuses. Where does one think we are heading? This is an important question to look into.
Thus the new God – POWER AND MONEY – seems to have the lead, whilst people retain their faith in their God to help them in times of stress and need.

@ Alan Reeves:
"I do not believe that the Evolution process is purely random and have yet to see such a proof."

Without meaning to, Alan, you are in fact correct. Genetic mutations are random, evolution by natural selection is absolutely unequivocally NOT random. You will never see any "proof" of randomness in evolution because there is none.

Thus, when you accuse Dawkins of being "simplistic" in his explanation of evolution, you clearly haven't been listening. Or don't want to listen.

Both science and religion fail abysmally in answering my question: WHY AM I ME?

Alan Reeves wrote:
"Who created the process (ie natural selection rules, etc)? Evolution clearly has a process and it is not as simple as Dawkins suggests. There is still much to learn about the Evolution process. I do not believe that the Evolution process is purely random and have yet to see such a proof."

Why must we assume that everything that exists was created? And as others have already pointed out, if we do make that assumption, and further that god exists, then who created god?

I certainly agree wholeheartedly that the "process" of evolution is not purely random; and though I must confess that I haven't yet read Mr. Dawkins' latest book, I find it extremely difficult to imagine that he would say it is. Those who dispute the validity of evolution almost inevitably claim that it is a purely random process. This, IMHO, is where their argument fails miserably. The reason I placed quotes around "process" above, is that evolution, per my understanding, results from the interaction of two processes. The first is mutation, which is seemingly random. The second is natural selection, which most certainly is not. The non-randomness of the latter renders the randomness of the former irrelevant. May we agree that mutations do indeed happen (random or otherwise)? And if so, is it unreasonable to think mutated organisms that are more suited to their environment (for example, longer hair in the arctic) are likely to live longer than their unmutated counterparts? And if they live longer, is it unreasonable to think they are likely to bear more offspring, who inherit the mutation? From my perspective, it seems unreasonable to think it could be otherwise.

Am I to understand that it is your belief that order (non-randomness) implies will or intelligence, ergo a deity? If so, I beg to differ. Natural laws do have the effect of filtering randomness into order. And I repeat, there is no reason to assume those laws were "created" by anybody.

Here is an example: Near my home is small but briskly flowing river that is strewn with stones of random sizes ranging from grains of sand to huge boulders. I have found that the best foot massage available to mankind, is wading out to the middle of the river on the fist-sized rocks with bare feet, then sitting on the large boulder/island there, with my feet buried in the soft sand downstream therefrom. Actually there are many such boulder/islands with downstream sandy patches. One has to wonder "why?" Is it possible that the fluid dynamics of the water flowing past the boulder results in a low pressure area downstream which traps low-mass, low-inertia particles such as grains of sand in that area? Of course not! Obviously, god has been there and collected all of the sand particles and deposited them by the rock, just so I could sit there and rest my feet. What a guy!

"Both science and religion fail abysmally in answering my question: WHY AM I ME?"

No doubt. Religion's answer is "You are you because that is the way god intended you to be." Science's answer is "You are you because of the genetic material you inherited, and the sum of your life's experiences." Neither can explain the details. For a question of that nature, I can only suggest, don't ask science, don't ask religion, ask yourself.

“Both science and religion fail abysmally in answering my question: WHY AM I ME?”

I wrote:
No doubt. Religion’s answer is “You are you because that is the way god intended you to be.” Science’s answer is “You are you because of the genetic material you inherited, and the sum of your life’s experiences.” Neither can explain the details. For a question of that nature, I can only suggest, don’t ask science, don’t ask religion, ask yourself.

PS: And when you do ask yourself, carefully consider the perspective from which you will answer yourself. If you answer from the religious perspective, you will still be lost, because how could you possibly know god's (assuming one existed) intentions or motivations? If, on the other hand, you answer from the scientific perspective, you may not find all of the details, but you will find a great deal more than by using the alternative approach. You know much more than anyone on Earth about your life's experiences. I'm sure you do not know your entire genetic sequence, and like me, you would probably have no idea how to interpret it even if you did. But you probably do know plenty about your ancestry and family history, and therefore the traits that you are most likely to inherit. And if you really wanted more detail, you could get your genome sequenced, and study genetics in order to derive some meaning from the results. No, science does not immediately provide all of the answers to all possible questions in unlimited detail; but given time, it does provide many rational answers, unlike religion which provides none.

Enjoyed the interview, though some of the questions were almost as absurd as many theists' comments on this page...

Priests=Biologists? WTF?
and..."which god would be the one true god"? even more WTF...kind of like asking, what's the one popular children's fairy tale is actually true...or which one will turn out to be real, santa claus vs. the easter bunny?

*facepalm*

Religion is a way for one without scientific knowledge to fill in the mysterious gaps within their world, the things they don't understand. Why did ancient religious believe a chariot pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Because they had no way to know what really happened. What excuse is there to stick to similarly outdated superstition when tested evidence with a realistic answer is available?
My suggestion to those people is to get a scientific education.

(oops- ancient religions**, not religious)

D Miller wrote: "Why must we assume that everything that exists was created? And as others have already pointed out, if we do make that assumption, and further that god exists, then who created god?"

I don't want to get into semantics here, but I am quite certain that everything that exists (in our known natural world) has been "created". This is a simple matter of physics. However, the creation was not necessarily by a deity, in most cases the creation is by the natural laws of physics and nature (which the deity has created).

In terms of the MUCH bigger issue of "who created God" we need to place ourselves (in our imagination) back to the beginning of time. That is, back to the time ("state" is probably a better word here, since the concept of time does not yet exist) when all that exists (and I won't say "in our Universe" here, because there is no Universe yet) is a massive intelligent energy source. This energy source (which still exists throughout our universe today) has a Plan – we do not know His/Her/Its Plan and can probably never know it – and the Plan involves the creation of a Universe with millions (maybe billions or trillions) of planets with intelligent and non-intelligent life forms. For some reason God needs these life forms, maybe to sustain His own energy/intelligence. So God creates the Universe. One thing leads to another, with all the laws of physics (and Evolution) also being created as part of His Universe-creation process.

In answer to your question "who created God" – He was not created. He was always there in an "infinite state" at the beginning of time. This does not mean He was there for an infinite amount of time, because there was no concept of time before the laws of physics were created.

It is good that you can marvel at the stones and pebbles beneath your feet. I suggest that you should also marvel at the wondrous Universe around your head. Use your imagination – it is the greatest gift that God has given us, to permit us to follow our quest to know Him.

I spent one year discussing God with a theological student. Actually a theological/mathematical student which puts him into a much more defined species.
After discussing the theological and scientific aspects for more than a year he came to me one morning and agreed that I had the more convincing argument, and that he moreover felt that I was right and that there was no God, " it was all something advanced by the church to collect money to propegate the church".

I never saw him after that term, and was always sorry that I had been so convincing. God is something that the faithfull love and revere. Unfortunately belief in any God will be the downfall of mankind. More wars have been faught by people believing that they had the higher authority than any other reason in the world.

Isn't it enough to piss you off?!!!

Sandy, I have to wonder if you really read the God Delusion or any of RD's books, which are all about wonder. That's what he means by "The Greatest Show on Earth". The wonder!

A Question:

To the best of my knowledge, neither Dawkins nor Darwin have attempted to explain the Origin of Life or the Origin of Universe. They both deal with the Evolution of Life. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this point.

To have a better idea of the religions and their origin, it may be very useful to read the two volumes o the 'HISTORY OF RELIGIONS' by G.F. MOORE, LL.D., first published in 1914 and reprinted. They give a clear clue as how religions started and evolved. Monotheism is a an evolution of ancient religions.
The question of religion is a never ending one!

Our limited inteligency about "God" is embeded in the mystry of death , untill we solve this mystry and stop death in its tracks "God" will rule forever. Its so simple but it sucks to realise that for millions of years human being has not been able to crack this mystry, and i do understand why "interlectuals' like him are frustrated especially as they grow older because they raelise they are runing out of time.

If there is no God then where did love evolve from?

Joan Chapman :

If God exists, how come there are so much greed and violence between human beings?

God gave man free choice. We as humans choose what we feel is right for our needs. God teaches us to choose what is right. St. Paul was a great sinner but he received the gift of faith. He wrote this letter to the people of Corinth. The Bible is God's inspired Word!
2 Corinthians
Chapter 12: 6-21
Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong. I have been foolish. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I am in no way inferior to these "superapostles," even though I am nothing.
The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all endurance, signs and wonders, and mighty deeds. In what way were you less privileged than the rest of the churches, except that on my part I did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong! Now I am ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, for I want not what is yours, but you. Children ought not to save for their parents, but parents for their children. I will most gladly spend and be utterly spent for your sakes. If I love you more, am I to be loved less?
But granted that I myself did not burden you, yet I was crafty and got the better of you by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those I sent to you? I urged Titus to go and sent the brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? And in the same steps? Have you been thinking all along that we are defending ourselves before you? In the sight of God we are speaking in Christ, and all for building you up, beloved. For I fear that when I come I may find you not such as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; that there may be rivalry, jealousy, fury, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness they practiced.

I have managed to deliver myself from religious dogmatism by first, reading the wise and beautiful writings of the controversial Anglican (Episcopal) Bishop, John Shelby Spong. Spong rationally and compassionately agrees that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection myths, as well as the focus on a grotesque human blood sacrifice are irrational, unscientific, and delusional. He then focuses on the uplifting philosophical teachings attributed to Jesus.

After that, I have found the rational and scientific discoveries and writings of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D, to be an excellent exploration of the natural, ubiquitous intelligence which influences evolution... an intelligence and consciousness of which we are all a part and are all a manifestation.

God live everyone's heart but everyone can't look them....

The book is brilliant!

Faith versus atheism or agnostism will never find a mutually satisfactory solution to the existence or non existence of God.
Instead of unending bickering, why don't the two sides decide on a simple soltion THE RESPECT OF EACH OTHER, based on the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This would eliminate the individualism, greed, hatred and violence
which we are currently experiencing in our world.

LET US TRY TO HAVE THE RESPE;CT OF EACH OTHER BE THE
MUTUAL 'RELIGION' ACCEPTED BY ALL THE HUMAN BEING ON THIS EARTH.

It is a utopy worth while to TRY.

Mr. Jerome Haltom is quite correct; having no proof as to the existence or non-existence of a personal God, the only rational response is to say: "I don't know".
One can then say, "I believe...". The distinction between the two expressions is critical; confusion between the two is more apt to be a mistake of true believers rather than a mistake made by skeptics.

this thing's getting better and better as I learn more about it.

I haven't seen convincing evidence of a god or gods, an afterlife, or ghosts (holy or not), and therefore consider myself agnostic (I don't KNOW if there is one or more than one or none) AND an atheist (I have no belief in any god(s) I've ever heard of.) I am open to new evidence, but I really doubt that we were created as we are today. The book in question, however, deals with evidence of evolution. When new microorganisms appear that resist antibiotics, for example, I don't understand how anyone can believe that new life forms haven't evolved from other, nearly identical microbes in response to changes in their environments.