The Root of All Evil?

The Root of All Evil?

2006, Religion  -   461 Comments
Ratings: 8.77/10 from 196 users.

The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (The God Delusion and The Virus of Faith), on Channel 4 in the UK. Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.

His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous. Dawkins's book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. (Excerpt from

Directed by: Russell Barnes

More great documentaries

461 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Narrowminded viewpoint from a prominent individual of the status quo.

  2. All religons have been created by people, usually male - which is why women are second class citizens in faith as well as politics. If you find this doc or its narrator not in agreement with your world view, then it is your view that is askew not the facts presented here. If your view is based on religious texts, which are all written by mortals claiming to know to know god first hand, then your views are irrelevant when compared to facts. They may have meaning for you, but those views are not facts and you should not cite them as facts. God is only in your mind, to keep you obedient to others.

  3. You Sir, the host of this documentry, you say that you haven heard so much comments of bigotery, but you are ignorantly not being aware of it perhaps, making the worst example, worst version of the bigotery that you don't like hearing your self. Why? Are you so angry, personally angry with faith? You see I can see that way passed personal for you, and you yourself aren't in the condition to listen, take, intake, think about it and make conclusions without already having enormous distaste, and unbelief. You come to the table with extremely unpleasant attitude, and if your going to make a documentary where people have freedom to their opinion, why do you get so horribly angry and all shaken with disagreement , can't you be nice and respectful? You make yourself look like a irresponsible child! When something you don't like comes up you become utterly hysterical and rude to the other person who is only trying to resonate love, the love of God, the love of Jesus, is this whats making you so angry and cruel? The fact that people with faith have love in them and are treating you as they would want to be treated, but you! Are in response very horrible to the people your interviewing on your show. Sad!

  4. Ego maniacs cannot have anything superior to themselves, be it certain scientists, religionairs, socio-psycopathic socialist-communists, or whatever type of bullies you may encounter. Yet any true religion SUGGESTS to do the right thing, be humble, considerate, patient, tolerant, kind, helpful; some would describe such as love; but not to waste that on the users or evil types.

    Why should anyone listen to someone who knows little to nothing of what they speak? Do you go to Dawkins for car trouble? Then why for any comment on religion? By the same logic why would anyone listen to a so called religious leader if they are not trying to remind folks what is good and true and to do the right thing? Or a scientist who just blathers on about his beliefs based on distortions, making things conform to what they want to believe.

    Clearly, the largest problem we face is people's lazy mindedness and willingness to jump to baseless conclusions. They refuse to do their own homework so they will know BS when they hear it. Too lazy to verify. Just accept whatever sounds like it makes sense. Whatever fits their world view, often which is distorted. Assumption is jump to conclusions.

    Stop jumping to conclusions, do sufficient homework, you and the world will be better for it.

  5. within the first two minutes he sets out his thesis with the premise "I BELIEVE there is a profound contradiction between scientific and religious BELIEF". At the onset he clearly states that his own ideas are a belief, therefore based on faith, therefore a religion. This is the kind of reductionist materialist bull* that has gotten the world to the crappy place it is. The archetypes and paradigms contained in stories of antiquity have endured for millennia for a reason. They offer and contain profound wisdom and meaning. If this had been an honest look into faith and religion over the course of history and then proved that his "belief" is intellectually and morally superior to that which religion offers. I would be on board. Also the definition of God he bases his premise on is incredible juvenile almost to the point of imbecility.

    kill count for athiests: stalin, pol pot, hitler, mao (lowest number within the range): 106 million.
    for religion (highest number within the range): 5 million.

    1. You better do a google search, the all knowing google tells me that there are at least 195,600,000 "kill count" for the invisible Gods and Deities. Not 5 million as you stated.

  6. your an athiest im a Greek Orthodox and believe in not only what I was taught but what I have experienced. If you dont believe you know sh*t

  7. Lol he is just s*****ing on religion thru out the whole documentary.
    It should be called s****ing on
    F***ing dude doe he makes good points

  8. I'm thinking that the reviewers of these films 'jump' on bashing Ray Comfort's film because it tries too hard to convert people to his religion as is mockingly derided for it, Though, isn't Dawkins attempting to convert people to his 'religion' just as much and much more sarcastically ?

  9. My issue with programs like this is that all religions are put into the same box. Is Wicca, Neopaganism and some other religions (example eastern philosophies/religions) really comparable to Fundamental Christianity or Extremist Islam? Really!?

    I feel it's just as bad to paint all spiritual/religious people with the same brush as doing this to atheists. Maybe some are reacting this way due to being prosecuted but then is it good that you become the prosecutor? How does that feel?

    I'd rather we come to an understanding through education, communication and cooperation. I'd prefer not to be forced to be an atheist or being treated badly. Not a nice "choice"!

    Also, I believe humans always find a reason, excuse or confirmation to do bad, if that's what they want to do. Anything can be twisted to mean what you want it to mean. Of course it's a lot easier to use religion and then point to it as the reason everything is bad and wrong, when in reality there's something wrong with the individual. That's a lot harder to admit.

  10. There appears to be evidence that religion is the root of all evil whereas there appears to be no evidence that religion is real. Welcome to the greatest story ever told; this documentary should be shown to 12 year olds

    1. As I looked through the comments, I saw that most comments are from 2 to 4 months ago. That is after the Haggard's homosexual exploits with male prostitutes became public. Now he claims to be "cured".

    2. you are a m*ron with the IQ of a 12 year old , of course there is evidence that religion exists , there is NO evidence that GOD exists but that is different , people believing in the imaginary man in the sky is very real ...

  11. Dawkin's has a very narrow and dogmatic view of religions.

    1. It sure beats anything which you have to offer.

    2. You sure about that?? You don't even know my stance... am I theist? atheist? What are my ideas to offer? You have no knowledge about my position on anything and you wish to troll?? hahaha... whatever man.... very scientific of you. ;)

    3. From your comment about Dr. Dawkins, I can fairly much guess.

    4. Prejudice is a prejudgment. :) At least I follow a lot of Dawkin's before making my judgement call. Go on prejudging.

    5. I read your post BEFORE commenting on it. No prejudgment there.

    6. Your prejudgement has to do with you assuming what I think, not my statement. You said: `It sure beats anything which you have to offer.` Which, means you`re prejudging information I have not divulged.

    7. Fine, then let's see what you have to offer.

    8. Read above.

    9. Why do you think so?

    10. There is evidence that Religion is not the root of all evil. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., very religions, Mahatma Gandhi, religious. JFK, Catholic and one of the most progressive people who was out there. Even St. Augustine warned Christians to not take the Bible literally, and that was just after the AD era began.

      Such blanket statements: `religion is the root of all evil` don`t work. There are plenty of obscure religions that promote peace and harmony, and don`t advocate violence or intolerance. Sukyo Mahikari, Buddhism, Baha'i Faith, and even groups of Islam and Christianity just to name a few. These are peaceful, and many religions advocate for science. If religion had never existed there would still likely have been war and suffering.

      What Richard Dawkin`s truly seems to be against is ideological dogma, with which I agree. Sadly he seems to have his own Dogmatic view of religion, that brooks no argument. In reality, religion is intensely complex, and most of the issues people bring up have nothing to do with the religion, but the actions of individuals interpreting said religion.

      Example: Many people hate Islam because of suicide bombers and their idea that as a martyr they get to go to heaven with their reward. However, in discussion with many Islamic people I have found that many disagree with this stance. Terrorists don`t go to `heaven`. Martyrs do. To be a martyr one must be killed or made to suffer, because they refuse to give up their faith based upon the demand of another. Suicide bombers do not do this, despite what their dogmatic ideology teaches them. They are not Martyrs. Period. They are terrorists.

      I don`t see religion being the root of all evil, the evidence does not support it. Since Dr. Dawkin`s does not seem to want to change that stance I feel he`s dogmatic.

      Definition 4 of Dogma: `a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.`

    11. Newton, Descartes, Pascal, Mendel, George Washington Carver and Srinivansa Ramanujan were all religious, albeit some a product of their times, and their accomplishments far outshadow the
      three individuals you mentioned, especially JFK, a product of publicity more
      than anything else. So what?
      From "The Free Dictionary."
      1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
      2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
      3. a. One who endures great suffering: a
      martyr to arthritis.
      b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy."
      The second definition certainly fits the Islamic terrorists' view of themselves."
      I gave the source for the definition of martyr that I used, why didn't you do the same
      for dogma?
      "If religion had never existed there would still likely have been war and suffering." Most likely so, only considerably less of it.
      Name me any good that can be accomplished solely through religion. In short, we don’t need it.

    12. It says in the blurb that Dawkins didn't want the title Root of All Evil but channel 4 insisted on it, to cause controversy. It worked ;)

    13. Well, if he really objected to the title, he would have made more of an
      instance on it not being the title. My position on him being dogmatic
      has to do with this line of thinking prevailing through all his work,
      and I've also met a lot of Atheists who don't side with his hardline

      If someone has solid evidence to show me otherwise, I'll
      gladly reassess my position, or if he convinces me otherwise in a
      personal conversation.

    14. Well, if he really objected to the title, he would have made more of an
      insistence on it not being the title. My position on him being dogmatic
      has to do with this line of thinking prevailing through all his work,
      and I've also met a lot of Atheists who don't side with his hardline

      If someone has solid evidence to show me otherwise, I'll
      gladly reassess my position, or if he convinces me otherwise in a
      personal conversation.

    15. Well, he's not my favourite atheist either. He doesn't have the charm of Hitch or the humour of Dennet but that doesn't make him bad or wrong. Sometimes it takes a hardliner, a shouted and stamper, to get the message across - you might not like him but you've listened to him and one way or another he has you thinking. Anyway, he's not all bad and he doesn't hate people. If he did he wouldn't care so much that some get trapped by religion, or that it is the cause of misery for so many. An atheist who doesn't agree with his stance is probably an atheist that hasn't given the subject much thought. A natural born atheist ;) you should pop across to YouTube and type in, Hate emails with Richard Dawkins. Enjoy ;)

    16. I'm sure he has a bunch of haters. Honestly, I don't think he's bad, but I question just how "right" he is. I'm sure he's not vile, and genuinely cares about others, especially their educations, and on that I deeply agree with him.

      My problem with his stance, is rather simple really: His tactics only seem to intensify opposition. Not that I've check recent stats but I would venture that the majority of the world is religious, and will not respond well with someone calling them stupid, ignorant or any other insult. As a matter of fact, most are not any of those things. Many accept the findings of science, and the majority of Christians don't take the Bible in literal terms (at least my personal finding). Rather those that are steeped in creationism, are a minority. Islam is similar, that most don't take the writings of the Koran literally. According to one Imam, the purpose of ensuring all young children have the Koran memorized is so that they too can debate it's meaning with Imam's. To me that means more of a personal relationship for the individual with God. Cool... I'm not a fan of Clergy and Churches/hierarchies.

      In the end, science can't prove God does not exist, nor can it be proven he does. We must allow for tolerance in all aspects, and allow people to follow a religion if they honestly belief it and it resonates with their souls. At the same time, we must ensure that religious practices don't harm others, and this is the delicate issue to move forth. How do we reconcile these issues. I believe science and religion can exist in harmony. Religion needs to open up to science, and many do. Yet Science still can't touch the God issue. There is nothing Dawkin's has ever said that soundly trumps it, nor has his colleague Krauss. Even Darwin became Atheist not because of discovering evolution, but rather because of an emotional response to the suffering of his daughter.

      We need compassion and understanding and an acceptance for the diversity of humanity. That there are many paths in life, and just because someone is not on yours doesn't mean they're wrong. If their actions harm others, then we need intervention. Yet we attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

      Personally I don't equate religion with small pox. It's is actually a healing balm, and in some cases has mutated to a poison. To not look at that duality, to not recognize that understanding is a willful ignorance.

      Who care if someone believes in God? What I care about are their actions. One religion I respect deeply is the Baha'i Faith. If one looks at it objectively, not with a predetermined bias because it's a religion, they will see a set of principles that can, and will heal many of the wounds in this world.

      Jesus had one thing to teach. Love each other. The rest was window dressing and the bible wasn't written until some 400 after he died. That's a long time for the telephone game. I'll stick to his one simple message. Love. Love your neighbour. He never said "except the gay neighbour, or the black neighbour". Jesus taught all are equal in the eyes of Heaven, and I think he'd be horrified at the pope on a golden throne.

      I'm not a registered Christian, nor will I ever be, but I do respect that fundamental message of Christianity. The rest are people problems.

    17. Let's be accurate. It's what "Jesus" is reputed to have taught. Remember, the Sermon on the Mount is found only in Matthew.
      You're right. Science cannot touch the god issue, but at least it doesn't claim to, but neither can religion despite its claims.
      Religion is as much a healing balm as telling a child a bedtime fairytale.

    18. I would disagree there. Here's why. Look at the teachings of say Buddhism.

      This pragmatic thrust of the Dharma is clearly illustrated by the main formula into
      which the Buddha compressed his program of deliverance, namely, the
      Four Noble Truths:
      (1) the noble truth that life involves suffering
      (2) the noble truth that suffering arises from craving
      (3) the noble truth that suffering ends with the removal of craving
      (4) the noble truth that there is a way to the end of suffering.

      These seems pretty decent to me, and if the whole world were to practice some of these ideas it would be a better place.

      Certainly more valuable than telling your child about fairies and goblins. Just sayin'. Fairy Tales have their uses as well.

    19. So what if his tactics intensify opposition, so do hell fire preachers, so do politicians whose god tinted specs colour their policies, so do the faith healers whose hands do no more than massage the pockets of the frightened and vulnerable. And what of the parents that eschew real medicine in favour of prayer when their children are sick. How about the untold deaths that could be prevented and the poverty that could be ended if education and contraception were promoted over faith in the improbable and unproven? Am I to turn a deaf ears to the cries of a child held down and circumcised ? Should I be accepting of suicide bombers beliefs when they pay scant regard for another's life ? And while I'm on the subject of suicide bombers, I've yet to hear of one committing such an atrocity in the name of the Higgs Boson. How can I tolerate any of those things, are these things the actions of principled people? Doesn't matter much whether a person follows a church or their own personal god, their beliefs cast a shadow over others, even if that means nothing more than biting ones own tongue to keep from offending. I could stomp all over your politics and it would be a healthy debate, if I so much as touch a mans imaginary friend I am guilty of intolerance, even hate speech. And what when some are critical of my atheism and when they come to my door to sell me dusters with a side order of deity, should I be tolerant then? If their feelings are more fragile than mine, maybe they should examine why?

    20. "Dusters with a side order of deity . . . " What a great idea for a chain of non-demonimational restaurants. Let's call it Dusters. Each meal comes with a prayer tailored to YOUR god, YOUR religious bents and most of all YOUR particular brand of religious bigotry (children get two). Atheists eat free when accompanied by a theist.
      Perhaps you can come up with an INTELLIGENT DESIGN for the menu.

    21. No menu, just men in funny hats force feeding you their own interpretation of a two thousand year old recipe ;)

    22. Greek style.

    23. Is that appropriate with children present? ;)

    24. What do you think the kitchen's for?

    25. Animal sacrifice. I thought the snake handling happened front of house ;)

    26. Speaking of animal sacrifices, what about a crucifixtion (T-bone) steak served over a bed of thorns and held onto the plate with nails?

    27. With asparagus spears of destiny and vinegar sponge to follow, now we're cooking! ;)

    28. Frying is more like it.

    29. "Its been great for business all this time, too, as long as the customer has had 'a cast iron soul'. But lately more and more atheists have been turning up, demanding to be served, and the food fights have been spectacular, truly for the ages. Over in the pantry corner is a large wheel of 'Revelation' brand Limburger cheese we're saving for just the right occasion. Rumor has it the Antichrist himself will show up shortly, at which point me and my staff plan to grab it and make a balls out run right for the center of his forehead. Three of my junior assistants, however, are sure they will not be able to be present on that day. But whenever one mentions it, I just belt him in the chops with a halibut and pretend I didn't hear what he said."

      Head Chef Pipi, in Fine Dining in Babylon, vol. 6, art. 16

    30. G'day dewflirt,

      Just a short line to thank you for steering me into Matthew Reilly. Have enjoyed what I've read and looking forward to more of the same....:)

    31. St. Augustine also argued that one should not study mathematics or natural sciences because that could lead you away from the city of gawd. For him t'were better to remain ignorant of the world and accept faith teachings so as to not lose your imaginary soul. I would have titled the program: Why Religions Suck.

    32. Yeah nobody's perfect. I don't expect others to find a balance between science and religion. It's just that I don't see them in opposition, as many past figures and present figures seem to do.

    33. Gandhi, you mean Hitler's best friend.... And so it goes. . .l

    34. Hitler's best friend?

    35. agreed..... Hitler's best friend??

    36. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe it is the 'root of all evil' anyway, he doesn't believe there is such a thing as a root to all evil, he's said so himself. It was actually the producers who wanted him to make that the title because it made it more dramatic and he insisted that it have '?' on the end, he wanted the program to be named "the god delusion" after the book he wrote. He also isn't against individuals having belief but for their own sakes yet believes that the solidarity in their convictions provided by the absolutism of religion provides an excuse for those religious people who might otherwise not do wrong. Religion is also very set in old times, at least when you look at the actual rules in the bible, which actually encourage stoning people to death for being raped or being homo sexual, according to the old testament if anyone tries to change your beliefs they should be stoned to death. If someone wants to rape your guests offer your daughters to be raped. If anyone followed holy book literally, which unfortunately some Islamic countries do, the would would indeed be a very hellish place.

    37. Yeah, right. Emile Zola wrote a novel of his experience of his voyage to Lourdes. The book is called simply "Lourdes" part of his trilogy "Les Trois Villes".You might need to know French because I don't know of a current translation. Zola shows what a fraud Lourdes is and how the church exploits it.

      There is nothing like a "broad" view of religions. Religions are for the mentally constipated.

    38. There is a translation on Gutenberg.

    39. Thank you, not for me, but for all the other readers.

    40. As you say. Personally I've met plenty of religious folks who don't fit the "mentally constipated" definition you give them. You wish to view things that way, your call. I choose to not, because of experience.

      There are also plenty of close minded folks world wide. I wonder how much "fraud" was exploited by communism? Including unwarranted harassment, dare I say persecution, of people who do follow a religion. Seems to be a human issue to me.

  12. Over the edge
    Thanks for your response, but you still have not answered my question. I asked "How does something evolute
    into becoming male and female with different sexual organs. If evolution started with one organism then how did it evolute into different species, I was not asking about the many benefits or the mixing of genes. You said that the male seahorses carry their young until they develop; The male seahorse has a pocket in which the female lays her eggs, and carrying your young and giving birth is two different things.
    You said that sexual reproduction requires no seed, so then, what is a sperm? It is not the man's seed. You ask to define kind, It is a group of individuals or items connected by shared characteristics.
    You said it is not a scientific term, but have you ever done any gardening at all.
    Finally you said that if a human gave birth to a puppy, that would prove evolutionary theory wrong. First what is a theory? Is it not speculations? Assumption, presumptions, or a guess? I was simply showing that evolution cannot, and under no circumstances produce variety, If it can, then prove it to me in a short period. And I will prove to you that the bible is right, in that, everything is still producing after it’s own kind.
    Thank you Mr. Allen for the corrections. But i saw you had no corrections for your friend, Over the edge, bye for now.

    1. A little late, but your lack of knowledge about basic biology is staggering. Every question you asked should have been answered in your first high school biology class.

      The clue here? You mixed up the *scientific* definition of theory with the layman's everyday usage of the same word.

      Start with a dictionary, find out what a scientific theory is (hint: NOT an "assumption, presumption" NOR a "guess"), then get an actual education. It can only benefit you.

  13. Questions
    How does something evolute into becoming male and female with different sexual organs.
    One being able to give birth [that is the female] and the other cannot give birth at all [that is the male]
    Also if evolution causes that, then why is it not happening again?
    The bible said male and female created he them and in sorrow shall the woman give birth and to this day it still takes birth pains to bring fort a child.
    Also why everything begins in seed form and every seed brings fort after it own kind.
    If things evolute, then why human being are not making puppies, and why your DNA has its own genetic script, who wrote that script?

    1. Another one of your ignorant posts, complete with bad spelling, usage and grammar.
      Why don't you read a biology book instead of your goddam bible? Then you might just learn something. But it seems that I've answered my own question.
      P.S. Evolution is happening, over and over and over and everything does not begin in seed form.
      P.P.S. Scrip and script are two different things. Why not look up the difference before posting more idiocy.

  14. Dear Vlatko:
    1 and 2
    The issue was not weather I understand what evolution is. Your forgetting what we started to discuss. I do know what evolution is, but the case was that you don't know anything about our origin, and an evolution theory (right or wrong) will not help you to understand the main question (where we are from, how we came to be etc.) You realize that and thats good. Lesson learned. So now, when you realize that science is fallen short of explaining these questions, at least for now, future will show what science can come up with. I am excited to see. The fine tuning argument are you probably familiar with. How do you approach that? The argument I mentioned about the universe naturally reflect some of the creator (if He exist) is that brainwashed? You tell me, but if you discover a small building somewhere in the universe, what are your first guess? Coincidence? Or that someone made it? At least, it should be obvious to consider that this is made of someone, something. And because of the extremly fine tuning Penrose is describing (He actually have a number for it as well.) I believe it is for a purpose. Its not just made for nothing. And that leads me to guess that there is a purpose with us. And I also believe that it make sense that He would like to reach to us of we are Hes creations. And now suddenly we have moved into philosophical and theological thinking and I stop here. But its not irrational thinking. We are thinking in this way most of our life (nothing come out of nothing etc.) A highly complicated product doesnt come from a lower complicated product etc.

    Yes. Christianity infested all of Europe and many people did lots of wrongs during that time. Just as humans are doing wrong things wherever and whenever. Nothing controversial in that. The Roman empire with its insanity just as the Djengis Khan etc. You are all right in your accusations.
    But bottom line is; The Christian infested Europe came out as the all time winner. No doubt about it. Human rights, living standards, technology, well fare, womens rights. You name it, it occured in the infested countries. Nowhere else. I am not saying Christians do everything right. I am simply pointing out that they are not bad compared with any other world view. Actually better. (By the why, about education and technology the Jews are sky-high over every other nation. A small population with 142 nobel prizes says it all. They are founded on theism.) So, bottom line. Your right in your accusations, but we can still agree that countries founded on Christian values are leading out the rest of the world. That the wind changes the last 50 years is right, but the west didn't start their why from the stone age in 1950..
    Concerning Breivik He never attended any church, not as a child and not as a grown up. He was member of the secret club "free mason" (not sure of the english word for it) but have never referred to anything in the bible or Christianity itself, but was indeed fascinated by the knights templars. But Christian? Not a chance. He was member of the state church as most people are, but as you said; they are most atheists.

    4: This is a strictly theological question. I am not sure if we should start at it here. There are plenty material to read if you want on both sides. I wouldnt put my life in the hands of a psycho, but strangely enough your "psycho" have motivated me to give money to charity, worked with street children in east Africa when I was younger etc. so to me and most Christians its not "God the psycho" who motivates us, so maybe we have discovered something in the Bible that slipped your critical eye. Or maybe we slipped Gods evil will for us and misunderstood. Bottom line here is that Christians have done and are still doing so much charity around the world that the picture you are painting are not necessarily true. About your 10 % it probably counts for those members of the state church. It is not representable for those attending churches regularly.

    About North Korea few people know much about the moral there. Barbra Demicks book about daily life in North Korea (she is not christian i think) gives an unique insight in the crazyness there.
    The documentary I saw on this page "Children of the secret state" shows that there are at least more psychoes then just one. (the army, guards at the prison camps etc) These folks are atheists. Bad Atheists, brainwashed atheists etc. I agree. But atheists. And they are not alone. the same goes for all of the communism. Its not just one person. They didn't capture the throne alone. The soil, people, where caught sleeping, joined the revoution, and before they realized whats wrong it was too late. Christians never joined that revolution. Atheists all over the world did. And are now counting the cost.
    North Korea is special thou, i admit that. But atheism is not just freedom, peace etc. It offers evil more space sort of. Just as religion can give evil reason to slipp out. Bottom line here is that Atheism represents far more death the last hundred years then any other world view anywhere in the history have done in any period in the world.

    Good night and sleep well:)

    1. 1 and 2. From your comments, you don't know the first thing about evolution, so don't lie about it . Just because a watch has a watch maker does not mean that life has a creator, the former being a synthetic object, the latter a natural one, and if you knew anything about science, you would realize, as would any two-year-old, that the two don't work the same way. Your belief in purpose is unprovable and hence worthless and when viewed cosmologically, as unnecessary as the god of the gaps which you have forged to make up for what you don't know, the height not only of irrationality, but of monumental stupidity.

      3. So Christianity came out as the all-time winner, did it? How long did the Babylonian civilization last? Answer: 3,000+ years. How long did the Egyptian civilization last? Answer: 3,000+ years. And what is Christianity the all-time winner of? Not human rights, not better living standards, not technology, not welfare, not womens rights when for milennia it stood steadfastly against all of these which were eventually brought about through secular (and by this I mean godless) means. "But we can still agree that countries founded on Christian values are leading out the rest of the world." In what and which set of Christian values are you referring to? And no, we can't agree. You have merely correlated power with a belief in your type of god; you have not proved causation because you can't. Did you ever think of giving culture along with education and intelligence the credit for success rather than an idiotic belief in a supreme being?

      4. Being a missionary which is what you seem to have been makes you despicable right then and there; however, what's worse is that you can't admit to performing a charitable act on your own because you want to or you feel it the right thing to do; you must have some psychopathic head honcho whose existence you cannot prove much less know anything about make you do it--or else! This is pathetic and subhuman. What Christians are doing around the world isn't charity--let's call it what it is: cheap proselytyzing.

      5. "Bottom line here is that Atheism represents far more death the last hundred years then any other world view anywhere in the history have done in any period in the world." And just where is your proof? No mass murder, no genocide has ever been committed in the name of atheism, but can the same be said for Christianity?

      In short, you're a foul excuse for anything approaching knowledge or intelligence.

  15. I am pointing out that i cant understand the greatness of the universe and HOW it is made, came to be. etc. That is something I leave to those who deals with stuff like that. And that is clearly not sience. Actually it is not human being.

    But God is creator of all this that is not understandable for us.

    I have small children. The youngest is 2 years old. She dont understand much of the world surrounding her. But she clearly knows her parents (who knows a lot more) and who takes care of her, have created her and love her. And our relation can be both strong and deep. Even she don't understand how i get food on the table, what money is, that daddy needs to work and that the music she listen to is on a cd, and the sound is inside the CD. All she is concerned about is her relation with me. Her parent. She all depends on me instead of her own abilities.

    Do you get it?

    As humans we cannot understand the entire world around us. We dont qualify. We can try to discover as much as possible. But we will not understand the entire universe scientifically. I think we all agree on that.

    Bu good news is; I know the guy (God) who do. And He also explains good/evil. And He took my punishment on the cross. For all what I have done wrong. The relation does the difference.

    "why not just say i do not know?"
    -I don not know, but I know the One who know.

    1. Pederas
      "And that is clearly not sience" really? what we do know about life,the universe and how things work is the result of science. please give me a list of the things your religion has given factual explanations for? are you seriously comparing your knowledge and critical thinking skills to that of a two year old? if there is a creator why does it have to be your god? why not zeus, allah. the FSM.....? then you state " And He also explains good/evil." then please explain his acts/commands of infanticide,slavery,sexual discrimination, genocide and so on. also if your god asked the same of you that he asked of Abraham what would you do?

    2. Well. As I have pointed out; The actual "creation" how it all came to be etc. Have not been answered. The form of life, and how it came to existence is far from answered. Some biologists think carbon came from the universe and then formed life on earth, some thinks life came from the ice, some thinks it came from the volcano and some think it was formed in the sea. Prof. Biologi M. Behe, wrote a very interesting book on the subject called "Darwins black box" I don`t think he is christian if that helps..

      Now, I simply point out that science is might not the only barometer for answering all questions. As I said; our understanding of the universe is indeed to be compared with that of a two year old. If you disagree, maybe you can explain to me how you make a flower? Or can you tell me why the law of gravitation came to existence without a lawmaker (yes, i know how it works, and the story with the apple and Newton) So yes. I suggest that humans understanding of the universe is to be compared with a two years olds understanding of the society around it. It least is youre understanding very low, even thou youre a smart man, it is difficult to have all knowledge on all the various subjects.

      After this you start asking theology-questions. That is a total different angle. And can well be answered by all religions.

      But to me, I see Christianity as the only true because of the story of Jesus, with no actual worldly power (economic, military og political) started a revolution among poor people, with no economic agenda. (He died) And the same with hes disciples.

      Socrates stated; "I am sure a holly God could forgive sin, but I dont know how."

      Sin and evil is a just as big mystery as love and compassion. I believe that the only way that my sins could be forgiven is that someone else took them. Paid the prize. A just God wouldn't say to all the thieves "your free" cause then he wouldn't be just, he would have been stupid. He wouldn't say put everyone in prison, enslave them and make them robots so they do not do anything wrong (sin), because then he would sell or freedom. He gived us free will and have done everything He can to compensate our mistakes. Even paid the prize for our sin. Mankind do the exact same thing when they get children. The children might do lots of wrongs, sin and in the end they might reject the parents. But still they take the chance.

      To me it sound logic that the way we are created reflects the creator. Intelligence come from intelligence, love don`t just "came to be" it came from someone with that ability.

      I can gladly try to explain my view of the good/evil, but first I want your version. How do you solve those problems of good and evil?

      You probably knows the Christian version. Satan represents the evil, God represents the good. The earth is a battlefield between good and evil. etc. its pretty much like that.

      Science partly came from studies in among munchs. Linde for instance. Newton and M. Farraday are others. Farraday actually based hes science on hes Theology in some ways.

      Now my two years old and 4 years old are spinning around me, they understand that we are going to go in the car soon and they can describe parts of the car, but they have no idea how it is made and by who;)

    3. Pedera
      i agree " how it all came to be etc. Have not been answered" but there are a couple of issues with injecting god into the unknown. why inject this other unknown (god) into it when you cannot provide any demonstrable proof for him/her/it? and as science provides more answers your god is squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces of unknown. Michael Behe is a christian i know well. look up the Dover trial to see his ideas and his cause completely destroyed.

      then you state "maybe you can explain to me how you make a flower? Or can you tell me why the law of gravitation came to existence without a lawmaker " as for the flower to save space i will say abiogenesis followed by evolution answers that nicely. but even if we couldn't explain it injecting god into the mix is not an answer. same for gravity but the needs a lawmaker line lets me know what kind of places you choose to get your science explanations from.

      " I see Christianity as the only true because of the story of Jesus," so prove to me he did the things claimed in the bible? the bible is not a source of facts as it has been edited,translated,contradicts itself/logic/history.

      then you talk about love and good/evil and ask how they came to be. evolution explains quite nicely how a social animal like humans would select for traits that best suit the survival of the group. so a parent would be more likely to care for their young if they "love" them as for good and evil most societies have a variance of what is considered good/evil and is definitely not a constant. and god's own actions claimed in the OT NT definitely make him out to be a murderous psychopath that is not a good guide for how to behave. now i have tried to address your questions please try to do the same as you answered none of the questions i asked in my first post

    4. You seem to have the same problem with all religees--they don't answer your sensible questions. I wonder why.

    5. Thank you for a polite and reasonable answer.
      I cannot provide proof. Simply because science is not necessarily the only way to get proof in questions like this. A creator ecsist OUTSIDE time and space. Science is only working within time and space.

      If you have decided that only what science, within time and space, can prove is worthy this discussion you sound like those who say that the Bible is the only fundament for this discussion.

      Science can open a window to the answer, whatever it is, but believing that thats the only way is maybe a bit naiiv isn't it? Considering the fact that science with all the money in the world, the most brilliant scientists and everything they can achieve. They cant even create the simplest form of life. They can not produce anything out of nothing and they can certainly not touch the "time" concept.

      To then say that the universe, life, the beginning, is "well explained" with Darwins theory is a bit naive.

      Fact is that an Atheist NEED Darwin. All of his belief system is based on the fact that there is nothing above humans. It is fundamental for the atheist to continue his life. And it hurts to change direction in these questions. Thats why robertallen and his sorts are so angry and eager to defend his own believe system. Christians can also walk in that trap. Those kind of people would take the red pill if they where in Matrix.

      I have tried to say that you cant "prove" a miracle, because a miracle is the opposit of science. Science describe how nature works. A miracle is when it works the opposite why. Against science.

      The closest to proof is the fact that Jesus revolutionized history in 3 small years. without gaining anything on it for him self and his disciples. Without any political, military or economic power. At that time He had followers of all kinds, rich, poor etc. Those who could read and write spent a lot of time on Him. Thats why we have so much written material about him.

      Concerning moral there are just small differences. In general it have never been admired to be a coward etc. So the big lines are more alike then you suggest.

      You call God a psychopath. Maybe thats because of your lack of information. Because those who study the Bible are usually of a different opinion.

      In general Christians who attend a church behave better then non-Christians. Not perfect, but better. Less narkoticks, less violence, higher education, higher GDP, they give more money to charity and do more charity world wide and have better grades at school when they are young.

      Countrys that is based and founded on Christian believ system is in top in all areas of life, icluding education, living standard and happines index. University of Harvard have in theire founding of the univeristy stated that "Knowledge of God is the most important knowledge" etc. So youre psychopath theory is wrong. Weather you like it or not.

      Yesterday a saw a documentary about North Korea (children of the secret state) Thats a state founded on Atheism. Not to say that all atheists are like that, but thats just a taste of what Atheist also offers. Just as I have to admit that "Christians" of various churches do wrong. But all over in history Christians lies ahead of rest of the world.

      I found it logical that love comes from a source who have love. Not just out of the blue and out of evolution. Its plausible, but not very convinsing arguments. It also leaks the entire subject outside time and space. Which is the main question.

    6. If you can't provide proof that a creator exists outside time and space, you have no business making such an assertion and just because at this moment, science cannot produce life does not mean that it won't be able to in the future--one thing's for certain: religion will never be able to do it.

      Like a typical religee you ignorantly confound evolution with abiogenesis and just as ignorantly juxtapose atheism with Darwin. Then to top it off, you attribute to Darwin the concept that humans are at the top. Your ignorance of Darwin is on a par with your ignorance of everything else--and yet you try to pass yourself off as an educated person.

      "I have tried to say that you cant [sic] 'prove' a miracle, because a miracle is the opposit [sic] of science. Science describe [sic] how nature works. A miracle is when it works the opposite why [sic]. Against science." Wrong as usual. Did it ever occur to you that at one time NATURAL phenomena such as thunder, lightning, floods and earthquakes were once considered "miracles?" But how would you who has never studied science or history know this--yet once agan you try to pass yourself off as an educated person.

      As space and time are scientific matters and scientific matters only, your bible and your form of Christianity which goes with it are less than useless in providing answers and explanations--and it is hardly the mark of an educated person to indicate that they do.

      "You call God a psychopath. Maybe thats because of your lack of information. Because those who study the Bible are usually of a different opinion." The bible is quite explicit; the only "lack of information" is on your side--and speaking of lack of information who are those who study the bible and are usually of a different opinion? Or is this another of your conjectures passing for fact?

      And speaking of conjectures, when you make a claim such as that those who attend a church (in particular a Christian one) "behave better than non-Christians," i.e., that they tend to stay away from narcotics, are less violent and do better in school, you must provide statistics to support this or it is merely as baseless an assertion as the one you made to the effect that countries based and founded on the Christian belief system (whatever that is, there is more than one, you know) are at the top in education, living standards and happiness index (whatever that is). Or are these more of your conjectures passing for fact?

      Because what seems logical to you obviously stems from ignorance, it is not logical at all and to try to pass it off as logical is frauduluent.

    7. @Pederas,

      Robert is right when he says: "if you spent more time learning about science and less time trying to extract information from a series of 2,000+ year old books, you wouldn't make so many of the ignorant statements contained in your posts."

      1. Darwin's theory is not explaining the universe, life, the beginning. It is explaining the gradual cumulative change of life over vast periods of time. And as of now it is indisputable.

      2. Atheist DO NOT NEED Darwin. Darwin didn't know many things about evolution in his time. What happens today is that many science branches converge with evidence on evolution. If you erase Darwin and the fossils altogether you'll still have an extremely strong case in favor of evolution. It is undeniable.

      3. You're just not informed enough, or you're lying for the sake of having a conversation. Christians who attend a church behave better then non-Christians - NOT TRUE. If it is where is your evidence? Countries that are based and founded on Christian belief system are in top in all areas of life - NOT TRUE. If it is where is your evidence?

      4. Your God is indeed psychopath. You've probably didn't read certain passages from the Bible. I bet you didn't read the whole book, and yet you argue. Your priest will not read those words while in church. Surf the internet and you'll find the exact words of your God where he promotes: murder, sexism, war, genocide, discrimination, child abuse, slavery, ignorance, jealousy, etc.

      5. North Korea, is not what it is because of the atheism, nor it is state founded on atheism. Is is a state governed by one lunatic. That's it.

    8. 1: I agree. It doesnt explain much. I disagree that it is indisputable. Darwin imagined that the pieces where far more simple than we today know that they are. indisputable? That you mean life can come up as a coincidence, when you cant even put the pieces together in a labratory should be more then enough proof that this is highly contreversial. As all theories in this discussion.

      2: Yes they do. Of course they do. If "life out of nothing" falls, theyre belief, or atheism, is lost. They have everything to loose in this battle. Have you ever heard of an Atheist who beliefs in a creator? So, there is very much at stake for the atheist in this question. Every single communist country are atheist countrys that are condemning all forms off Christian activity. You don`t like that, and i believe you. But the Atheism as a view point is the fundament for Communism weather you like it or not.

      3: Hmmm... Western societies... any bells ringing? enjoy. Nations based on christianity tops most of the statistics. Shouldnt be necessary to inform you that well... should it? Pr. persons its perhaps diffrent between US and Europe, but at least in Europe this are the facts. I could start summing up documents from my country, if it helps. But seriously. Would you change view point if I did? Do you often hear about drugdealing and shoot outs in the church and among church members?

      4: I have read the whole book. Have you? Honest. Have you?
      If you haven`t what makes you think you can teach me? Maybe you think I am a idiot, but believe me. I don't give my life to a psychopath. If I suspected he was i would of course check out these verses. And i have. If you want a Theological seminar I could give you, but foolish arguing from people who barley have the slightest idea about the Bible and the prophecies is just wasting time. Sorry, but that is just going nowhere. Of course I have studied these verses. I can recommend ph.d J.P. Morelands book beyond death.... can give you some answers. If you want these explanations there are plenty to be found. But stupid arguing on the internet about bible verses out of context with people whos only agenda is to "prove God is a psychopat" is just stupidity. Sorry, but I just don't have the time.

      5: North Korea is a atheist country. I know you don't like it, but that doesn't change the fact. Christian countries have represented lots of troublesome evil. But they are not even close to the atheist countries.

    9. Pederas
      i had to delete your link as it went nowhere. feel free to try again

    10. @Pederas,

      1. Which part you didn't understand. Evolution is not Abiogenesis, and you still rant about "life can come up as a coincidence". Now I'm definitely certain that you don't know anything about evolution.

      2. In case you still don't get it from the paragraph above, let me repeat that Evolution is not Abiogenesis. Evolution explains change of life over time. It does not explain "life out of nothing."

      I'm also definitely certain that you don't know what atheist means too. Atheist simply denies the belief in your God. Most simply put, an Atheist doesn't believe in God for whatever reasons.

      Having said that Atheists don't necessarily need Darwin. If someone explains or debunks evolution (with scientific method and of course peer review) atheists would be happy to discard Darwin and embrace the newest accepted explanation. Atheists embrace rational thinking and scientific method, not persons and dogmas. As I've told you, Darwin is not needed today. Evolution can stand without him. He just outlined the obvious.

      "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

      For example, Muslim or Hindu is an atheist to you and you're an atheist to them. An Atheist just believes in one God fewer than you do.

      3. Hmmm... you mean western societies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. The most literate, advanced, rich, and happy nations in the world and yet the least religious and most atheistic. You don't need to go trough some documents from your country. That is the one of the reasons why we invented the Internet.

      Truth to be told I didn't hear anything about any drug dealing and shooting in the churches, but I did hear something far more worse. Pedophilia and the cover up of it.

      4. I've read the Bible from cover to cover (long ago). The Old Testament once, the New Testament twice, so I guess I don't need your theological seminar. You and J.P. Morelands can interpret those evil verses in the Bible as much as you wish and as how as you wish. You can change their context, give them apologetic meaning, but you can't delete them. They will always remind you about the cruelty and psychosis of your God.

      5. North Korea suffers from a leader cult ideology, and the leader sees organised religious activity (and any other organized activity) as a potential challenge to the leadership, nothing more. It is that simple. If you were right, since (according to you) all people in North Korea lack belief, we should have witnessed the worst decay of moral principles in that society among ordinary people. But that is not happening.

    11. 1 and 2
      So you have no explanation on how life came to be. Thats okey. Concerning the Darwinism it doesn't say much. Lets say evolution is a fact; So what? The main questions still remain. Darwinism wouldn't prove much of our origin. Its like saying "I believe in history" Great. Me too. Now what?

      3: Most Atheistic countries? Realy? I am talking of the basis of the countries. The Scandinavian countries have the last 50 years took a more atheistic turn yes, but they are far from "the most atheistic countries in the world. 75 % of Norwegians are members of the state church. But yes, christianity is on its way out in this countries, but they are based on Christian values. The Hauge revolution in Norway in the 18th century is a good example.
      Remember that all these countries have a Cross in theire flag. Thats symptomatic.
      Pedophilia, mostly in the catholic church is a disgrace to Christianity and they should all be convicted. I have no intension's of defending that. But do this fact disprove my point? If you look at it objectively? In my district the 3 Christian high schools are the 3 best high schools. Its not a surprise. As Christian youth usually don't use alcohol etc. they focus more on school. Its quite expected. Not controversial. If you don't believe this. Its all okey. You can deny it as long as you want if it makes you feel better.

      4. I don't remind me of what you state. I am sorry if that is your conclusion after reading the Bible. Luckily, thats not what most Bible readers conclude. But by all means, maybe your right, but I have studied this for so many years that I am confident in my faith.

      5: Yes. An Atheistic nation. Just as any other Communist countries. The atheistic foundation is necessary for the evil to continue. For all the communism, as well as North Korea. Its insane, the leader cult and everything is all what you say. But its founded on Atheistic foundation. Its maybe hard for your cause. Just as it is hard for me to recognize your point of Pedophilia in the catholic church. I knew it was coming. And there is nothing I can do to defend it. Because it is under the Christian umbrella. Just as all the communism is under the atheistic umbrella.

    12. 1. and 2. You can't get it through your head: Darwin did not try to prove our origin any more than Newton tried to prove quantum mechanics. Is it your religion which is preventing you from understanding this simple concept?

      3. There are no values peculiar to Christianity other than the worship of "Jesus." And so what if these atheistic countries have a vestigial cross on their flags? At least these countries have outgrown it and the sooner Christianity is completely out, the better, especially if it produces more of you. I don't know anything about your district, wherever that is, but considering all your posts, I am not about to take your word for anything. And by the way, how much drug and alcohol use to you find in Jewish or Buddahist schools and how well do the students do in them? Don't think that Christianity is anything special; it's not; it's just big, too big for what it doesn't do.

      4. How do you know what most bible readers conclude? Or is this another of your off the top of your head assertions? One way or the other, it's as unimportant and worthless as your opinions. It's what biblical scholars with no religious agenda conclude--and it says a lot about the level of your intelligence that you are so confident in your faith.

      5. Are you saying that atheism leads to dementia--well, so does Christianity--"I'm the way, the truth and the light" How demented can one get? And what about the Guyana incident? And what about the burning of witches? And what about the inquisition? Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history, something you don't have, knows that Christianity has been tied to a lot more evil than atheism. And speaking of evil, what do you mean by "Just as it is hard for me to recognize your point of Pedophilia in the catholic church. I knew it was coming. And there is nothing I can do to defend it. Because it is under the Christian umbrella?" Do you think pedophilia is confined to the Catholic church? I wouldn't be surprised if there was some of it going on right now in one of your three beautifully Christian schools.

      Only a fool and an ignoramus can harbor the idea that belief in a supreme being militates against evil. Only a fool and an ignoramus can by this same token equate atheism with lack of morals and ethics and employ the shibboleth of a belief in a god, preferably the Christian god, in judging a country. If you posit that all that holds us in moral and ethical check is belief in a supreme being, you do mankind a greater disservice than the atheism which you find so detestable. All in all, it must be your religion which makes you the disgrace that you are.

    13. @Pederas,

      1 and 2. Good. We sorted out that you don't understand what Evolution actually is. Lesson learned. Don't talk about something you have no idea what it is. And yes, I don't have an explanation on how life came to be, but neither do you. The deference between me and you though is that I don't believe some deity created it, but you obviously do.

      3. Christianity had infested all Europe in the past. Today, the picture is very, very different. You can't deny that in the countries I've mentioned atheists are in great numbers. Probably the greatest in the world. And still you can't see raping and shooting on the streets. In fact, the latest gruesome crime in Norway was committed by a Christian (Breivik, described himself as Christian, and member of Church of Norway). It is unavoidable fact that Christianity loses its grip in the developed world, except in USA.

      4. That's not what most Bible readers conclude, because there are no Bible readers. Less than 10% of professed Christians have read the entire Bible. And what do you expect from a believer to do after pointing those verses to him. To renounce his faith? Of course not. I'm really curious what do you personally make out from those verses about murder, rape, slavery, sexism, discrimination, war, genocide, etc.

      5. If North Korea is an atheistic nation (and by force it is), according to you, we should expect the morals of the ordinary people to decay. We should expect in North Korea, people to rape, kill and torture each other on the streets. If higher morals and love are God given we should expect those unbelievers not to have those qualities and we should expect them to be animals. But that is not the case. In fact it is far away from the real case. What they have is just a crazy dictator who sees every kind of organized activity as a treat, religion included. North Korea is a bad country because of one crazy man, not because people inside are unbelievers. It is the same story with all the other communist countries in the past.

    14. 1. There is nothing controversial about evolution. It is accepted by scientists the world over and is instrumental in diverse scientific endeavors such as immunology and engineering. Asserting that Dawin stated that life was a coincidence shows that you have read nothing about Darwin and are completely ignorant of biology. ITo make things worse, you have no idea as to what a scientific theory is.

      2. No scientist worth his salt claims life out of nothing. This is simply a strawman created by religees such as yourself and promulgating it constitutes another display of your scientific ignorance which you couple with your ignorance of history and politicis: atheism not fundamental to Communism. And by the way, what do you mean by Communism? If you are referring to what was practiced in the former USSR, it was nothing like what was described by Marx and Engels.

      3. Vatko responded to you with a link to an article, coupled with statements which he has previously backed up that the greater bulk of the prison population is composed of Christians, that teen pregnancy rates are higher in predominately Christian states and that American christians have the highest divorce rates. What do you respond? "Nations based on Christianity tops [sic] most of the statistics [pertaining to education]. Shouldnt be necessary to inform you that well... should it?" Yes it is, along with the statistics to back it up. "I could start summing up documents from my country, if it helps. But seriously. Would you change view point if I did?" Obviously, you don't have them and stating that you do makes you a liar.

      4. You may have read the entire bible, but it's obvious from your statements that you don't know the first thing about it, especially the so-called prophecies, and the reason you don't want to argue is not because you don't have the time (because you certainly have the time to keyboard your idiocy and ignorance) but because you don't have either the knowledge or the background--"Maybe you think I am a [sic] idi*t, but believe me. I don't give my life to a psychopath." As if what you give your worthless existence to is relevant or even responsive.

      5. And just what do you define as a Christian country? One way or the other, Ithe atheistic Scandanavian countries are in many respects far ahead of so-called Christian countries. Maybe there's something to be said for condemning what you consider Christian activities.

      Why do you write so ignorantly ignorantly on subjects which you have not studied and refuse to study. Is it part of your religious upbringing to pass yourself as educated when you;re not? Thus, you deserve no respect, only condemnation. The greatest shame is that your children will probably grow up to be as ignorant as you are.

    15. So what if we don't yet know everything? What we don't know is no evidence for the god of the gaps whose existence you cannot prove and citing Michael Behe (a Christian, by the way) who is held in contempt by mainstream science, the only science the matters, adds nothing to your argument which does indeed read as if coming from a two-year-old.

      And speaking of science, why don't you read up on it BEFORE making statements. For example, a scientific law does not mean the same thing as a statutory one (and the story about Newton and the apple is apocryphal).

      Theology answers nothing--and your theology answers less. You know nothing about your own bible and your discussion of "Jesus" and how your religion is the only true one is not only ignorant, but as sickening as your expatiations on sin, evil, love, compassion and creation which do no more than add to your image as a fool and an ignoramus.

      Considering your obvious lack of education, especially in science and the bible, what might seem logical to you as worthless as your ill-informed views.

    16. Okey. Robertallen1
      I guess the dialouge is over. Great answers. Deeply thinking like this is admirable. I wish everyone was like you. What a wonderful world it would be.

      Of course I don't have any education. I taught i had, but you have convinced me i don`t have after all. Have to tell this to my employer..

      You say theology answers nothing. Great answer. Everyone who studied it have miss understood. Idiots all of them. Your absolutely right. You should have a nobel prize for this.

      I read my bible quite often, probably more then you do. I will have a Bible group tonight. The teacher tonight is a friend of John Lennox and has a master of physics. But they are actually all idiots. I realize that now. After seeing your brilliant teaching in this forum I realize everything.

      Thank you very much:)


    17. Maybe if you spent more time learning about science and less time trying to extract information from a series of 2,000+ year old books, you wouldn't make so many of the ignorant statements contained in your posts.

    18. I will do at once. Your advices is valued like gold for me. Thank you for your concern;)

    19. Once again, get this through your uneducated head: you know no more about some supreme being whose existence you cannot prove than anyone else.

      P.S. And you can leave your family out of this. No one cares.

    20. Well. Then we finally agree. We don't know either of us. Then we have to rely on our faith both of us.

      No one? Are you sure? Maybe some do. You can just talk for yourself. You seriously have a problem with anger, hate and bitterness. Seriously. Look at your own writings... I bet you have a hundred "dialogues" which means monologue in your case, whit attacks, hate and anger against everyone who disagree with you. We call that totalitarianism. And you perfectly suits the description "militant Atheism". It is impossible to have a happy life with your attitude. I feel terrible sorry for you.

      Good luck and good bye

    21. I have too much respect for my intelligence to rely on faith.

      The only people I pity is your offsrping who have to listen to your twaddle. Hopefully when they grow up and obtain an education, they will learn more and and they will learn better.

    And you tell me to bring "hard evidence"....
    Listen. When mankind, with all of its resources are not able to create the simplest form of life, it is very arrogant to claim "hard evidence" for how the cosmos, with animals, rain-forest and human beings where "created" or come to be. And leak of self awareness to think that you would unerstood the actually answer if someone told you.

    Read it again if you didn't understood it the first time and sorry for my bad english.

    Sleep well

    1. Pederas
      if it is impossible for a human being to know (at least at this time) why would you compound the unknown by injecting an unexplainable creator into the mix? why not just say i do not know?

    2. Your English is on a par with your thinking--bad and disgraceful.

    3. Thank you for this great analyses. As I said, english is not my first language. How many languages do you know?

  17. The media often portray Richard Dawkins as a real-life incarnation of Dr. Evil. He has been called mean-spirited, rude, fanatical, and religion hating. But nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically, Prof. Dawkins finds all those attributes ascribed to himself to be the loathsome fruits of religion. Rather than hating religion, IMHO, he hates the intolerance and ignorance that it engenders. In fact, one would expect the 80% of people in the world that claim to be religious to smoke screen the issues that he raises with ad hominem attacks...and of course, they do.
    However, if anyone, including the Pope himself, were to put himself in Dawkins' 'shoes' filter philosophic questions of public policy through his naturalistic POV...then clearly he is among the most moral, polite and steadfast of men. He is a crusader for sanity using a simple, free secret weapon---education merged with uncommon good sense.
    And, I hasten to add, he's right on the money...controversial, you bet, but right on target.

    1. Absolutely, but don't you think he's a better speaker than a writer?

    2. Yes. It is a common curse of the British.

    3. I don't know about that. I just finished "Chasing the Sun" of Jonathon Green and his writing is just fine, the same wth Henry Hitchings. While I realize that these two are not writing about science, the concept is the same.

      The problem with Dr. Drawkins' science books is that he does not seem to have a clear idea of the audience he is writing for. This is true of the "Ancestor's Tale" and "The Selfish Gene," the latter I gave up on after three chapters because it was too technical and boring. Even his philosophical works lack the luster of his verbal presentation.

    4. It was an attempt at humor---but i has some truth to it.
      I was thinking do you suppose that Dawkins' peripatetic lectures as he improvised for undergraduates may have influenced his style, vectoring it toward speaking skills?

    5. Now that you mention it, I don't think it has as far as his biology books, for "A Devil's Chaplin" just isn't that interesting or exciting.

      You haven't answered one of my questions: Have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers and if so, what do you think of it?

    6. I thought I indicated "no" and thanked you for the Ronald Numbers title? Or was that someone else? **
      BTW. What questions? I thought we were "kicking it" in the comments section of TDF. So if you're going to confront me about defaulting on some imaginary agreement to stand and deliver...I withdraw.

      **In fact, it was in a different thread that you asked that question...a thread of comments on "Climate Change"...and here's what I said there:
      "No I have not. "The Creationists", by Ronald Numbers...its a relatively new title...right? I believe I've heard it mentioned on cable news.
      Listen...I'm retired too and I'm also pretty much where you are "at" in the sense that I'm filling in gaps in my knowledge and curiosity for topics that escaped my radar screen, largely because of work-a-day time constraints before retirement. "

    7. If I forgot that I'd asked you the same question previously, I apologize for not having recalled your answer.

      The first edition of the book came out in the '90's, the second around 2005 after Kitzmiller. I heartily recommend the work. The reason I asked you the question was because I noticed one thing in common with just about all the hundreds of individuals mentioned in the book, namely that their "research" was undertaken to support their a priori conclusions and I wanted your opinion.

      To such methodology, if you can call it that, is not science. When Darwin began his research which stemmed from his curiosity, he had no conclusion in mind. It was only after years spent examining the myriad evidence he and others had gathered that he drew his conclusions which is probably why his conclusions have fundamentally so far withstood the test of time.

  18. There are three kinds of believers, the unbeliever, the make-believer and the believer. It is written in the scripture that Jesus could not do many works in a certain city because of their unbelief. Unbelief will always hinder God from moving in someone’s life.
    Then there is the make-believers like Judas, who is considered the hypocrite, they will always turn around and betray the Lord for money or something canal. Then there is the real believer that is the one who is divinely lead by the supernatural.
    Now there is a natural world and there is supernatural world, that world cannot be scientifically proven, if it can be scientifically proven, then many scientist will not be atheists [someone who don’t believe in God] The supernatural world can only be contacted by faith, [a super sense that the Holy Ghost by a new birth gives you] and that is a divine experience.
    In closing I will like to say that there are seven dimensions [1] is light [2] is time [3] is matter [4] is radio and television, which is the recording dimension [5] is the region of the lost [6] the region of the bless and [7]where God dwells. Scientist in the last twentieth century discovered the fourth dimension, we the real believers don’t have to wait for them to discover the last three to believe it exist, it has already been revealed to us from God’s word.

    1. There is no supernatural world. There are things yet to be explained.

      Light, Radio and television are not 'dimensions', in fact they are all exactly the same type of energy - electromagnetic radiation.

      Gods words were put in his imaginary mouth by man who imagined god in his own image.

      Faith is not a 'super sense' it's believing a thing to be true without any rational basis, even in the presence of contradictory evidence.

      Where is your doubt?!

      Regards, Sam.

    2. If it can't be scientifically proven such as your fairy-tale supernatural world, it simply cannot be deemed to exist and claiming that it does so makes you a delusional fool.

      You don't know any more about God, God's word or the Holy Ghost than anyone else, which is to say nothing and claiming so, once again makes you a delusional fool?

      Faith is a fraud and a damnable one at that.

    3. Your 7 dimension thing is a joke, must be from creationist websites, and those creationist websites are a joke.

    4. Why is it that when a person explain their personal way of understanding the world within, this person always associate with others...You say: "WE the real believers don’t have to wait for THEM to discover the last three to believe it exist, it has already been revealed to US from God’s word."
      Aren't you talking about your own should say: ME the real believer don’t have to wait for YOU to discover the last three to believe it exist, it has already been revealed to ME from God’s word."
      This will make you realize how you are above all others (zillions)....and then may be you'll realize that perhaps something may not be right.

    5. Maybe you can apply that technique on your self and your own world view. Maybe you realize something maybe not be right..
      "Ahhhaaa... a universe bigger then I can imagine, living life more complicated then anything man-kind so far have created them self.. They can not even create a small simple flower. BUT, the great news; I, with a ph.d. and almost 140 iq, can now proclaim that God didnt made it. It came out of nothing... or by its own will... (whatever that should mean..) And I can now see clearly what zillions of people misunderstood in all this years... "

      At least Christians are humble enough to call it "faith"

    6. If you're saying that your god did it, you'd better be able to back up your claim with hard evidence. What Christians call faith is simply ignorance coupled with stupidity masquerading as a virtue and as such, it won't do.

  19. The moral code of the muslim overpowered Richard Dawkins too. But the Levitical customs and Islamic Shariah Law all condemn people to death, and based on the those laws, everybody should be dead, or disfigured. We've all fornicated, We've all stolen, so all of our hands should be cut off, We've all worked on Saturday in some form or fashion, another death sentence, Most of us have drank Alcohol either socially, moderatly, or in excess, etc. Not to mention religous zealots actually beleive God just dropped a book out of heaven and said "beleive this or go to hell". I won't knock the ****, but I don't have to believe a danm thing. All I have to do is take care of my responsibilities as a man, stay black, and die. People don't understand that religion was created within tribes that eventually became dynasties. Religion was attached to government like Shariah Law in an Islamic ruled country. Some bimbo had a philosophy about the beginnings of the world, he had customs that he thought were more civilized for him and his family, and other close relatives and people followed him. Anybody who disagreed with him did their own thing or were cast out from him if they were amongst him at one point. Its common ******* sense that people these days don't have whatsoever.

  20. Who cares about Darwinism. Just another theory. Why don't people create their own theories and ideologies instead of blindly following everything some self righteous so-called intellectual person gives them?? Thats why organized religion sucks. They just want to make as much money as possible off the poor, keeping them poor and keeping the elite rich. Religion is an organized ideology to keep people in a box so that they don't out-think the elite. Notice how this government criticises other ideologies like Marxism, or Communism, Socialism, not because they are horrible concepts, but because they are a DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY THEN WHAT THEY WANT US TO BELEIVE. The poor need to incorporate some elements of working together equally and the rights to property being publically owned to CEASE BEING POOR. The government PROFITS OFF THE BACKS OF THE POOR. Anyone who tries to stimulate income and wealth into the communities of the so called "bottom feeders" is a so-called SOCIALIST, and then the government attempts to discredit them. I don't even know how someone can still be discredited in so- called America, theres so much blaitent corruption and disregard for authority, even by highly publicised and famous figures. politics is such a contradiction of itslef. Why do people vote? I helped the president to get into office twice so far, I'm only 24, and he's never put a doorknob on a building in my community, Neither has a church. I've a seen a church build another church, I've seen a church feed the poor and homeless, but I haven't seen them offer the poor & homeless a job, clean them up and send them on an interview. They give a food, some mis-translation of a two or more thousand year old book about some ancient mesopatanian tribe, and thats it. I'ma still be freezing my balls off twenty minutes after I leave the church, and I still haven't had a crack, danm a break, in my current f--ked up situation. My stomache should be full for about a hour though.

    1. And that's exactly why it's better to be rich!

      Incidentally, evolution (not Darwinism--there is no such thing) is not just another theory; it is fact. If you have a problem with the term theory, please look it up in a scientific context.

    2. Its better to be rich but in order to become rich, wealthy, and powerful, the poor has to stop allowing themselves to be conditioned by religion, politics, spending a ton of money on education, and other institutions and ideologies that brainwash people into not using common sense and being a sheep. Their own book says "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". That term is totally misunderstood, because they don't consider the time period and the delima in Jerusalem at the time of this so-called Jesus figure. I'm not a scientist, so I wouldn't concern myself with scientific context, but common sense is hindered by various so-called schools of thought today. Debt is another form of slavery and that is how the government thrive on the working class and the poor. Religous institutions do the same thing in a poor/middle class community. Sounds like the Pharisees and Saducees in the bible. Consumerism is a form of slavery unless people create their own market, but they are being pre conditioned to work for someone else. This is a design. This is no accident.

    3. Honest self-betterment far exceeds concern for the poor.

      Debt is mostly voluntary and absent clear dishonesty, debtors have little to complain of.

    4. When you say Darwinism is just another theory are you talking about Charles Darwin's (and Alfred Russel Wallace's) scientific theory of natural selection, or the politically engineered idea of social darwinism? I'd assume you're referring to the latter of the two as both are inherently separate concepts, and your political dialogue that follows suggests pontifical assertion (colloquial theory) instead of empirical, objective evidence (scientific theory).

      I am only posting and responding because I hope to clear up any association between Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the completely unrelated, political propaganda that is social darwinism. "social darwinism" hijacks Darwin's name for political purposes even though it is utterly devoid of scientific rigor. In other words, the theory of natural selection as the driver of evolution is as separate from social darwinism as the meaning of bear (noun: animal) is to bear (verb: carry); similar sound, but completely unrelated.

    5. You're absolutely correct--and that's why I hate the term Darwinism, even though I believe Wallace used it. The more accurate term is evolution.

      However, I don't believe that David Scott was referring to social Drawinism which, as you mentioned, is a completely different animal, having nothing to do with evolution, but the jury is still out.

    6. Exactly. It makes as much sense to say that wife-beaters are justified in pummeling their spouses until they're black 'n blue because the sky is black at night and blue in the day.
      They are unrelated in cause.

    7. Quote: "Who cares about Darwinism. Just another theory. Why don't people create their own theories and ideologies instead of blindly following everything some self righteous so-called intellectual person gives them??"

      Why do you write comments in English? Why use the language that others made up over the centuries before you were born? Make up your own language. Be totally original.

  21. I think I got the point
    everything that is not science or religion.....baaad

  22. root of all evil:
    1. people

  23. I think Dawkins is the root of all evil

    1. @Brandon Costa:

      Why do you think that Dawkins is the root of all evil? Or are you still trying to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response.

      Funny religee's.

    2. Im not a religee. Im just not a fan of pure darwinists. Plus I wanted to piss RobertAllen off.

    3. You're not intelligent enough to piss me off. Now, what about evolution (Darwinism seems so inaccurate) can you disprove?

    4. @Brandon Costa
      if you are going to troll at least make it interesting

    5. Don't think. You're not good at it.

    6. I can guarantee Im 10x the thinker you are. You are a miserable book read ass. You condem every person on this board who doesnt see things the way you do. Get out of your dark hole and lighten up. I hope I didnt spell anything wrong Im sure you'll point it out.

    7. Your posts don't reveal you to be a thinker at all, mainly a sprouter. Now, why don't you crack open a book or two and try, try, try to learn something--then comment.

      P.S. Now that you ask about spelling, contractions require apostrophes. You got this right only once in this post.

    8. You arent a thinker. You are a reader. Probably with a good memory. But I highly doubt much real thought goes on in your brain. You are too busy reciting what you have memorized from books in an attempt to impress people.

      As far as evolution, I dont disbelieve it. But I dont think its the end all of science. Its just one more little thing that will get corrected, adjusted, and even manipulated just like religion does. If Dawkins wants to be a scientist he should stick with the facts and leave religion or spirituality alone. Picking on the two worst appologetics (Fry and Kirk Cameron) to rally laughter and support is just pathetic.

    9. Your frustration at not having half the intelligence or learning that Dr. Dawkins has causes you to compensate for your inadequacies by expostulating on what he should or should not be doing, the same tactic you've employed with other posters who surpass you in intelligence and learning. That's my analysis of you and I'll bet it hits closer to home than your analysis of me.

      Fry, Cameron and others like them as well as religion and spirtuality deserve the derision they receive from the intelligentsia of which Dr. Dawkins is certainly a member. It's not Dr. Dawkins and what he stands for that's pathetic, it's you and people like you.

    10. @Brandon Costa
      yes, I agree totally with your well constructed response. Also,in regards to certain 'responses' you have received, intelligence is one thing, wisdom is another, and use of 'high English' is definitely no gauge of either. Some are blind to only those they hold in academic regard. Some only babble on with their hands over their ears, unwilling or unable to actually receive or give information. A great ploy is to hide under words not generally used in everyday conversation, and perhaps no one will notice that they have not contributed one iota of substance to the matter being 'discussed'.
      You come across as an intelligent, open minded person who speaks honestly. regards xx.

    11. And what is so great about your ignorant self?

    12. @norlavine:

      You mean you are not going to stick up for your sweetie, robertallen1? tsk,tsk.

      In my books @Brandon Costa: started this preamble leading to adverse reactions on both parties concerning religion and evolution, and in my books @robertallen1 will without a doubt win hands down, if of course they can keep these arguments on topic without resorting to ad hominem, or name calling. This is after all a discussion board concerning the docs in question.

    13. @Achmed

      In book you are going to pick the athiest because you cant stand anyone who is a believer, which is typical for an athiest. And dont lecture me on keeping on topic because your off subject comments are littered all over this website.

    14. "In book you are going to pick the atheist . . . "

      What does that mean?

    15. It means Im bored with this discussion and cant believe Ive let myself get into it this

    16. "Some only babble on with their hands over their ears, unwilling or unable to actually receive or give information." That pretty much sums up your statements about Einstein's alleged belief in a supreme being.

      What do you know about either intelligence, wisdom or for that matter acceptable English: "Some are blind to only those they hold in academic regard." --I can't even guess what that means.

  24. Religion will probably exist for as long as science does not have all the answers. I am afraid to ask people dedicated to science this question but if the human mind can reach scientific truths through philosophy, for example the understanding of the atom by the ancient Greeks, (and yes robertallen I know it is not exactly an atom anymore), is it possible that the scientific method is not the only path to the truth? Is it possible for the mind to capture truths that can not be verified yet, or could not be verified at all? and one more question, given the fact that our ability to use the full potential of our mind is limited is it possible that some people have access to something that we call the paranormal but it might very well be part of the normal? Please share your thoughts.

    1. Science has its limits It cannot compose a piece of music, write a work of literature or paint. It cannot even teach one how to appreciate these things. In other words, the aesthetic is foreign to it.

      But that's as far as it goes. There is no such thing as a scientific truth (or theory in the scientific sense) which cannot be reached through science--it's proof, proof, proof and concomittant abstraction, not philosophy, not religion, not the unworldly--there is no other way.

      A scientist can aver ignorance without losing face while a religionist by his very nature cannot. Religion has no answers; it only deludes the gullible into thinking it does--and that's the worst sin of all.

      By definition and etymology, something unverified or impossible to verify cannot be the truth (or even a truth)--it's merely an assertion and nothing more.

      Please disabuse yourself of the concept of our limited ability to use the full potential of our minds. Brain scans, a scientific device, have proved this to be an old wive's tale.

      Before you can discuss whether people have access to the paranormal, you must first define what you mean by the term. Yesterday's "paranormal" generally turns out to be today's "normal" or more likely just plain fraud. In this regard, I suggest some works by James Randi.

    2. @Georgia Lignou
      "Religion will probably exist for as long as science does not have all the answers" sadly i agree "is it possible that the scientific method is not the only path to the truth?" yes very possible but religion hasn't demonstrated that it is a reliable alternative. your statement sounds a lot like the "teach the controversy" or "teach both sides" argument. that argument fails. usually the other side has dramatically less evidence or none at all. science doesn't have all the answers but that isn't a reason to include something that has no answers. the last part of your post is all maybes and what ifs i try not to deal in what ifs they usually lead nowhere

  25. Fair enough.

  26. @over the edge
    I do not really disagree with you but again lets go deeper. Religion provides the rallying banner but it could have been something else. When people fight for land, power resources they will find the excuse. For example you look at Rwanda and Darfour two areas where great evil was committed the last few years it was not religion. Countless people have been sacrificed for oil, two thirds of the world live in extreme poverty and destitution and it is not religion. In the Soviet union countless of crimes were committed and they had rejected religion. The environment has reached the point of collapse for which the irresponsibility of scientists is partly to blame. Nuclear weapons are threatening our very existence and they were not developed by priests. Economic and natural disasters are used to increase the wealth of the rich and the enlightened ideas of the economics involved came from a prestigious institution of higher learning. Medicine has been withheld from people in the name of sound capitalist practices. Water has become a commodity and no I am not talking about holy water. Do I need to go on???? So no religion is not the source of all evil, and it is not the source only of evil.

    1. You're right, it's not the only source, just one of the main ones which the world would be better off without, as opposed to science

    2. @Georgia Lignou
      the fact that there are other sources of hate,strife,greed and cruelty doesn't excuse religion or make it any less harmful. even if the damage done by religion would be replaced by something else that possibility doesn't mean it is any less damaging or unnecessary. weather it is a minor or major cause of our problems it still needs to go

  27. as I have implied before ms. robertallen religiosity comes in many shapes and forms. fare well.

  28. Thank you for your time,
    I can not agree that all religions are at their foundation evil, the same way I do not see all religions to be the same. There is a difference between the polytheistic and monotheistic, Eastern and Western religions. Religions have often been used for evil by the people who were to administer them. I do not equate the crimes committed in the name of religion with those committed in the name of science, religion is by far worse, however to add on the previous examples, nuclear bombs were invented by scientist as it is true for biological weapons, I am still waiting to see the scientists that have been poisoning children with over-medication for real and imaginary diseases to be held accountable. I would never use these examples to attack science, but that is exactly what he is doing to religion when he is evaluating the impact of all religions by focusing on fundamentalism only, even though I also think that religious fundamentalism is a great threat in our times.

    What can make otherwise good people do evil things is fanaticism and you can have that through science as you do through religion, or through anything that becomes an ideology.

    1. Over the Edge responded well to your last post.

      The most despiccable and pernicious thing about religion in terms of intellect, morality and ethics, is what's at the heart of it, blind faith (euphemistically termed spirituality) and with it abrogation of intelligence. It is this alone which keeps the ignorant ignorant and not only gives rise to but feeds the evil hierarchies engendered by religion to engage in the wanton destructiveness, both physical and intellectual, limned so accurately in these posts.

      Think of how much better off mankind would have been without religion and with science.

    2. @Georgia Lignou
      "I can not agree that all religions are at their foundation evil, " i agree with that statement. i believe that most religions have at their foundation a desire to understand the world around them and to give answers where none existed. but many of the answers given have been proven false while little to no evidence exists to back up the claims of religions. over time most religions have been reinterpreted,translated into and out of various languages, many text lost or edited, and the original purpose lost or distorted beyond usefulness. religion does not cause people to be evil but it does give a gathering place for evil to organize and rally support, it provides lines of division and push otherwise good people to do things against their better judgement. look around how many conflicts have been fought with religion as a cause or at least an excuse . how many acts of hate and violence have been attributed to religion, how much science and progress has been held back by religion, how many dollars have been spent by broke school boards to keep religion from perverting science (money better spent on education our children), how many governments have been hijacked by religion and so on and on and on. empires rise and fall usually because they grow fat and corrupt the empire of religion has to end in order for us to progress as a race. we as a species are growing up and as a child grows the beliefs of a child have to be discarded no matter how much comfort those beliefs give us .

  29. I am not a religious person but I find the approach of Dr. Dawkins on religion as superficial as the examples he uses. Religions ancient and modern incorporate some basic mythical archetypes that have survived through the ages as symbols and for whatever reason help the people spiritually. For ex: virginity and purity, an idea usually connected to fertility, Water and symbolic cleanliness or initiation in connection to rebirth. We might argue that the root of religion as it is for mythology is ignorance and the fear of the unknown, but this will be an over-simplification. Also in a discussion about religion and related practices we can not disregard the power and the value of culture and tradition. There are plenty of people who will participate in these practices aware that the biblical stories are just symbolic. In fact the biblical beginnings are almost irrelevant in the practice of religion and the rich cultures associated with them.
    Yes, evil has been committed in the name of religion but evil has also been committed in the name of science. I will remind you of the time of the electric shock therapy, lobotomies, syphilis experiments, and the list is much longer, not to mention how animals have been used in the altar of our scientific method.
    I am not a polemic of science at all, and I am not religious, and although I enjoy shooting at easy targets too I enjoy depth of thought more.

    1. @Georgia Lignou
      science is neither good or evil it is a tool, how people use these tools might be good or bad. science does not claim any moral authority, a set of rules to live by or commands any actions . religion claims all these things that is where the difference lies. you would never blame the manufacturer of a hammer (science) for someone using it to kill someone but you might blame someone who provided the instructions and reasoning (religion) for the killing ,

      "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "Steven Weinberg


  31. Interesting documentary. At the end it comes to whether people are smart enough to understand what's going on. Unfortunately this is not the case. I find however very curios that Mr. Dawkins talks about scientific evidence and then when it comes to islamic values they show the twin towers and the london bombings. In both cases there is hard evidence that islamist have really nothing to do with it. More strange is when he is in that so called state "Israel" and he inteviews 2 islamic fondamentalist but forgets to interview the many ultra nationalist jews whose main concern is to wipe out all the arabs from what they feel as their land, and this is their religious mission. Makes me therefore wonder who edited this program and who controls the TV channel or channels. I'm sure some of you understood.

  32. people are the root of evil get over it, with or without god people are more than capible of doing awfull things the end!

    1. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad. For good people to do bad things however, invariably requires religion.

      Religion is too often used as an excuse for the worst of human behavior.
      Religion is too often used as a tool for malevolent control and manipulation of populations.
      Religion has no answers, and reveres blindness that undermines all questioning.

      A lot of talk about 'facts' here, although from a scientific viewpoint u there is no such thing as a 'fact' there are only theories to be tested. What we accept as fact is always open to being proven wrong by subsequent tests. This is where Religion truly fails, by insisting that the 'truth' is immutable and unquestionable.

  33. How would any of these religious/spiritual people feel if they were forced to adopt another religion? They would go nuts.

    I have no problem with adults and their fantasies but forcing them into children is plain cruelty. Or is it the excuse that they do with their children whatever the want to? like slaves, no?

    The only problem with religion is its very existence. Anything within religion is part of the fantasy and fantasies are boundless. They can justify and explain anything in an endless game like Pokemon.

    "Tell the children the truth" if you don't you are bringing up liars. I, for one, make very sure that I do like all religious/spiritualists and brainwash my children into atheism and teach them to mistrust any one who says trust me. Just telling them few anecdotes ( for example the spanish case of single mothers being robbed of their children by nuns and religious doctors because the child was outside marriage) has them running scared as soon as they see a nun in the street.

    All Dawkins wants is to put religion in its place: history books.

  34. i think its not for u 2 tell me wat 2 do w/ my life both of u.atheist and too closed minded religion has no place in my own life.ur both the same u will never hav control over me.i am my own self i accept whatever ever suits and just take the best of both worlds.

  35. @bluetortilla
    When you say "general observations we take as 'fact' (gravity) but that the theory behind gravity itself is quite complex" you are correct! and so is Dawkin when he said evolution is a fact. No matter how debatable the process of evolution is that fact that we evolved into the form we are in is not debatable any more and that is what undermines creationism, not the evolutionary process. This is what Dawkin was saying. The very fact that we evolved totally contradicts creationism, and this has been proven without a doubt.

    Practicing religion is fine, but we must not teach and preach lies in a massive scale, or at least that is something we should consider shouldn't we? Just because our ancestors made this mistake, does it mean we should too?

  36. Just because Mao and Stalin didn't use God/religion as the tool mean we let others use it? Anyways.. since you are so hooked up on facts, and word games, lets focus on that for a second. Facts themselves aren't as absolute as you would think. Consider the case: you are considered a great guy, a genius, among your peers since you feed their blind faith and ego by defending their creationist crap. On the other hand, those who know science in this page see right through you and simply laugh at you. Arent they both facts? How can you "bluetortilla" be two opposite things: a less intelligent being and a genius at the same time. Because most things in this world, even facts aren't as absolute as you might think they are.

    So when you say "Though you may still, as Dawkins maintains and misleads that the entire process of evolution and all of its intricacies and mysteries that we know to date are simply a fact-" remember that he is saying that evolution is a fact based on the evidence scientists have, just the way some people on this page will see right through you based on the evidence they find in your arguments.

    So while according to you ony 2+2=4 is a fact and everything else is "bad science" that is not what the rest of the rational minds would think.

    Undoubtedly countless millions of lives have been lost in wars and massacres committed in the 'name of faith.' Even as man has tried "There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing." Even as man has denounced God such as in Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China, the leaders themselves then assume the posture of demi-gods and the atrocities continue. Wars can be fought by adversaries worshiping in the exact same way, such as in the case of the ancient wars between Thailand and Burma. Religion can certainly be a very strong component in war, perhaps its main justification, but I myself don't see it as the main cause. What we see is that Religion is a variable, for good or for bad, both a stabilizer and destabilizer in society, with benefits and weaknesses. Faith is not religion, as religion is an organized and instituted set of beliefs (dogma) and rituals, but faith is rather a personal conviction. And that conviction likewise can lead to good or harm. There is no relationship more important than the personal relationship one maintains with the mystery of their own being, and those who deny that such a relationship even exists might as well be wandering around in a house of mirrors where the only person they see is them, and most directions are illusory dead ends.
    In spiritual matters, no one has the right to pretend that they know the answers or worse, to advocate the disbandment of any given religion. If we are to be free, we must be free to practice religion as well. I personally don't see how I could live happily without a spiritual aspect to my life- one that is highly personal and nobody's business save my own. Of course any scientist's wonder at the cosmos and the mysteries of life are proof of spirituality. People like Dawkin's who make it an agenda to attack faith on the other hand end up cynical and bitter, hallow and without much to say. At least that's my impression. Ditto for Bertrand Russel, at least in his later years. And can anyone here seriously tell me that Einstein was not a spiritual man? And on the other hand, that Stephen Hawkings is not unbearably arrogant? Theology is not the business of science anyway.
    It has been said that no one is as faithful as an atheist. I guess that is a humorous observation but it is intriguing. I think a fundamental problem with this whole debate is the fact that whether one regards religion literally or not, there is a universal language and syntax of metaphor (check out Campbell for ex.) that all humans share. It's what's behind the masks, not the masks themselves, that give meaning to our lives.

    1. The fact that you keep calling evolution "bad science" tells one about who you are and what you believe in. My guess is that you are not a scientist and on top of that you definitely are religious, or just started to think other wise. The brainwash however has left a mark in your heart and certainly on your brain. You certainly are a good writer though, and I hope you detox out of the opium of the poor. That is what I am afraid of, this brain wash prevents supposedly reasonable people from reaching the truth.

    2. Very presumptuous. I didn't call evolution 'bad science.' If you look at the link I left, you will find the section on proponents of 'Evolution as Fact' and their motives. Conflating the fact that species evolve with the theory of how that process works IS bad science. It is misleading and oversimplifies complex evolutionary processes simply to purport the argument that creationism is wrong. It maligns strict use of language for personal agendas. We've been over the definition of theory again and again and the result is that there are general observations we take as 'fact' (gravity) but that the theory behind gravity itself is quite complex.

      I believe firmly in evolution. Again- I'm NOT a creationist. Do you think that because you don't like my tone I must be lying? There is a lot to learn. I keep repeating that.

      Why would you accuse me of being brainwashed? What parts of what I wrote give you that impression? Please expound. What is this 'truth' you are afraid of people not reaching? In science, we should be skeptical until we have overwhelming evidence.
      Do people not have the right to freedom of speech? Would you hinder that right in any way? Then do not people have the right to worship as they choose as they have for centuries? Show a little tolerance- something Dawkins has none of. Even China now lets people practice the religion of their choice. No one is forcing you or brainwashing you. That's for totalitarians.

      I suggest you soften your heart a bit, and give people some slack. I did not write anything about my beliefs or my status in my knowledge of science, so what do you back up your claims with? Do you even have any convincing argument against my post? If so, let's hear it. Be scientific please, not just jousting wildly with general accusations with no evidence to support them.

  38. Well, now that the debate between evolution vs. 'a fact' is settled- the 'evolution as fact' group (evidenced in Wikipedia) is simply putting up a ruse using the reputable name of science to attack creationism (and I am NOT a creationist btw), and it is NOT good science; it's a dumbdown knee jerk reaction (although I must say I know little of creationists and their arguments, which are bound to be equally baffling). Dawkins for example is clearly terrified of religion. It is common that we agree that evolution occurs, most people do. What we're interested in though is HOW it occurs- that is theory. (Though you may still, as Dawkins maintains and misleads that the entire process of evolution and all of its intricacies and mysteries that we know to date are simply a fact- just to maintain a trivial battle with those 'stupid creationists.' Kind of pathetic if you ask me, like Dawkins lamenting the futile faith of crippled Catholics.)

    Here's something though in a bigger light that makes one wonder the very nature of existence itself- one of the last quotes by famed atheist Bertrand Russel:

    "There is darkness without, and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness anywhere, only triviality for a moment, and then nothing."

    Uplifting, eh? I hope I'm in a better mood before I die.

  39. the best way i have found to look at it is. evolution is a fact the theory is the best description of how the fact occurs

  40. I've been told by several well-meaning people in this thread before you to look up the meaning of theory, yet no definition will yield a result that enables one to say that a theory is a 'fact.' That's NOT what theories are, and it is bad science to promote any such notion. If scientists are to promulgate such fallacies then they are no different than the 'superstitious' religious organizations that their supposed rational thinking refutes. Science is rational and skeptical- in a healthy way. A good scientist does not let emotions get in the way of his research.
    I wholeheartedly agree that theories are useful and applicable. I never said that they were made up or that they had nothing to do with facts or theorems. I guess my point is that the principles of a theory are dynamic. As I said, and as you say, don't we still use (i.e. Newtonian physics) though we know some aspects are not true? Obviously, the world's arsenal of nuclear weapons were built upon principles of relativity. Yes, there is utility, both good and bad.
    And once again, I seem to get labeled as a proponent of creationism. I suppose that anyone who disagrees with bad science must be a creationist? How is that any better than a medieval Christian accusing you of blasphemy? The two are equally dogmatic. Simply put, misapplied science poses a malevolent threat to our, and all, species.
    A tremendous amount of evidence supports the theory of evolution. And new evidence is being uncovered all the time. I submit that the further we probe into this process, the more astonishing the facts will become. I also submit that while Darwin was a remarkable pioneer and a great scientist, he was just scratching the surface. That makes sense- he was the first. However, a great many of Darwin's postulations don't hold water any longer. Does that discredit the whole theory of evolution? Absolutely not. There is no rest in the pursuit of truth. We never sit on our laurels.
    There is nothing at all wrong with evolution being 'just' a theory. That is correct and the way it should be. You can feel that plants and animals change over time and that is fact. But how and why? That is theory. There is a tremendous amount that we don't know about evolution, and it is an extremely exciting discipline.
    I would suggest that anyone who feels so cocksure about the meaning of theory do some investigation again. I have. If you have any more references, please let me know. Discovering far outweighs arguing.

  41. The fact that people here keeps going on about how evolution is an theory is a reflection of the society we live in. People who have no idea about something (even the definition of theory in the context of science) is so eager to prove others wrong/ They are so sure, that they don't bother to look things up. I wonder where this arrogance comes from ? How are they so sure that they are right ? What gives them this sense of superior authority? Oh wait... I think I know!

  42. also @over the edge, great point about government, pretty much covers all the other issues you described.. average priest can't impose religion on anyone but i suppose law making statesmen can .. tough to know what to do about that

  43. @tanvir brown I don't see how as bystanders we can be spreading prejudice and hatred through maintaining a live and let live policy. You're right its wrong to brainwash people but in today's society there's many ways people can find the truth, and why shouldn't it be about finding happiness, long as people have the truth/evidence presented and can choose for themselves? Personally I think it's a bit strange that there are people who know about evolution and don't believe, and that this debate between fact and theory is still going on, but Dawkins say one of the things he likes best about atheism is that it inspires him to live his life to the fullest, and if religion does that for people, shouldn't that be okay as long as its not causing anyone else harm? There will always be extremists until their respective God comes down and tells them to convert to atheism.

    1. You are absolutely right! To live and to let live is the key. However most aren't as liberal as you are. I don't care if some one even believes in aliens as their Gods. That is solely their belief. However believing in something that preaches hatred and inequality (at least in some parts of its teachings) allows others, who aren't happy or satisfied with their lives to go to the extremes, and I am not surprised that they take it literally; after all it is God's word, and they are reassured by others. The problem with bystanders is that we allow things like this and allow the justification of war and terror whether we want it or not. The matter gets worse depending on what part of the world you are in. May be you and I got lucky, but most people aren't.

      People can certainly choose for themselves, but the problem is that once they are brain washed with something so core as religion that define their whole existence and purpose of life, it is extremely difficult to get out of it.

  44. With all due respect, one, this thread should not even be about the debate of theories (other than evolution vs. creationism) but rather the social impact of religion, and two, THEORIES ARE NOT FACTS. At best, they are widely accepted scientific principles that involve abstractions of observable phenomena. And as we speak, well respected physicists are trying to find holes and gaps in Einstein's relativity. Do you really deny that relativity 'could' contain falsehoods? And if it does, shouldn't we know? Aren't relativity and quantum mechanics contradictory? Are you saying that is not a debatable topic?
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. 'Theory' has far too many meanings. You can best assume that the layman does not know what you mean exactly by 'scientific theory' and in any worthwhile debate there must be agreement on the meaning of terms.
    My surprise is that all the people here asserting that they 'know' science are so seemingly arrogant and blind-sided, as if, indeed- theories ARE fact. You will not find that definition anywhere. Indeed, we are challenged to be ever exploring what is right AND wrong with theories. It is incumbent upon science to honor that position- obviously. There are no holy grails in science; and no spooks. If you all want to throw around the word 'theory' in a highly restricted context among the general public, perhaps you should civilly change your nomenclature so we know what exactly you are talking about. Science demands clarity. It must be concise and impeccable or else it's pointless.
    My argument is against arrogance- not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Correcting holes in a theory doesn't destroy its usefulness. Don't we still use Newtonian physics all the time? Do we still see gravity as Newton did?

    Sir, I could give a hoot what anybody 'labels' me. I'm no baby. If you have a problem with ego, perhaps you should reconsider science, its purpose, and its utility.

    1. The reason I told you to look up theory was not to belittle you, it is because a lot of people confuse scientific theory with the general use of the word; I know I used to. Surely gravity and relativity and every other theories have developed over time, but the core idea remains the same. Is Einstein's theory debated? Yes! Does that mean that the nuclear plants not work? No! Scientific theories such as evolution that are universal are backed by immense irrefutable evidence, and is not a mere guess. While the way evolution occurred is undergoing research and are subject to change, all of a sudden the core principals of evolution will not simply not get replaced by a creationist ideology; and that is a fact sir.

  45. Th question is not about finding happiness it is about right or wrong, true and false. It is unjust, immoral, and unethical to brain wash people, specially young children. While as bystanders we mean no harm, we also pave the way for the extremists to exist and certainly spread prejudice and hatred ourselves.

  46. @SRyderB
    in m opinion (i only speak for myself) if believing in god makes someone a letter person then good and i have no problem with that. but many people of faith try to inject their beliefs where they don't belong and that's where the problem lies for me. i have stated many times before that if religion stays out of science, my wallet,school and the impossible one government then i would probably never argue with a religious person. and you did point out the effects religion had in the past but they also deny condoms in aids stricken countries , deny equal status to homosexuals,women , people of other faiths and in many places govern people based on a faith that many don't agree with.

    1. Correct and you have just described just what makes religion despiccable.

  47. A few questions here, the first for aetheists and the rest for people of faith. I agree that it's absolutely ridiculous to disagree with evolution or claim the world is less then 10,000 years old, and at times watching Dawkins debate with certain religious people is painstaking. However, I have seen/heard countless stories about born again Christians who have 'found themself through God'. People who have pulled themselves out of the perverbial gutter claiming God guided them, and they all confess to be in a very happy place. Religion has done its share of evil since the beginning of its existence from Pagan leaders executing early Christians to modern extremeist terrorist attacks, but 'faith', whether it is real or not, has unquestionably done good for many people. Of course its futile to try and dispute proven scientific facts, but if blind faith and an utter belief in 'God' is what makes somebody happy, does it matter if they don't accept modern science (assuming any children they might have are presented with scientific facts and allowed to make they're own choices)? Does belief in God and religion close any door for them in life that could ultimately lead to hapiness? And a question for those of you who do practice faith, who created the Creater? What made God or where did he come from? Also I'd like to get an idea of what God is like to some people, is he an giant old man with a white beard and a robe up in the sky as he's often depicted or is he something else altogether?

    1. It's one thing to have blind faith and a belief in a supreme being and as long as it's just personal, that's fine although it doesn't say much about one's intelligence. But it's another thing to attempt to spread it where it is neither wanted nor appropriate, i.e., schools, especially biology classes, and it's another thing to lie and distort in its defense like creationists and other such vermin.

  48. I loved his comments at the end. Very moving.

  49. The only good religion is a dead religion...

  50. ahhhh how I love thee malice dawkins, the holy warrior of science

  51. So then, now that everyone has had a chance to air their views, have we all come to a universal conclusion on these issues. Great, now we can move mankind onwards in one direction to help improve our world, society and our relationships in the long run.........WHAT !!! No one has come to an agreement yet ? Does this mean we will never be able to change anything or direct our efferts towards a common good?....o well, individualism does not seem to be doing humanity much good does least it makes me feel special and intelligent,even though I have no power to change anything. So lets all carry on with the rest of our day, no one is really listening anyway.

  52. Religions are a throw-back from a time where systems of control were required to control the masses for lack of organized governments and... well, there were no guns.

    The remnant we see today of these fictitious beliefs have in fact devolved into a 'virus' of sorts, in that it's desperately trying to preserve its own existence through the indoctrination of the vulnerable and impressionable.

    No clear-thinking, educated person would adopt a religion; this is why children are taken at a formative age and inculcate, and why the correlation of those in disenfranchised situations adopting extreme religious viewpoints is so strong. Religion, by its very intractable nature, cannot reconcile itself with the ever-evolving human mind.

    In all civilised and developed countries, it should be prohibited to indoctrinate one's child, or any child, under the age of 18 years in ANY religious dogma. Religion should only be permitted to be taught in a purely objective setting, where all religious denominations are scrutinised an elaborated upon equally, free of bias and agenda.

    Failing thus, religion should be outlawed outright. For if viewed in any other way than with a wholly critical mind, the notion of religion is far too dangerous to be let loose upon suggestible people looking for answers to their ignorant questions and excuses for their ignorant actions. Much less sacrosanct and above reproach as it is today.

    'If God wanted to herd sheep, why did he create shepherds?'

    1. Very well put, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  53. Still, the belief that either we've been mislead in any religion, which made such a mess out of whatever God, or belieff that there's nothing after physical life which sums up to the denial of the spiritual soul is a pure expression of a belief.



    1. The belief in a supernatural CCTV in the sky is based on nothing.

      What you call 'disbelief' or 'denial' of a 'spiritual soul' is not disbelief or denial at all, nor is it a 'pure expression of belief' in a souls non-existence. It is skepticism based on an overwhelming lack of evidence to support such an astonishing claim. Does this mean that skepticism claims that there is no spiritual soul? No, it only says, that based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that this is an accurate description of reality.

      So, can believe that the sun rises in the morning to the same extent one can be in denial of the existence of a piggy bank full of korean coins orbiting titan. But this doesn't equate the belief in some god with the stance of a skeptic.

      You are distorting skepticism into a form of blind belief to undercut the arguments skepticism provides.

  54. Saying the Unified Field of Consciousness disproves the theory of evolution is idiotic. It's just one more dwindling straw that "anti-evolution" people will continue to grasp at.
    The UFoC does not prove existence of a God, nor does it disprove it. Boiled down into the simplest explanation is that we all exist and "communicate"(term used very loosely) by self-awareness and that everything "has". The field of Quantum Mechanics is so extremely young and complex that this theory most likely isn't fully explained, as we simply do not know all the forces in the universe and the many fields in which all matter (and non-matter) interact.
    That being said it's odd to me that 2 completely different theories, explaining two completely different things, in 2 very different fields of science can disprove one another.

    1. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in the quantum mechanical field can explain this theory, and that someone can actually explain how they think it disproves the theory of evolution. It is not my area of expertise.

  55. @ Cineplex;
    Darwinism is a FACT. Just come to peace with it.

    1. your WRONG just google this.... unified field of consciousness
      oh yeah christianity is way more wrong but still

    2. Why would a unified field of consciousness prove that Darwinism is wrong? It has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life on earth.

    3. Darwinism is a THEORY. Get your science straight.

    4. Gravity is a theory, germ theory is a theory, atomic theory, heliocentric theory...a theory is an explanation of the fact.

      we know things evolve, that is a fact, HOW they evolve is explained by Evolution and it takes into account gene drift, gene flow, mutation, and natural selection.

      get YOUR science straight.

    5. Well sir, I for one think it highly dangerous to conflate theories with facts. Especially something as ambiguous as 'Darwinism.' Shall we say 'Einsteinism' as well? I think we can agree that the word we want is 'evolution.'
      Theory as explanations or paradigms for related sets of factual observations are very useful, but to call a theory 'a fact,' if not worse, is a pretty gross misuse of the English language.
      So yes, I'm quite confident that my knowledge of science and the English language is OK on this point. I didn't mean to hit a funny bone.

    6. In this case the word THEORY means THEOREM i.e. FACT.If you aren't convinced, jump off a 10th floor window. After all, Gravity is just a theory. Get your science straight.

    7. I approve and support this principle!
      And of course, I want to be present during that experiment.
      I'm ready to help if needed...
      Just to make sure that we don't need to repeat the experiment 2 to 5 times cause the aliquot may be a bit "Damaged" during the experiment, Huh?


    8. theory |????r?; ??i(?)r?|
      noun ( pl. -ries)
      a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
      • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
      • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
      • Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

      theorem |????r?m; ??i(?)r-|
      noun Physics & Mathematics
      a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.
      • a rule in algebra or other branches of mathematics expressed by symbols or formulae.

      Now how is "Darwinism" a theorem, a truth, or a fact? Plenty of Darwin's posits are in doubt. If you had read what I wrote earlier, it 'evolution' we're talking about, not 'Darwinism.' Is "Marxism" a fact as well? There is much to learn about evolution. You know your science, I've read your posts. How could someone of your understanding call "Darwinism" a fact? That's just as bad as any religious zealot. Anyway, in what CASE are you talking about in which theory means theorem which means fact? Easy to play scrabble with words and their meanings in order to justify one's ego.

      Gravity is a very complex theory involving far more than objects falling from windows (cruel of you to suggest that I do it, but that shows your character).

      And that's all I have to say about that. Good day Sirs.

    9. Darwinism is a term with several ambiguous connotations.The most common of these is: Darwin's theory (theorem) of Evolution by natural selection. Marxism is an ideology. Two very distinct concepts (not obviously for the creationists). And i say that Darwinism or Evolution by natural selection is a fact because it can be proved and has been proved.
      From Oxford English Dictionary:
      Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
      Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation, hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
      The word THEORY in the Theory of Evolution refers to Sense 1.
      And by the way Gravity is not that complex when you understand it. A person falling off a building and the Earth's movement around the Sun are caused exactly by the same force and hence not distinct from one another as far as physics is concerned.
      Better day to you too.

    10. what is Darwinism? if you mean the theory of evolution by natural selection yes it is correct and has been verified.

      there has been adaptions to the theory as time has gone one and we have gained more knowledge especially with the discovery of Mendelian genetics.

      now instead of using a very basic dictionary definition lets look at what scientists say is a scientific theory:

      A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

      how about you explain what you think is so wrong about Darwins theory of evolution and we will discuss it point by point, rather than arguing the semantics of a word. only a christian would call it DARWINISM....would you call gravity NEWTONISM?

      what IS darwinism? lay out the central hypothesis of darwinism so we can understand what you are talking about?

    11. Darwinism is a word referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. Look it up. I was responding to AUWR who said '"Darwinism is a FACT." I've seen no argument here that equates a theory as the same thing as a 'fact.' Your definition of theory is quite elegant, but doesn't change that. We know life evolves- just how it evolves is in hot debate. I would hardly call that a fact.
      Why would only a Christian call it Darwinism? That's bigotry (are you going to call me a Christian now that I said that?). Lots of people around the world use that term. In fact, it's in the dictionary, look it up. And if one were a true evolutionist, why would one be so concerned with creationism anyway?
      I am a layperson, but I know enough to know that 'Darwin's theory of evolution' applies to a specific set of hypothesis made by the man himself around 150 years ago, and it is a gross misnomer to equate Darwin's theory with our modern theory (or theories) of evolution. I'm not qualified to offer a central hypothesis however.
      I agree with what you say here, but I find it very odd that by arguing semantics I'm suddenly an antagonist of Darwin's theory of evolution. What did I say that made you jump to that conclusion? When acting as proponent, it wise not to be sloppy with words don't you think?
      Look, this whole thread for me has not been about Darwin or evolution at all- it's about conflating 'a fact' with 'a theory.' That's just plain wrong.

    12. Creationists often argue that evolution is only a theory and cannot be proven.

      As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

      Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to peer review.

      This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists (detached) to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. (paraphrased from fsteiger).


      Now @bluetortilla, what scientists refer to as theory is not the same as what we (you) refer to it in our daily lives.

      You say Darwinism is a THEORY. No, Darwinism is just a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or of evolution, including some ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin (wiki).

      Evolution is a THEORY (a good one), in a scientific sense. Please get your science straight.

    13. Yes, Wiki is quite different than the standard dictionary. I stand enlightened. But bear in mind that it wasn't me who started all this 'Darwinism' business in the first place. I was referring to Darwin's theory of evolution. The fact remains though that to most people that's what "Darwinism" means.

    14. @bluetortilla,

      Now let's be honest. Someone said that Darwinism is a fact (which is not true), and you rushed to correct him that Darwinism is not a fact but only a theory (also not true).

      How can an "ISM" be a fact or a theory? As if Stalinism or Zoroastrianism are facts or theories.

      You've rushed to correct him because you thought the word "theory" means something that isn't proven. (which is also not true).

      A line from your earlier comments: at least 10% of wars are waged by those rotten atheists!

      1. I wonder why would you call them rotten? You hate them?

      2. Maybe the percentage is correct (still you have to prove it), but your underlaying message is not. Why?

      The wars waged by non religious people where not waged in the name of atheism. As if their sole motive was establishing atheism on occupied land. Also those non religious people were deeply religious in their past, and were still refereeing to their religions during their campaigns.

    15. Naw. I was just being sarcastic. I was pointing the absurdity of blithely claiming that 90% of wars are fought over religion. War is fought mainly over control of land and resources.

      I'm just trying to point out that wars are mainly geopolitical concerns, and religion is used to justify them. I'm not sure what 'atheism' even is, and I am certainly no fan of organized religion, if that's what you all are getting at. Having said that, I like to think that as free thinking is concerned, the world is big enough for all of us.

      I do however feel sad that you would presume that I 'hate' anyone. In fact, this whole thread has been a one-sided attack of presumption. The dictionary defines "Darwinism" as synonymous with (Darwin's) theory of evolution yet I am supposed to know that in America it is a rallying cry for the Creationists. I can't trust the dictionary? Do scientists have the privilege of making up their own definitions as they go along? That sounds familiar. I get branded as anti-Darwin and it insinuated that I must be a creationist Christian, when all I was trying to point out is that a theory is NOT a fact. That is not a logical conclusion. I said nothing to indicate I was against Darwin's theories or evolution yet I have been asked to defend my position against them. Now I'm being asked to prove a joke.

      I see here the kind of pack mentality that puts down freedom of thought.

      Dogma comes in many forms but the witch hunt is always the same. Darwin would have certainly related to that.

    16. you should also look up "theory" in scientific context. Evolution is passed a debatable topic, like gravity or relativity. you questioning it makes you open to becoming labeled as a lot of things... so don't be surprised.

    17. Thank you! I cannot believe how simple it is for these a***oles to spread this lie about scientific theories and they try to make it seem like the everyday use of the word.

  56. Darwinism has been proven wrong anyways; dawkins should do his own studies not believe a 200 year old text before he pushes his beliefs. I went to a catholic school and we were taught science with no religion involved. We were taught evolution even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I guess the school systems need help.

    1. @Cineplex
      can you show the evidence of Darwin's theory being proven wrong?

    2. google this unified field of consciousness

    3. "not believe a 200 year old text" - this made me laugh. What about adding a one more zero?

  57. Not particularly thought provoking, interesting or threatening.

  58. Blind faith is the true root of all evil. religion or for any matter the offering of a solution is one the sheeps skin to convince people to discard reason for unreasonable certainty in whatever they are convinced believe in. the unwavering belief of being right to the point that you want to get rid of any other dissenting opinions thorugh beauracracy, mob rule, or even violence.

  59. Boy, Richard Dawkins is an idiot of the dumbest caliber. He is presumptuous and malicious too, and I have no idea for what motive.He is intolerant, a bully, sarcastic, and makes fun of people for their beliefs right on camera. This documentary was horrible! I won't watch Dawkins again!
    The role of religion in society and violence and oppression is very complex and Dawkins doesn't even begin to examine the historical facts. All he does is raise alarms that he's 'worried' that people who believe in mythical notions are bound to become violent terrorists! At most of these scenes my reaction was a big 'So what?',
    His central tenant that faith and science are incompatible shows he knows next to nothing about either. Religious people may profess faith, but faith alone does not imply any particular religious belief. Faith extends to science as well moreover. After all, you may feel sure that we live in a heliocentric solar system, that our sun, from one vantage point, is a nuclear reactor, and that our earth is over 4 billion years old. Now I believe that too- but on faith. Dawkins claims it is true because we have evidence for it but did you or I personally collect that evidence? Do you know that evidence to be true? Have you done the testing yourself or do you just believe what scientists tell you? I assert you believe on faith. Which is OK. I do too.
    Science is just a tool. Nothing more. It is Dawkins that turns science into religion. We make hypothesis and prove or disprove them with a deductive, objective method of measurements . Science and faith aren't opposed- they have nothing to do with each other.

    1. Without religion there would have been 90% less wars...think about it

    2. I don't appreciate the 'you're either for us or against us' accusation dear sir. I have said nothing in support of religion nor do I support it or consider myself religious. 'Faith' may or may not have anything to do with a particular religion. But since you bring it up, maybe we've had nothing but war in spite of religion rather than because of it. Can you prove that religion causes war? Or does it provide the justification that arrogant men need to wage it? The devil can quote scripture after all.
      My gripe is with Dawkins. He is hostile and cold. He blames religion for social ills without any sort of proof. All is anecdotal. He ridicules people for their beliefs, and gawks mockingly at their rituals. Try that at a funeral. It seems to me that he is a very bitter, narrow-minded man. What would he do if he were king? Outlaw religion?
      Mao, Stalin, and other brutes have already though. Look how peaceful their aesthetic regimes have been. War is not a product of religion. It is a problem of lust, greed, and power. If the nukes start flying we have only ourselves to blame.

    3. Bullsh#t. Prove it.

    4. Religion is just an extremely convenient tool to provide the elites with power and control over their people. It is convenient because it does not require any evidence to justify their claim but rather presenting an ideology. The communist dictators are atheists but they use the exact same technique as the leaders who exploit religion. The most recent example is the "liberation" of Iraq which is a war based on numerous mixed messages with hidden motive. Under this condition, I would have I say that I agree with Stephane and would increase that number to 100%. However to be fair, we cannot just blame Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. for all the wars and conflicts.

    5. I don't think religion has much to do with war directly. It is the shield of political dogma and imperialistic ambition. It is the great legitimizer.
      Given your stats tho at least 10% of wars are waged by those rotten atheists! :D

    6. Very well said indeed.

      I agree with you except the last sentence - "...they (science and faith) have nothing to do with each other." As Dr. James Hannam and Norman Whitehead said, western science was inspired by the Christian faith (during the Middle Ages).

    7. I'm sure that is very well true though I know little about that aspect of Western science, which appears to have evolved out of Greek rationalism, at least in its methodology. Even attempts to 'prove' the existence of God (Aquinas et al) tended to be objective, rational arguments rather than based on the 'self-evident' liberal posits of the Enlightenment.
      Still, every civilization has science and technology obviously, along with a faith. Western science is only a flavor.
      I would add that life is a subjective experience based upon faith intertwined with faith on objective assumptions. If you drop a pencil, it falls. Doesn't it? At least I have faith in that. How can anyone here divide that fine hair of certainty that separate 'fact' from 'faith?' My point I guess is that science doesn't have to be one's religion- it can be seen merely as a tool, an invention of man. We should put science in its perspective place- not worship it.
      People who deny their faith tend to be arrogant and bitter (like Dawkins and Hawkins). And atheists who are happy tend to be spiritual; whether they admit or not.

  60. I wasn't raised within the scope of any religion nor a belief in atheism, but rather with a default, neutral view. My parents rarely, if at all, spoke of metaphysical arguments or otherwise belief-premised theories. The result was a person who completely rejects any and all religious notions of genesis and doesn't accept an atheist point of view as undoubtedly true, but definitely favors it in many regards... a stance that, in retrospect, resembles the scientific method. And it's not as if I've actively sought out this position, it just so happened to come about through my own logical analysis of anything and everything I've seen and heard. The overall conclusion I've come to is that we don't know the answer to everything, but that science is the only means towards achieving that goal (even if it means we have to be humble and admit that we don't know everything! *gasp*). Maybe if more people took the stance of "I don't know, I want to know, and I'm not going to lie to myself and other people for the sake of others believing that I know" we could have more reasonable debates. Praise Jesus, Allah, YHWH, the Dao, and everyone else for blessing us with logical minds. Now let's forget about them and get to work!

  61. OK, I just need a little input. I just finished the first part of this doc, and one of the last people Dawkins spoke to was a man who was born a Jew, settled in the Gaza Strip, then converted to Islam. In the interview, the man was saying that Dawkins, and Western men in general "allow" their women to dress as they choose (he said "like whores", but I take strong exception to that term).

    Dawkins seemed somewhat dumbfounded, and tried to explain that he wasn't "allowing" anything, the women were choosing for themselves. But the man insisted that if Western men would "control their women better" we would have a better society. And yes I do understand the paternalistic nature of that worldview, but it reminded me of something that I just can't figure out.

    So here's my question. I've learned a bit about Islam. I've read a little of the koran, just as I've read the bible and other religions' holy books, to try and broaden my understanding of why I so adamantly turned against organized religion so early in my life. (I'm far from young, now!)

    What I really have a hard time understanding is why, in Islam, men's sexual nature is somehow women's fault.

    It's like they don't raise their male children to be respectful of others, and that if they have poor impulse control, it's someone else's (i.e. women's) fault. Convenient for the man, but woe betide the woman!

    Where is the good parenting in that?

    I really find it hard to wrap my head around blaming--and punishing--half of your population because your men can't manage to control and take responsibility for their own arousal.

    BTW, I'm not exempting any other religion from similar failings. This is just something that I've seen expressed multiple times over the years by Muslim men. I'd love to get an answer from someone who can give a reason other than "women are devils" or whatever. And sorry if it's off topic.

    1. I have always been puzzled by this as well. Saying women must cover themselves so men are not aroused makes it sound like men are dumb animals who cannot control their urges. How exactly does prove their paternalistic view is right?
      The other side of that argument could easily be "Men cannot control their sexual urges and should be caged like animals."
      What happened to the idea of people acting like responsible adults?

  62. I think Dawkins confuses the discipline of science and the knowledge gained by it with his beliefs in evolution and atheism. He seems to believe they are one and the same. Dawkins is also delusional if he thinks he is going to be able to educate the international public in such a way as to get them to adopt his worldviews.
    I can easily see a Dawkins cult developing and growing into a large movement over time. Eventually seizing power in a country like say Germany. When finally having the power of a military I could see the Dawkins cult killing off all the Christians and Jews and anyone else who is delusional because he is not going to be able to change them with the power of persuasion. And Dawkins who by then will have shed his mortal coil will look on from wherever atheistic evolutionist go when they die and realize it was not the Bible or Koran that made these people delusional. It is that there is something fundamentally wrong in the human condition. And contrary to what he thinks he has not escaped. He is delusional as well. Only, he is in charge of his delusion so it is okay.

    1. Wow. That argument is what is wrong with society. I am a atheist and so are must of my friends. I have a lot of respect for Dawkins and what he is trying to achieve by getting people to focus on logic and reason, not because God said so.

      I have been teaching for many years at the University level in both Science & Business at the Undergraduate level and there is a noticeable difference in both areas of the reasoning between students who are deeply religious and who are lets say secular people. The majority of people who are deeply religious expect special treatment because of their religious beliefs and several times while teaching introduction to evolutionary biology I have had religious students refuse to write papers on Evolution because they said it was wrong. So being a good sport I requested them to write a paper with creditable scientific evidence on why Evolution is wrong. Not one of these students managed to pull this off and every paper cited the bible. I asked what they wanted to do after their degree I received answers from Doctor to Lawyer and Teacher to Biologist, that is a problem. I of coursed failed them in the course which they appealed and it went to the Academic VP who laughed at the papers they wrote in front of them.

      It is that special treatment religious people expect in the world but as an atheist I do not get special treatment. If I am in court I have to swear on the bible, at a large public ceremony say prays but this is not what I believe in. So what is the big deal of Professor Richard Dawkins voicing his opinion and ideas like all the rest of the people in the world. Just because you are religious doesn't mean you should get special treatment.

    2. In my previous comments I meant to offer the arguement that it is not religion or a belief in God that results in all the violence and confusion in the world today. It is that there is a fundamental problem with our human nature. And as a point(which I guess was a little too subtle)I tried to portray Dawkins beliefs being adopted by a group of followers and over time what the likely consequences of that could be. We actually have a historical precedent regarding such an occurrence; Nazi, Germany. Hitler was a follower of Darwin and that was one of the facts on which he made his logical and reasonable decisions. We also have North Korea and China as examples of Dawkins goals for mankind. Hmmm... I wonder why Dawkins doesn't move to North Korea where they are evolutonists and don't believe in God? It must be a paradise there.
      Regarding evolution. I view evolution as a religious belief. I have never seen any credible evidence to persaude me that it is true. If you know of any evidence I would be most interseted in hearing about it.

    3. If you think that Dawkins has even a hint of chance of becoming anything like Hitler, you obviously have NO IDEA of Hitler's way to power. Please don't use Hitler's name so lightly.

    4. Please read my reply to Mr. Cooper

    5. wow....i cant believe that you actually compared a following of Richard Dawkins to the Nazi party....that is crazy. anyways, lets see what else you said.

      "Dawkins is also delusional if he thinks he is going to be able to educate the international public in such a way as to get them to adopt his worldviews."

      his goal (and job at the time) was to encourage the public towards a scientific enthusiasm or at the very least encourage interest in science...and he did just that. his goal is not to "get people to adopt his world view" it was merely to educate the masses on what is accepted in the scientific community. btw here was his job title: " the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science"

      get off this Dawkins is delusional trip. its clearly that you disagree with him but dont know how to articulate how he was wrong.

      "I meant to offer the arguement that it is not religion or a belief in God that results in all the violence and confusion in the world today. It is that there is a fundamental problem with our human nature."

      if you claim there is a god and he is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent...then this flaw in human nature either proves he is not real or proves he is not all powerful or not all knowing or malevolent. take your pick. but stop contradicting yourself.

      "Hitler was a follower of Darwin and that was one of the facts on which he made his logical and reasonable decisions." ME?!?!?!

      "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hitler

      "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Hitler

      "I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.

      At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party."

      -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

      (Note: Karl Lueger (1844-1910) belonged as a member of the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party, he became mayor of Vienna and kept his post until his death.)

      now what Hitler DID do is take a TERRIBLE understanding of evolution and use it to say that one race is superior to another. however that is not what evolution says. also what he practiced would be artificial selection, NOT natural selection.

      if Darwin can be connected to Hitler for the holocaust then Newton can be blamed for the creation of bombs and missiles and Einstein blamed for the Atom Bomb....

      also i want to make this very clear....Even if Hitler based his ideas on Darwin, or if the atom bomb can be blamed on Einstein that in no way means their theories were wrong. think about that.

      "I wonder why Dawkins doesn't move to North Korea where they are evolutonists and don't believe in God?"

      you dont really believe this do you? go do some research on North Korea. The leaders of North Korea (Kim Jong-Il and his father before him) both claim to be gods.....atheist is one who denies the existence of all gods. also taking one example of a place controlled by a dictator and saying "see they are atheists therefore atheism doesnt work" is akin to me saying "see Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are theist therefore theism doesnt work" or better yet "see priests molest children therefore theism is false"

      its stupid. i thought you were skeptical....

      "Regarding evolution. I view evolution as a religious belief. I have never seen any credible evidence to persaude me that it is true. If you know of any evidence I would be most interseted in hearing about it."

      oh my goodness how i could go on and on here...but honestly i know you wont care what is said because A) you wont understand much of it, and B) anything that goes against your bible is inherently false probably, right?

      oh well lets see, evidence for evolution...look up "long term e coli experiment" and "Ring Species Ensatina salamanders" maybe you could look up "chromosome 2" and also "human endogenous retro viruses evolution"

      also, how old do you think the planet is? and why do you think that we can find different fossil types in specific strata layers that all fit the evolutionary tree? and what explanation do you use for the similarities in DNA completely matching the phylogenetic trees?

      PS: its not a good idea to immortalize, on the internet, your opinions about things you dont really understand. its better to admit you dont know and not formulate a strong opinion.

    6. Excellent!

    7. Could you help me to understand the Theory of Evolution better by explaining to me how all this evidence you have shown me proves that life evolved from a primordial soup of amino acids and nucleotides etc. etc. Where is the primordial soup at anyway?
      Can you explain to me how the e coli experiment proves that I evolved from a simpler life form? Also please explain to me in more detail the similarities in the DNA completely matching the phylogenetic tree. I would really like to be kept up to date on these things.
      I can never find anyone who really knows enough about evolution to explain these things. Most of the people I talk to about evolution are only followers of evolutionist. They don't really understand anything about evolution at all,they just say all scientists say it is true and it''s backed up by incontrovertible proof.And then they throw out a few experiments or some proofs that have been discarded by most scientist by the time it filters down to the general public.
      So,I am all ears so to speak and I will gladly draw knowledge from the wells of wisdom.

    8. In response to your comment below;
      Scientific discoveries have always been a result of observations and hypothesis.
      "Could you help me to understand the Theory of Evolution better by explaining to me how all this evidence you have shown me proves that life evolved from a primordial soup of amino acids and nucleotides etc."
      No scientist has proved that life began on Earth but it still remains a valid theory. This is how all the scientific discoveries were and are being made; through theories. So just because we don't know how exactly the first living-form came to be, it doesn't in no means disproves or underrates Evolution.
      "Also please explain to me in more detail the similarities in the DNA completely matching the phylogenetic tree."
      This is easier to answer; at the genetic level, all living-forms on Earth are the same; i.e. they all have the same genetic code ( rules which converts genetic information to proteins). For example, if the code ATT contains information for the synthesis of a certain protein, then it's the same for every other life-form on Earth (as in the code ATT doesn't synthesis a different protein in a different specie).
      If you want to know more, it is better to research more on the subject. It's not very easy to explain something soo complex in a comment section. People usually have a hard time with evolution because its most compelling proof is at the genetic level (which most don't understand).

  63. @David Foster,

    Judging by your comments all over TDF I can't precisely tell what you stand for. Sometimes you're bashing science, sometimes religion, sometimes politics... etc. It seems as you're running in circles and most of the time I think you're wrong. Would you care to carefully explain what you stand for.

    Is science bothering you as a discipline, or the ones who utilize it? Is religion in general bothering you or just some particular sects? What is your motto?

    1. Well, that's just it, Vlatko.. I don't "stand" for anything.

      Science doesn't bother me; it is simply a means of acquiring knowledge.
      Religion doesn't bother me; it is simply a context in which to understand that knowledge.
      And politics, well... that's just human ambition attempting to manipulate both; and get rich doing it.

      In my mind, I see we are well on our way to bringing about the sixth great extinction. I don't fear this possibility, as so many others seem to; because I know that a rational being will inevitably rise from it's ashes. Or we may simply go extinct. The earth doesn't care either way.

      I comment only because it interests me for the time being. Eventually I will get bored and move on. I imagine most others will do the same.

      I commend you on this site. It seems a great labor of love. Only wish I would have found it sooner, as I have already seen most of these. Would have made my life soooooo much easier! :-)

    2. Thank you for your answer @David Foster... and for the commendation. Cheers.

    3. YW. :)

      I should add: Accusations bother me; they are the beginnings of wars. That should explain most of my comments.

  64. I see no less disagreement among scientists than among religionists. It is when scientists do finally reach an agreement that worries me most. After all; it was not religion which destroyed Hiroshima.

    1. The scientific method is the most effective tool ever devised for finding out how nature works.

      Like any tool, it can be used for good and for ill.

      Scientists have little or no say in how their discoveries will be used.

      Politicians, generals, international banking cartels, and corporations are the ones to fear.

    2. No doubt! Now, if we could only convince the scientist to fear them, rather than apply to them for grant money....

      Ah, but without their money there wouldn't be a whole lot of scientific study going on, would there? Catch-22.

      "Behold, I am become death: The destroyer of worlds!" ~ Shiva >> Robert Oppenheimer

    3. Hiroshima bombing? It was a Christian, a religious person, who ordered it, one of yours.

      Feel better now? Surely ....

    4. In a way it just might have been. Truman was a 32nd degree Freemason BEFORE he authorized dropping the two bombs. It was afterward that he became a 33rd degree Freemason.

  65. Someone told me once that if you don't believe in GOd you're alone. I think that's why there are so many people believing in various Gods. They don't want to feel alone, they want to be supervised but somebody.

    1. Even when that somebody is a figment of their imagination.

  66. I don't really know what sort of Christianity he's talking about... Definitely not the kind that I have come to know. I'd say his logic is almost as bad as Glenn Beck's blackboard.

    1. That's probably the best analogy I've heard yet!

  67. If the one in the father alows child to see such a apearence in theater, then I think it is crime.

  68. "What an ignorant man, his blind faith in science is irrational."

    I find it very funny that this guy mohamed used "blind faith" as an attack on science. I respect aspects of religion and a persons right to practice it freely. What i dont respect is science being twisted and ignored.

    You really got to love the "science COULD be WRONG so my religion COULD be RIGHT sometime in the future!" argument.But its entierly predictable as religion has NO(zero) rebbutal's for anything hitchens is saying here. Thus you get the angry attacks lashing out at "stupid atheists". As well as the usuall "science cant say where the big bang or life came from so it could still be my god" arguments. Who was it then Zeus? Allah? why do you think your scripture is right compared to 300 years of scientific progress? Or other religions for that matter. Oh right....they dont call it "faith" for nothing.

    science vs. religion debates are hilarious.

    1. We all have "faith" in something. I'd rather have faith in an eternal supremely intelligent and loving God than have blind faith in eteranlly evolving dirt. You have my pity.

    2. We don't all have "faith" in something. I have "faith" in nothing. Nothing at all. Faith is "acceptance without evidence". I accept nothing without knowing there is evidence to back it up.

      You "choose" to believe in an "eternal supremely intelligent and loving god" even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it's existence. You fill your mind with an imaginary friend and tell yourself it's real. That is totally irrational.

      I am Atheist - That means I am "without faith or religious belief of any kind" - But, at the moment, that is beyond your understanding.

    3. Speak for your self ... you have mine

    4. "science vs. religion debates are hilarious." .. Until one takes into account who is actually funding the science.

  69. @Epicurus You wrote: "yes a god may exist. Zeus may exist, Shiva may exist, YHWH may exist, and sure Jesus may have been real. however i reiterate, there is not sufficient evidence for any of those claims...."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
    Actually a claim is just a claim, the "extraordinary" aspect is mere emotionalism. Something is either so, or it is not so. It is what it is. And now that you have taken the step and conceded that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and his son Jesus Christ may, in fact, exist, you cannot move forward toward satisfying yourself that they do exist nor prove to yourself that they do not exist, without a methodology. What will your methodology be? And pls. don't reply with something as vague as "a scientific method". If you were testing for the presence of any substance, you would first need to know the characteristics of the substance, and have a valid and reasonable step-by-step method for detecting the presence of those characteristics. If you are asserting that "science does not need to know the characteristics of what it is looking for," then you'd never hold down a job as a geologist for any oil or minerals company.

    I have already applied empiricism to both God and Christ, and putting their words into practice proved to me that God and Christ are quite real and what they say quite valid. I first acquainted myself with what they said their characteristics and intentions were, then with what they said the spiritual laws of cause and effect are, and I put it all to the test through observation ad putting into consistent daily practice what God and Christ taught. It is an understatement to say "It is true." But it is all true. So, in answer to your question, no, I will not be denying what years of experience (not blind faith) has already shown me is potently true.

    1. I'm not exactly sure if you really read Epicurus' arguments carefully because he was very clear on what he meant by "scientific method" so I wouldn't count it as vague. Also Epicurus was trying to point out that he is skeptical of Shiva, Zeus, Fairies, and Abrahamic God (including Jesus) for all the same reason: there is no evidence. Another problem with your argument is that you committed a straw-man fallacy: Epicurus never said science is not required to list out traits or characteristics, he simply said that something that is unfalsifiable should not be taken as a scientific explanation/theory.

      I don't want to tell you that your personal religious experience is false, but you did say that you applied empiricism to both God and Jesus. What bothered me is that you used the term "spirituall laws of cause and effect" and this term is very vague because it lacks empirical meaning (the term "spiritual" lacks empirical meaning) because cause-effect themselves, based on observations, usually pertain to physical events, not "spiritual events"; An Empiricists really would not use the term "spiritual", especially logical empiricist, they would hate the term because it lacks empirical meaning (or it isn't verifiable).

      Also, back to your claim on empiricism, you can try to impress us with your commitment to empiricism, but so far you have not provided solid evidence and proof. You only appealed to personal experience and personal observation, but that cannot count as evidence. Something counts as evidence in various of ways, but what they all have in common is that they are results or byproducts of experiments/research which can be examined by anyone, not just yourself; people can examine them by replicating the same experiment under the same conditions and see if it yields the same result. Simply saying that you "experienced" it or "tested" it does not count as evidence, you have to show that you actually did it in order for us to examine it.

      BTW, empiricism argues that we can know things from sensible experience. This means that we experience things through our senses (sight, taste, hearing, smelling) and through inductive reasoning (observing numerous similar events and concluding a general statement that could applied to future events). I would be very surprised if you tried to prove existence of God through empiricism because God by definition cannot be experienced through senses since God is "Transcendent" (beyond reality observed by inductive reasoning and senses). It makes me wonder if you really understood what empiricism means. You can, however, appeal to religious expeirence but this does not count as empiricism since religious experience alleges itself to be beyond ordinary human experience.

    2. Your empiricism may indicate that God is real but does not prove it. If I follow the same steps that you did, you believe that I will also have the same results. It should be true for everyone. However, it is an impossibility to reproduce. There came a point that you influenced the process by your hope for a positive outcome, thus rendering the results unreliable. I'm glad that you have found peace in your faith but the very definition of faith says that it is unprovable. Hebrew 11:1 says "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". 2nd Corinthians 5:7 says "walk by faith, not by sight". In other words, observations mean is everything.
      You rely on faith and I rely on observation. I believe that my system stands up to scrutiny and I question your belief system. Unlike Dawkins, I don't believe that you lack in intelligence but that you need your faith to maintain a lifestyle that has made you happy. Unfortunately, the scientific process may threaten that happiness and it is quite logical that you would resist it.

    3. I must thank Paul So for reiterating my point so well so i feel i dont have much to say.

      But i will point out that if a hindu said the same thing you are saying would that make what they are saying true?

      both you and every other religious person who has a different belief than you will make the exact same argument and it will all be based on imprecise personal emotional anecdotal evidence.

  70. What about USSR,China and others nations which did not believed in god,and nowadays the atheist are equally fundamentalist as the religious bigots it is not religion which is the root cause of all evils but the man's desire to control others.

    1. Most atheists (including Dawkins for one) would be happy not to control religious people as long as they showed the same courtesy to others. When religious people beat children in order to propagate their absurd beliefs, that's when it is time to "control" them, just as we desire to control murders to stop them doing it again.

  71. @Epicurus - Yep, I realize the ironic implications of my point about there being no logical reasons to affirm my beliefs, however some parts of my life activities and personal beliefs are not entirely logical - for instance, I like brunettes. Logical? I'll leave that up to you. haha

    I have enjoyed this discussion quite thoroughly, and I wish you well!

  72. objective facts are not open to interpretation. there are strict rules of logic to follow when you are going to make an objective claim.

    when someone takes the observations of science and concludes a god must have done it they are taking a step too far without their position being falsifiable.

    sciences limited understanding as you put it is not in question. if one is going to believe something one ought to have good reason to. so far there is no evidence for a god. and certainly no evidence for any particular brand of god. if you could suggest something someone might use as evidence for a god I can show you the logical flaw they are making.

    i absolutely do no discount the possibility of a god of some kind. but i understand what skeptical objective thinking requires, and it is not making leaps of faith about metaphysical beings that explain answers we yet can not explain. when i was a kid i didnt understand photosynthesis but i never just assumed fairies made my flowers grow. any logical person would understand they need some logical ground for their beliefs to come from. a religious person if they were being honest would realize their faith comes from less logical reasons.

    im completely with you on questioning everything. however questioning something doesnt mean we assert something else that itself doesnt require the same rigorous verification.

    1. Well said! Your statements give me reason for further study and thought.

      I do wish to point out that I do not see all objective facts as subject to interpretation - that is indeed a ridiculous thought. I suppose I meant to say 'scientific observations' rather than facts. I do however feel that some things that seem to be accepted as fact can indeed be interpreted differently by different people. Take for instance, the Big Bang theory. We observe things in the universe that suggest this as a plausible theory. While it may be considered a theory, many accept it as fact. Whether or not it can be considered objective, or a fact at all, it is still so widely accepted that many take it as a fact. My point is, due the lack of knowledge and observations about whatever caused a big bang and/or the start of our universe, there will remain the possibility that the universe began through what some might call divine intervention or a creative act by an outside being(s). That is not to say one or more such beings exist, but one cannot discount the *possibility* of such a thing due to our extremely limited understanding of anything that might have existed before the appearance of our universe, or anything that might exist outside the visible dimensions of our universe at this very moment. Science might tend to discount such possibilities due to our apparent lack of ability to see and make observations 'beyond' the beginning or beyond the edge of the known universe, but that does not necessarily mean there is nothing there to observe. Is this getting into the metaphysical realm? Maybe, maybe not.

      Though I do not often mention it, I do believe in a God, and I certainly wouldn't if I didn't feel I had a good reason to. I have my own reasons and will not explore them here - we are all free to believe whatever we wish. Why, you might even find some logical flaws in my reasoning! lol

      Unlike many that believe in a God though, I do not try to form my personal beliefs and convictions in contradiction to known science. Sure, belief in a God may be considered by some to be irrational and unprovable, but I also do not see belief in itself as an inherent scientific contradiction or simply wrong beyond question. The possibility is there, and though there are many possibilities, there is no logical reason as of yet to completely discount nor affirm any of them.

      Very interesting discussion. :)

    2. you are absolutely right. one would be in error to say there absolutely is no god-thing.

      however your very last point was there is no logical reason as of yet to completely discount or affirm any gods.

      that is true to an extent but think about this. you and I dont believe in the greek gods, or the hindu gods, or the native american gods, all for the same reasons...but i also lump the abrahamic god into that pile for the same reason we include all those others.

      this was one of the more pleasant conversations on here about this topic.

    3. Agreed, but I would say that objective facts are not necessarily open to interpretation in a very loose sense, since objective facts are independent of personal biases/agendas. You can provide interpretations of those facts but that would not be the same as Theory since Theory is more propositional, systematic, and makes predications than mere subjective explanations. I think you get what I mean but i just would like to add the clarification if you don't mind :P hopefully, i wasn't being too rude.

  73. @Episurus If you are going to assert a negative, i.e., that God does not exist, you have to do better than to then attempt to hide behind the defence that "a negative cannot be proved." If you are asserting a negative, be prepared to prove it. If you are asserting that your position can't be proved, we'd all agree with you. As to proving the existence of God, quantum physics is making headway on that count. But for persons like yourself and Mr. Dawkins, I'd advise you spend some time--time well spent--defining the characteristics of that which you are seeking to prove. If you are seeking to prove "sky man" or "Mr. Magic," or as Dawkins says "Some hideously cruel being," you will find no proof of God. Every good scientist knows that he/she must know the characteristics of that which they are trying to detect. Obviously, you and Mr. Dawkins haven't a clue. It's no wonder you've detected nothing.

    1. i have yet to say god does not exist. once again you seem to have a hard time not straw manning other peoples position. my claim is there is no evidence to support a god so there is no reason to assert one exists and especially no logical reason to claim you believe in one.

      nothing about quantum physics has EVER pointed to a god. do not pretend you understand quantum physics. name ONE peer reviewed paper that has even mentioned a god or designer. just one please.

      and no there is nothing in science that states in order to detect or understand something you must first know its characteristics.

      and its amazing how you completely ignored everything else i posted towards your attempt to make someone look bad based on your own ignorance. maybe you should acknowledge you were wrong about Dawkins, and are just acting this way because he offended your beliefs.

    2. Your claim that there is no evidence to support a god(s)' existence depends entirely on how you interpret scientific facts, and the accuracy of those facts. The scientific facts that you find no evidence of a God in could just as easily be seen by another as very suggestive of a creator-being(s), and could eventually develop into a fine reason to assert a god's existence depending on one's point of view. Science also has a limited understanding of certain things, especially the beginning of the universe and the formation of life - I am sure that if science is able to continue expanding, scientists 500 years from now will laugh at many of our current primitive notions. Still, as long as the universe has a beginning, then anything remains possible about just how that beginning... well, began.

      I think we can all admit that mankind truly knows very little about the beginnings of our universe, and practically nothing about what might've been before our universe came to be. My point is that even though you do NOT claim that there is no god, I do not understand why you (correct me if I am wrong) *seem* to discount the very possibility or seem to think overly critically of someone who apparently accepts this possibility. Unproven possibilities are a thing to be explored, not dismissed! The only problem with this particular dilemma is that science currently lacks the ability to truly explore all the possibilities.

      I hope you do not take my comments the wrong way as I mean them with all due respect to you and any views you might hold true. I am also not trying to defend or support either a creationist or aetheistic agenda or worldview, I just think truly questioning EVERYTHING and doing everything we can to explore ALL possibilities will present the path to true knowledge. Cheers!

    3. @Epicurus
      You wrote: "I have yet to say god does not exist. once again you seem to have a hard time not straw manning other peoples position. my claim is there is no evidence to support a god so there is no reason to assert one exists..."
      OK, so you concede that God may exist. If you have not found evidence that God does exist, I suggest--as I did in my earlier post to you--you spend some time--time well spent--defining the characteristics of that which you are seeking to prove. If you are seeking to prove "sky man" or "Mr. Magic," or as Dawkins says "Some hideously cruel being," you will find no proof of God. Every good scientist knows that he/she must know the characteristics of that which they are trying to detect. So, first study God's statement about who he is, his demonstrated intentions toward humanity, and the intent of his Word (as explained straightforwardly by Jesus Christ. This will require your reading the Bible from the OT through to each of the gospels. Then step back, and you will see a pattern of repeated efforts to raise up and redeem humanity to their fullest possible enjoyment of living. Jesus said, "I came that you might have life and have it abundantly."

      I did not ignore anything you said regarding Mr. Dawkins' quite understandable attempt to try to have others believe he did not make the brashly biased and unreasonable statements he did during his interview with Ben Stein. Dawkins showed his biased agenda during that interview, and it's no wonder he'd like to now whistle back some of those words and replace them with others. He said what he said, and like everyone, he'll have to live with his own utterances.

    4. yes a god may exist. Zeus may exist, Shiva may exist, YHWH may exist, and sure Jesus may have been real. however i reiterate, there is not sufficient evidence for any of those claims...."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

      if you think i have not read the OT and NT you are sadly mistaken. again science does not need to know the characteristics of what it is looking for. that is completely false and shows you lack a good understanding of how science works or even past scientific breakthroughs.

      you try to say Dawkins is changing his the explanation i quoted from him (which you obviously didn't read) he didn't change a single thing he said, he only put it into context. you can go to youtube and watch the interview if you want. you are seriously grasping at straws if you are trying to discredit a man by a blatant straw man when he isn't around to defend himself.

      so again. maybe you should concede that what you have said about him is wrong.

      PS: i have admitted that it is possible there is a god....would you admit it is possible that you are wrong and there might not be a god? or are you completely closed minded and believe you are absolutely right?
      or could you maybe believe that there is some other god that isn't the one you believe in? is that a possibility?

  74. @Epicurus You have reasonable scientific evidence that God does not exist? Nifty. Let's see it. And don';t give us some internet url. Lay your evidence out, reasonably in your own words. As to Mr. Dawkins modifying his position after he embarrassed himself during an interview with Ben Stein and said that while he conceded there was no evidence that aliens exist but that it is reasonable to consider the possibility that aliens created life on earth, but that while he claimed in this interview that there is no evidence that God exists and it is therefore not reasonable to consider that God created life on earth, I'm not the least surprised that Mr. Dawkins now wished he had said something else. But he said what he said and in so doing, he blatantly revealed that he is not a reasonable man, but a very biased man. And his books appeal to the biased and intolerant as surely as O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh and their sort also appeal to the intolerant and biased audience whom they serve to turn a buck. There's no truth in any of it, but "gold in them thar hills" when a minority view feels less marginalized when someone is blaring their views over the media, regardless of how unreasonable those views may be. They are their views, and therefore, the dollars are handed over for that meagre validation. Sad.

    1. there is no reasonable scientific evidence that supports gods existence. i do not have to provide you with evidence that your god doesnt exist. that is not a requirement in logic. you arent asked to prove a negative. if you were then YOU would have to prove that every other god doesnt exist. or that unicorns dont exist. or that magical fairies that make the flowers grow doesnt understand how that works right?!?!

      now again. stein asked dawkins if he could think of any way that intelligent design COULD BE explained. dawkins said that a highly intelligent life WHICH HAD COME ABOUT BY DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, could hypothetically seed life elsewhere in the universe and let evolution take its course. you are doing what the movie did and are creating a straw man argument out of an edited clip. here is dawkins OWN explanation

      "Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. … I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

      This ‘Ultimate 747? argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment — however implausible — was designed to illustrate intelligent design’s closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don’t think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

      Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won’t get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. “What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.” “Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE.” I can’t remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure — that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience)."

      Richard Dawkins DOES NOT BELIEVE that aliens seeded the planet. He was asked to think of any circumstances whatsoever in which intelligent design might have occurred, and he came up with the most plausible fictional circumstance and used said circumstance to point out that even if such a circumstance were to occur, the seeders would they themselves have to have evolved.

      you inability to argue without using fallacies is starting to get old.

  75. Dawkins comes across as an unbearable "Church Lady" who seems to be present in a spattering of churches. She is intolerant, but always grinning disingenuously when she tells people they are "Going to hell, dear." Dawkins, similarly, grins disingenuously and tells anyone who holds views different than his own "You're quite delusional, dear." Two intolerant peas in a pod. And neither deeply familiar with the faith they profess or debase. Dawkins showed his true colours when he said in an interview with Ben Stein that "While there is o evidence to support the existence of aliens it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that aliens seeded human life on earth." But when asked by Stein if it is reasonable to consider that God seeded human life on earth, Dawkins winces his nose and minces, "Absolutely not, there is o proof that God exists. Why would I consider that someone who does not exist seeded human life on earth?" Gotcha! We can move on. Dawkins is an intolerant individual of low intellect--as the intolerant usually are--who recognizes there is money to be made selling books that pander to the insecurities of atheists who don't like that lonely feeling.

    1. if you really think what you are saying is true i feel sorry for you.

      comparing the convictions of someone who has evidence to someone who has only faith is silly.

      also the point of Dawkins saying life could be seeded here on earth what he was implying is that all life evolves and if it was seeded from alien life that alien life had evolved first.

      to say that life just magically popped into existence by means of a magical man who has always existed is NOT reasonable.

      understanding that the conditions for life is pretty much abundant in the universe it is then easy to understand that it is possible that one form of life somewhere in the universe COULD have been seeded by another, however it STILL EVOLVES. since that is an observable fact.

    2. Jay,

      You didn't read my post carefully. Mr. Dawkins said he considered it reasonable to consider the possibility that aliens seeded human life on earth--even while he acknowledged there is no evidence that aliens even exist--but that it is wholly unreasonable to consider that God created life on earth, because he sees no proof that God exists. Hmmm No proof that aliens exist, but ok to consider them as originators of life on earth; no proof that God exists, but wholly unreasonable to consider that God created life on earth. Most people caught a whiff of the pungent odor of strong bias when Dawkins made these statements during the Ben Stein interview. Perhaps some others simply lack any olafactory sense? Anyway, Dawkins has pretty much not been taken seriously since that interview. I'm not that aware that Mr. Dawkins has produced any reasonable "evidence" that God does not exist. However, I am aware that many who do believe in God base their belief on both reason and experience, not on some mere "blind faith" as you appear to have been indoctrinated to believe. Happy trails.

    3. I am very familiair with the interview you are talking about.

      now dawkins already accepts that there is enough evidence that aliens are NOT improbable.

      so given the fact that they are more probable than not, he admits that IF you want to believe life was seeded on earth then aliens are a better thing to use than a god. that is all. he didnt say he believed that to be the case...only that, given the knowledge we have, that it is MUCH MUCH more likely than a god.

      if you want to see the ENTIRE uncut interview with Stein and Dawkins you are more than welcome to search for it. you will probably get a better idea rather than just the edited crap that ben stein used.

      oh and maybe you should watch the documentary on here that completely rips apart expelled...also here is a website dedicated to responding to the claims in that film. you might also be interested in knowing the dishonest tactics they used to get those interviews.

      how is it that you say i have blind faith when i am using scientific evidence and you are using faith? lol come on. grow up and try not to be passive aggressive.

  76. What an ignorant man, his blind faith in science is irrational. i think he is truly jealous because his heart is diseased and cant comprehend and conceptualize the true message and blessings of islam. people like him are mentioned in the Quran when Allah says "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah" Surat an-nisa aya 89can we imagine a world without religion? What reason would we have to live? what purpose would we serve other then fulfilling our own desires, what would structure people and restrain their evil? look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad he was a man ILLITERATE, POOR, A MERCHANT, he changed the face of Arabia, he turned a society of daughter burying people, tribalism, and prominent war into a brotherhood of justice, love, and strong faith. There are many haters of the prophet Muhammad during his time until now such people like richard dawkins, i ask you look at dawkins legacy what has he done for society? what has he done for this world? who takes him as a role model? absolutely no one was the correct answer. the prophet Muhammad recieved the most valuable words and did his best to act upon it and look at the success of his message. Allah has blessed his followers and they yearly grow higher. Allah mentioned the actions of people like richard dawkins as well when he said "For he who hates you, he will be cut off" surat Al kawthur - aya 3 meaning indeed he who hates the prophet Muhammad, and he hates what you have come with of guidance, truth, clear proof and manifest light, he is the most cut off, meanest, lowliest person who will not be remembered, look at the most common name in the world right now, is that not a sign? people like abu jahal, abu lahab, where are these people mentioned?? who has named there kids that? NO ONE; they insulted the prophet for not bearing male offspring but Allah has blessed him with generations of them and his name will truly never be forgotten is that not a sign for the people of logic? this man richard dawkins needs a 2+2=4 to claim something as true but once Again Allah mentions the muslims as a people of believe in the unseen and encourages us to think beyond our basic 5 senses. Im surprised this guy claims hes so smart. Science is a human creation? yes.
    Humans are flawed? yes. so science is flawed? absolutely, theres his 2+2=4 for him but he still plans to try to faith in Allah, but thats fine because Allah says in surat Al-anfal aya 30 "But they plan (i.e the disbelievers), and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners."
    Just think, tens of thousands accept islam yearly, are they all "ignorant and following opiate of the masses" or are these true people who know that their senses and science can only take them so far and that islam is the truth and it will take them further.

    1. Just because people believe a man's teachings doesn't make them true. The fact that people name their children after someone does not necessarily make him a great man. Did you just brag about him being illiterate???

      Quoting religious texts does nothing to convince those who do not believe in the validity of said texts. It all sounds like nonsense to me. You criticize Dawkins for needing evidence to believe something is true. In what other area of life apart from religion does anyone think it is wise to believe things there is absolutely no evidence for?

      I do not require religion to have a reason to live. I am more satisfied and have more direction in life since I abandoned faith. I do think Dawkins has contributed a lot to society and I do think he is a good role model. He's not a prophet. Not a holy man. Not exalted above other human beings. These are all silly concepts. He's just a man - very intelligent LITERATE man - who we can learn a great deal from.

  77. @polar jo~
    Community Development---that's the President's former 'gig'...right? We're going to need both of you when the oil goes to $50 per gallon and stays there. That's when the last 65 years of expanding communities by way of suburban sprawl will start looking shortsighted. We'll all have to start thinking "local, local, local" when it comes to community building. Everything---employment, shopping, food, leisure pursuits--- will be local. The Eisenhower interstate highway program is still usable for freight and limited auto traffic but high speed rail will be the method of choice for future travelers. Yep. We're going to need all the Community Developers we can get.

  78. 'if' we rally for the division of church and state for all regionally and nationally funded facilities (including pre-schools and elementary schools which are 'supposed' to be providing an education which is 'elementary'), then focus on that education providing skills in discernment and evidence based learning - this won't matter so much after a few generations will it? Remove funding & tax savings from non-evidence based teaching (schools, churches, media,etc) is the practical and doable solution. No need to start civil wars with individual beliefs...? My experience is in Community Development, which has shown me, many times, that people get the 'craziest' when systems are falling (& they 'feel' conflicted & afraid); today, the world's clear reliance on technologies and evidence based facts & theory is perhaps a more powerful measure of future practice then the arguments 'clinging' to old ways. @ Lary Nine - keep commenting; I like the way you think :) - Peace

  79. First, I'm assuming everyone knows the difference between weight and mass. When science talks about mass it means actual atomic substance. It's material that within a system like earth has weight... but it is not weight. Weight is the force of the action of gravity upon mass. Sadly, if we like the rest of the world were on the metric system this explanation would be easier.
    Now, it is estimated that 90 percent of the total mass of the universe is something inaccurately called "missing matter" which is really a misnomer because all it's missing is visibility. So now it is called "dark matter" and it's existence is inferred by it's gravitational effects on other directly observable mass and light.
    If it were not for the discovery of this minimal to moderate influence of dark matter, the mathematics of matter's (mass) gravitation would break down and become slightly nonsensical at this point in science... especially when dealing with astronomic distances.
    To summarize: dark matter refers to non-luminous matter particles whose presence is suggested because of the gravitational effects on the rotation rate of visible matter such galaxies and the presence of clusters of galaxies
    It's counterintuitive...this dark matter but it's real and I hope this helps to explain it just a skosh.

  80. @Lary Nine

    Nvr mind mate, I keep forgeting ive got the I will just wiki it.

  81. @Lary Nine,

    Hi Lary, care to give us a crash coarse on dark matter and dark energy. I believe it is used to explain why the universe is speeding up?

  82. @Last Call~
    10-4 on that, science buddy. Glad to spread the wealth.

  83. @ zenith

    Your post is the perfect example of why it is hard to have any kind of serious debate with religious people.

    'It’s funny that the creationists that obvious to everyone else lacking in scientific knowledge actually make the right conclusion and acknowledge God the creator.'

    Make the right conclusion? where is this conclusion drawn from? the Bible? You see, what happens in science is hypotheses are put forward, which the scientist then tries to disprove. Further research and studies, sometimes spanning decades, lead to an ultimate conclusion which we should consider a fact. Simple as that.

    'Atheism has been tried and tested in USSR and it failed. It only makes sense in theory but doesn’t work in real life when you’re dealing with human beings. Eugenic and, genocide are just some of the inevitable conclusion that one can come up with when one think life is just one big accident.'

    You can't be serious? I think you need to read up about world history and the religious wars of the past. Eugenics and genocide are MUCH more likely with religious distinctions being drawn between groups. 'I will kill you because my God says it's ok'. Have we just watched the same documentary? It seems you've understood nothing.

    Furthermore you talk of Atheism as some kind of political movement. It is a disbelief in God, and in my case, based on scientific facts (evolution, gravity, physics - i dont believe adam was made from a rib, i don't believe Jesus walked on water, nor do I believe Jesus fed 5,000 people with one piece of bread)

    'One owes nothing to other human beings if survival of the fittest is the rule, after all, anything that one do to ensure one’s survival is permissible in the harsh life of survival of the fittest, if genocide of one group of people ensure peace of one’s family, in the atheist world, it’s totally ok, as long as one do not genocide one own’s people thus ensuring one’s group to survive and evolve. Human rights, morals, ethics are empty and has no basis to one’s survival hence one has no reason to live by it.'

    You make one or two valid points about EVOLUTION but you seem to confuse it with ATHEISM. Yes, the principle of survival of the fittest is a very heartless and cruel concept to get your head around. Why? Because as a human being you have EVOLVED the ability to empathise and have mercy on others. Being an atheist and believing in evolution does not mean that you support or condone the harsh realities of the animal kingdom, it just means that you accept that that's the way it is.

    You do not have to be of a religious background to be against eugenics, genocide, and to have a moral code! What an outrageous claim.

    Carry on along your road of blind faith if it works for you. 'God' gave us intelligence to think, create, and work things out about our surroundings. If 'he' really is loving and merciful, I'd like to think that when 'judgement day' arrives he will not be too harsh on me for accepting given and proven FACTS about the world we live in, and not living my life based on a man-written book.

    the virgin mary? mary who had sex with the neighbour and didnt wanna tell joseph you mean!?

    sorry if i've mixed up any of the religious characters in my post, its been a while since i've been to church, and even then, i wasn't really listening.

    Peace and love

  84. I think I'll have a fish supper tonight

  85. Haggis! Now there's a heavenly treat!

  86. @Last Call
    Realist is right, you are a muppet, haggis is the food of gods.

  87. @Larry Nine

    Thank you again. It’s nice to have an intelligent conversation with someone who seems to know his or her subject.
    I agree with you almost entirely and has helped to build upon my understanding.


    It is nice to know the only fault you can now find with my argument is my spelling and grammar. Which I agree sucks.


    You are wrong. Food is the root of all evil. You clearly have never tried haggis

  88. @Last Call
    I think you've won! or realist can't be bothered. Give it up mate, it's like Sunday Church Services, full of bull, full of s@#$ defenses, boring as f@#$ and can't understand most of it.

  89. I must say pizza's comments are actually more sensible than the dyslexic dog lover

  90. I might get a chinese tonight, see there is no hatred with food. I love it all Chinese, Indian, Italian, Mexican. Food is not the root of all evil!!!!!
    I hate celery, but that's not a food is it?

  91. Some thoughts...
    1- Science and technology, although related, are not synonymous terms. People often say "science" when they really mean "technology". Technology grows using the fruits of science--- its facts and artifacts. But it does not require anything but uncommonly good sense to produce new, working inventions. Consider The Theory of Special Relativity or Evolution. Then look at the Popeil Pocket Fisherman or the Sham-Wow Cloth. There's a clear distinction bewteen Einstein and Edison---(who was no world class scientist at all but he was a great tinkerer.)

    2-Still it's also vital to acknowledge that without technology the current worldwide human population would not have risen to 6.4 billion and climbing. That would've been quite impossible for several significant reasons. So it seems like it's incumbent upon technologists to engineer solutions to the survival challenges of our advanced civilization. Yet one question that neither scientists nor engineers will ever resolve is the cosmic enigma of 'First Cause'.

    3-Consequently, because many God-believers find God in the unknown where science as yet has no explanations, theologians like to refer to this type of faith as "the God of the gaps". The problem is that as science understands more and more...the "gaps" get smaller and smaller. Hence, the threatening feeling which believers have that their God is shrinking! Therein lies the fallacy of understanding faith and belief in this manner. Don't people see? As they attack evolution or The Big Bang, which are essentially unassailable, they're setting up their belief in a God to fail if they view Him as the Sole Custodian of Creation Mysteries. Faith needs to adapt or die. That doesn't make Faith artificial either--- just dynamic.

  92. @realist

    By the way I studied at a secular uni. This means I studied it using a scientific method, if you will, called "textual critism". Basically we studied it as a book and not the word of God. That should help explain at what "angle" I approached my subject.

  93. @Lary Nine

    Yeah Larry, ive no problem with Darwin. I admire him in a way for his courage. I mistyped Darwin for Dawkins.

  94. I quick point I would like to add is, how beneficial is science to mankind? This seems like a no brainer until you change the perspective a little. Science is good for the individual and their quality of life. However, what will be the long-term side effects?

    We can see already the effects of the industrial revolution on the environment with global warming. This movement was started with scientific discovery and technology.

    Also scientific discovery has given us many weapons of war. To the extent, where we can know destroy ourselves, many times over.

    Our recourses being depleted and, many species becoming extinct, as a result. This again could not be possible without scientific discovery.

    Science has also led to the overpopulation of our planet, as we can now live longer. The result of this will be disastrous and there is no cure except mass extermination and birth control.

    What are the long-term effects of so much technology being introduced? What impact does TV, the Internet, anti-depressants and such have on our society? Are we all living happily ever after because of these introductions?

    I am not writing this to say science is evil. Science is neutral. People use these discoveries for good or evil. Mostly though people use them to make a profit.
    Science has helped weaken religions right to claim an absolute moral code, rightly or wrongly, while at the same time it has very little to contribute in morality at all. This helped create a moral vacuum in our society. Just as moral certainty was decreasing our ability to come up with new scientific discoveries and technology were increasing. Which resulted in the lack of proper discourse on the function of science and what it was trying to achieve.

    I am very interested in this subject, however I know very little about ethics in science. Does anyone with scientific understanding wish to elaborate?

  95. @Last Call~
    "I am glad you [sic realist] admitted Darwin is an exstreemist. Nice to know he should have no place in representing the scientific community."

    That belief is from Lala-land. Many mainstream scientists have called 'the theory of evolution' (ie; descent with modification through natural selection) the greatest scientific idea that anyone ever had. Even if it were not so, Darwin's ideas are at the heart of all modern bilogical sciences. Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. FYI. Bit of advice...steer clear of The Discovery Institute. They have a hidden agenda that goes beyond evidence and reason.

  96. I made some times in the last section as I was in a hurry.

    Paragraph 4 Replace the words "doing good" with "doing evil”. Some may agree with the

    Paragraph 6 Replace "Darwin is an extremist" to "Dawkins is an extremist."

  97. @realist

    I think you have read my "free speech" arguement and it has clouded your reading on the rest of what I have said. It was said "tongue in cheek." I should of clarified this.

    Of coarse your also right that the majority of the British did not support the Irag war. I apologise for the misinformation.

    I believe I have answered points 2 and 3 In what I have said earlier. I hope you re read this again and do not really wish to go over the same point. No I do not wish do do harm to Islam or do something evil as this would go against the teachings of Jesus. Also in case you do, please do not take passages from the Old Testament out of context to try and show religion as evil with out an understanding of the literature, the audience and the times and purpose they were written.
    In response to point 4. I notice you have tried to undermine my "non honors " degree. Quite pityful tactic I must admitt. I did not need to include the fact it was an non honors degree, but I did, I wished to present truthfully my background, to show I had some knowledge of the subject but it was not complete. Also in scotland people start a degree coarse and can do the 3 or 4 year coarse. I always intended to do the 3 year coarse as I did not study for career reasons. Do this day I do not know if I met the requirements for 4th year as I did not intend to do it. My grades on average were about a 14-15 If I remember correctly.

    Scotland has some problems mith secularism between protestants and catholics. This has probably to do more with povery than anything else. Anyway if you ask many of these people if they believed in Christ they would laugh at you. They are seperated more by politics and their environment. Religion is just a name for them. Few of them would say they were practicing christians or even believed in it.

    People in povery are more corrupt and violent. Religion is sometimes they only thing that gives them purpose, meaning and also a community that trys to deter them from doing good. But it looks like some athiests try to take that from them as well. Go to Africa and try and convince them athiesm offers them more hope. Good luck with that.

    I am glad you admitted Darwin is an exstreemist. Nice to know he should have no place in representing the scientific community.

    Also my belifs are not ignorant or blind, they have not just been shaped with my reason but also my experiences of life and knowing God in a very real sence. However, I accept if I had not had these experiences, I probably would not believe in God either. I am just happy I have. I understand that you just do not get it.

    Also I wonder what you would say if I finished of by sayinys something along what you said,

    "All the best and I hope one day you see the light, realise tha religion doesn’t make someone a good person, but just being good."

    I will give it a try,

    "All the Best and I hope one day you see the light, realise that religion doesn't make you a good person as there is no such thing. Its more of a scale. People are neutral, somedays they do good, somedays they do bad. This can take place over months , years and indeed a persons whole life.
    However, if there is no God all the bad thinks that people did and do to others will never be accounted for. There for justice will never be served to the people that are hurt by it. I realy hope there is a God. If there is all the witch burners and child molesters, of the ages, will be made accountable. If there is no God they wont. There will be no hope of justice.

  98. I know the meaning of life and I'll share it here today. Ready? Here we go, hold onto your hats---

    "No anchovies."

  99. get a pizza

  100. @ Last Call

    1. the comment about freedom of speech is unbelievable, you have established a contradiction now that you keep on posting. Free speech is a wonderful thing which can open minds to new thoughts.
    2. Yes dawkins, is being dramatic with the "slippery slope" comment, but firstly it sells to the public, makes it controversial and brings attention to a subject. But please remember the past, it has gone now but a lot can be learned. We do know nothing in real terms, but how much more would we have known without the 1000 years of catholic rule, ended only by the reformation, and then human advancement. Burning "witches" at the stake, the world is flat and the spanish inquisition all in the name of god, were these actions not evil - never mind the catholic church protecting child molestors not that long ago.
    3. your mention of Hitler, his genocide was intially against Jews, a racism based on religion. How do you feel personally at islam being preached openly, Do you feel persecuted as a Christian? - is this becoming a hatred and would you like to do something about and if so what? something evil?
    4. I would also like to add that using your "non-honours" degree as evidence of knowledge, in England and Wales most degrees are 3 years, non-honours being the grade offered to those who did not meet requirements for an honours degree, in Scotland it is slightly different.
    So I'm guessing you're Scottish and should know the divisions that exist in your country, all based on religion and a minor difference at that.
    Yes Dawkins is an extremist, but there are many more and more extreme within religious circles, manipulating the weak and ignorant for their own purposes. Ask why poorer nations are the ones who have higher beliefs in religion and higher levels of violence and corruption, It's the free speech you are against that allows you t have the comfortable life you do.
    My posts are not emotional other than the fact it somewhat angers me that someone who is educated and apparently studied religion (to what depth and openess I am unaware of,and what angle you took), can be so ignorant, defensive and with an inner hatred.
    Your apparent beliefs are based not on rationale or justification but a feeling / or hope that a man came to save your soul. The fundamental ideology of Christianity that it doesn't matter if you are a good person but only subscribe to this belief as the way to salvation sums up that it can be used for evil. How can you believe in this unless it suits you to. I too don't mean to make offense but I just don't get it!! How can you defend something which can be used for evil purposes (yes there are good moral groundings but, humanity can have these without religion), for example why is homosexuality such a crime - who does it harm?
    All the best and I hope one day you see the light, realise tha religion doesn't make someone a good person, but just being good.

  101. @ProudinUS~
    I just discovered this site. An online friend of mine from Facebook's "Netflix Friends Group", who also digs documentaries like me,and she gave me the link. I appreciate what you said and I recall posting kudos several times for your thoughtful comments as well.

  102. @Last Call~
    I suspect that you are right about Dawkins, and although I admire his missionary zeal about evolution, he often implies that scientific method's natural scepticism supports the choice of personal atheism. He even admits this frequently. It's easy to see how this could be a sensible claim but if examined closely, you'll agree that evolution itself doesn't have much at all to say about religion and thus doesn't disprove the existence of God. Admittedly though, it probably helps to undermine what is already weakly held in the heart of a fence-sitting believer.

    I completely understand your need to sort this out as did I when I sensed a slight clash between my Episcoplian upbringing and my intro to evo 101.

  103. @Lary Nine

    I don't know were you came from,but keep up the good posts! Sometimes an iDiOt like me learns more from the comments then the actual doc.

  104. None Honours Degree in Britain is a 3-year coarse, instead of a 4 year coarse. At least it is in my subject.

    Should a scientist allow his beliefs to interfere with his work? I always presupposed the natural stance of a scientist should be agnostic, as God has not been disproved or proven within science. They just do not know yet.

    Could it be Dawkins is trying to incorporate atheism into science as if this should be the normal scientific stance?

    My concern he is showing alarming similarities between the creationist movements in America, who are trying to get unscientific material taught in science on the grounds of faith. Where Dawkins seems to be keen to promote a very unscientific "interpretation" of evolution to promote atheism on the grounds of reason and then pass it of as science.

    I am sure you can understand my concern. If I am wrong Lary, please can you direct me to scientific peer reviews or journals, that explain that atheism should be the natural stance of science based on scientific method and observation.

    By the way, I had to look up the word "hubris" in the dictionary. lol.

    I agree that science and religion can be used to promote the desired interpretation of the student, with sometimes-dire consequences. Hitler used Darwin and Science and there are many examples of religion being used for evil. Remember though, Religion has been around far longer than the science of the post enlightenment.

    Okay, this is the last comment I make. "This time". I can see how this blog stuff can take over your life. I look forward to your response. Good Luck Lary

  105. @Last call~
    I wholeheartedly believe that Christians can accept evolutionary theory as valid without suspending any pure elements of faith. The Vatican does too. (I can't believe I'm referencing that den of convicted rebrobates... [apologies])

    "...he is doing it very badly when he is dealing with people of religion." (I actually agree that his scientific hubris often forfeits the high ground.)

    "Its like saying science is harmful and should be stopped because it helped create the nuclear bomb. Or evolution should be considered harmful cause Hitler used it to try and create the perfect Aaron race." (Except that science has singular limitations and religion is the gift that keeps on giving. Also, that other point is a common enough misconception about Hitler. Actually his eugenics program incorrectly used evolutionary biology to justify genocide. That's such a paper tiger. There's nothing in evolution that supports such nonsense. In fact, "survival of the fittest" is not a phrase that Darwin ever used nor is it even implicit in his writing. Naturalistic views on creation are typically high respectful of both life's frailty and tenacity.

    Finally, what's a non-honours degree? I'm not being facetious... I'm really asking. Also, I am degreed in both engineering and science education with minors in history/sociology which have always loved. I spent 25 years making money in engineering and another 20 years suffering in poverty in teaching. And like any good non-believer, I am burdened with plenty of background in comparative religions. My point? I've come to my POV the long way, through many iterations and sidepaths taken. Sometimes it seems that I know less and less but at least it's about more and more! LOL.

  106. (Continued from last comment)

    You are a better advocate for science than Dawkins is. Do not choose lesser heros than the ones you deserve.

  107. Thank you Lary for you’re considered and mature response. It is genuinely appreciated. I am guessing (I may be wrong) that you are from America. I agree with Dawkins and yourself in regards to the fundamentalist, evangelical movement that is taking place in America. I too find these groups worrying. How do you think they would react to me a "Christian" saying I believe in "Evolution." I am guessing your experiences would be much the same as mine.

    I am glad to see that your negative experiences with these groups, has not damaged you, as you seem like a balanced person. I live in Britain. My experiences with some people within the Pentecostal movement was indeed damaging to myself. I know religion can go bad.

    The point I am trying to make is you cannot tar all religions with the same brush. Also you cannot tar all people under that religion with the same brush. I am not saying you do, but Dawkins clearly does. In this documentary he takes all the bad stuff about religion, lumps it all together and says we would be better of without it. As a Scientist yourself, would you say he is looking at this scientifically? I agree with much of what he said in this documentary and the part about Christians promoting Hell to encourage belief through fear is both shameful and damaging to the recipients. I felt sick when I saw it. This is not a religion or a God I believe in, nor would I want to.

    I know Dawkins reputation and academic history. He is a very intelligent man and obviously has a great scientific mind.
    However, the problem is he is not being scientific with documentaries like this. He knows he is selling himself as a scientist, then when unscientific people, like myself, watch documentaries like this, they belief his views are scientific? Most people who watch him are not scientists and Dawkins is blurring the lines between Science and a very unscientific and unscholarly interpretation, such as using very sweeping statements such as "Religion is a Virus".

    Also Lary, I understand what you are presenting, "that Dawkins had caring motives, as a teacher, to reach out and correct misunderstanding about areas of science of which he is an acknowledged expert".

    If this is true, he is doing it very badly when he is dealing with people of religion. Watch the documentary again and look at the language he uses. It is extremely offensive to those of faith. It’s just as offensive as a religious person describing evolution to a scientist as their "tradition".

    Also the comment he made about religion being a slippery slope to the road of suicide bombing was laughable. Its like saying science is harmful and should be stopped because it helped create the nuclear bomb. Or evolution should be considered harmful cause Hitler used it to try and create the perfect Aaron race.

    I believe Dawkins is doing a great disservice to both science and religion with documentaries such as this. If he wishes to do programs such as this, that is fine, however, he needs to state he is not using a scientific approach when dealing with the subject. To me Dawkins is feeling threatened by the religious groups trying to encroach upon science, and rightfully so. It has no place in scientific study and understanding. In response to this he is going on the offensive and attacking religion in a very emotional and unscientific way.

    I think, we both want the same thing. We just use different language to describe it. We both want to be treated with respect and live in a society that is receptive to one another’s views, even if they differ. You say" We are all related, siblings if you will, and we should be prepared to listen and learn from each other". The so-called "golden rule" of the religions can be summed up in the bible verse as "love your neighbour as yourself" Both are similar.

    I accept science and religion are different however. Religion should not interfere with scientific discovery or education. However it can play a part, as indeed all people can, regardless of belief, in how those discoveries are used and interpreted, for the betterment of mankind. However, the biology classroom must remain free of religion, but science is welcome in the classrooms of R.E. anytime. I just hope science does not become corrupted from inside the subject or outside. If it does, as in war, the first casualty will be Truth.

    Just to make you aware Lary, to let you know where I am coming from, I have a non-honours degree in Theology at a secular university. I do not say this do brag as it is hardly a big deal. I am not an expert in anything, but I do have a little understanding on the subject of Religion.

    Good luck mate, keep fighting the good fight.

  108. I guess another way to say it is that we are all related, siblings if you will, and we should be prepared to listen and learn from each other. I spent about 40 years listening to preachers and fundamentalists. But I never noticed them returning the gesture---they never listened to me. So I learned all about religion (and of course, my profession which is science) and they usually don't know the first thing about evolution, in fact they have incorrect ideas about much of it. It's easy too--- species originate through descent with modification by the force of natural selection. But they scr*w it up constantly. Why? Because they don't listen! They hear what they want to hear. That has been my experience anyway.

  109. @Last Call~
    I read all that you said and I get it. But you quoted something I wrote about Dawkins' mindset and the people who dislike him---I tried to get them to see his motivations from a different angle. Here:
    "(89). Imagine all theistic religions are 100% false. If you believed that fervently, deeply based upon years of reading and study and contemplation…wouldn’t you reach out to others with a helping hand and encourage them to cut the cord?”

    When I saw that your comment led with that and then went on explain "the problem with that...". So I thought you were going to say something to refute or reject the idea that I was making--- that Dawkins had caring motives, as a teacher, to reach out and correct misunderstanding about areas of science of which he is an acknowledged expert. But you didn't say much about the quoted text. So I figure you missed the point or forgot.
    Anyhow, I 'get' your thoughts on the matter, but I'm not confused, deluded, angry, condescending, unhappy, lost, lonely, ignorant about the world or the cosmos. As a scientifically trained person, I'm not at all at war with religion but I've found that religious people are often angry at me for nothing I did to them. I'm just a retired teacher who doesn't believe in a personal God but I've come to rely on evidence and reason---if you want to call that'd be wrong because evidence and reason do not rely on faith at all. They're derived from a completely different way of thinking about the natural world. Here's what I think in general:
    No religious person is exempted from being human by believing in God. Conversely, no non-believer is ever banished from the human family for not believing either.

  110. I really do not want to get drawn in to this. However, compare what I have written and what you have written. Tell me, who's writing reflects a more rational mindset, less emotional language, and a more considered arguement.

    You have called me "arrogant", "so called Christian", "religious maniac" "closed off" "pathetic", "muppet" and "hateful"

    I said I was not a scientist, I said evolution has causes me to evaluate my faith, which basically means I am taking it as Scientific truth. I can not prove it as I am not a scientist, so I have faith in the "true" scientific commmunity to stay true to there profession and only present facts as established through the scientific method.

    Good luck mate, I really did not mean to cause offense, I am sorry you have taken what I wrote in that way, I certainly did not intend it. All the Best.

  111. your an absolute muppet, did britain really back the war in Iraq, not what I remember. Also it was sold using religious extremism. Wake Up!!
    Do you just have a hatred of society, and as so have turned to Christianity.

  112. Okay, one last comment. Do you honestly believe if there was no religions, there would be less wars? In the past, the powers that be used religion and religious langauge to gain the support of the masses,towards their cause. The same thing happends today, however, the langauge has changed. Instead of "God" we have "Democracy" instead of "Faith" we have "Freedom", instead of the "Devil" we have "Terror". When Afganistan and to a lesser extent Iraq started, the majority of population of America and Britain were for the war. Wake up guys! Nothings changed. Please.

  113. Last Call's comments on this seem typical of the arrogance held by so called Christians andother religious maniacs, typicaly closed off to others opinions as they realise it will only make them realise how pathetic their beliefs are - have you even watched the Film!!

  114. I would like to make a comment in reference to Lary Nine's point, in helpfully trying to make us understand Dawkins point of view. (89). "Imagine all theistic religions are 100% false. If you believed that fervently, deeply based upon years of reading and study and contemplation…wouldn’t you reach out to others with a helping hand and encourage them to cut the cord?"
    The problem of coarse is Dawkins sells himself as a scientist, therefore words such as , "believed that fervently" and "encourage them" are not words that should be used to describe the mindset of a scientist. They belong more in the field of theology, faith and religion. Also reading, study and contemplation is not enough to put forward a scientific opinion. I believe only scientific method can be used to do that.
    Faith and Science should never be combined, though this does not mean they should be at war. Science cannot answer the big "Why" questions and the holy books of the religions cannot be read as scientific journals. The authors or the "Devine" author is mainly interesting in explaining The "why", within the context of the time they were written, in a way the reader would understand. The recent hostilities between the two fields are a result of both parties moving into the domain of the other. For example Creationists trying to get their beliefs taught in science classes and scientists like Dawkins claiming God does not exist and religion has been a negative force within mankind. I do not believe this has been proven by scientific method and doubt it would ever be able to. I must admit I am not a scientist, therefore I cannot understand the discipline. I must therefore have a certain degree of "faith" in the scientific community and I believe people like Dawkins are damaging the reputation of science. In my opinion, he is as close to a fundamentalist within science as the Creationist's in America are to Christianity. Both groups, of coarse, fuelled by the media, are harmful to both communities and also their relationship with each other.

    My last point I would like to make is that I believe both groups are feeling threatened by each other. As a Christian, evolution has caused me to evaluate my theology, which I must admit has been demanding emotionally.

    I also believe scientists are feeling threatened with the creationist movement in America. They basically feel there profession is being corrupted. Also feelings regarding the history of the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and Science, in the past, still run deep.

    I hope my views are coherent; this is the first time I have ever really written any thing on the Internet. It seems to me most people in the world are trying to make their opinion heard, resulting in no one really listening to one another. It reminds me of many people in a nightclub all talking at the same time, with very loud music playing in the background. The end result is just noise.

  115. I used to believe in free speech until I started reading comments from the public in sites like this.

  116. @Sally and Tim~ Just a note...
    In scientific terms, a 'theory' isn't the same thing we mean in everyday speech when we're talking about a hunch or a guess. A Scientific Theory is a whole collection of objective observations, facts and testable experimental data with positive outcomes. And all this is brought together in broad statement of knowledge that is a "theory".
    Classical theories are structured as follows:
    hypothesis (what you suppose),
    synthesis (tests and retests w/peer review),
    thesis (a general conclusion and theory).
    Facts are simply descriptions about the natural world; things like 'what' and 'how, when, and where'. Facts are just the building blocks of theories.

  117. Excellent. This film shows Dawkins at his best and presents his broad examination of religious belief, what he quite accurately calls "the elephant in the room" in most modern social debates.
    Although many points in this film are worth a comment, I found one very revealing. It's the difference between my opinion of Richard Dawkins' personal motives and the opinions of many others. I find him to be a patient, articulate and candid man who burns with the righteous zeal of truth seeker and is a brilliant educator. Some other people find him arrogant, threatening and, at times, infuriating. It's the understandable flip side of the same coin, isn't it? Some people find him humble and caring, others find him arrogant and mean-spirited and these reactions speak more to our own teleological POV.

  118. max, real research can be in many guises. it need not have peer review or publication. ur thinking of the college establishment based guidelines.

  119. Does anyone realize how much courage Professor Dawkins has to venture into the public arena and the lion's den with this message of freedom from supernatural superstition? Put yourself in the non-believer's shoes for a moment and pretend you believe what Richard Dawkins does---do you see it? Do you see how his reaching out to the solitary, troubled agnostic/atheist is a truly caring act? You have to stay in character to see this or it won't work. Imagine all theistic religions are 100% false. If you believed that fervently, deeply based upon years of reading and study and contemplation...wouldn't you reach out to others with a helping hand and encourage them to cut the cord? Of course, you don't believe that non-believers have any morality so why would they do that... how could they feel empathy and know the right thing to do? OK. Snap out of it. You can stop the role play...unless...[?]

  120. Good movie. Period. But I still think that the biggest problem is to replace religion (which is an experiment with my life to experience what I initially assumed is true) with blind faith. Also, I do not like the title.

  121. Every single time a religious person is in an argument about faith or god, they are on the defense. So much so that they don't understand or rather, ignore what is actually said. He is right to belittle them all.

    Why are all of the religious people in this discussion hellbent on proving whether or not a god can exist?

    Richard isn't disproving a god.
    Science isn't disproving a god.
    Agnostics aren't disproving a god.
    Even most atheists aren't really disproving a god.

    The whole point is that whether you believe in the catholic, lutheran, hindu, shinto, muslim, jewish or whichever god depicted in past, present or future religions, that god can not, will not and hasn't ever existed.

    If there is a god figure/creature/ , then any one god ever imagined on earth, is not that god.

    I'm so thrilled that the time has come for humanity to finally grow up and start cleansing itself from the poison that is not religion, but indeed the seed from which it grew, blind faith. In all forms.

    PS: Science is about being wrong, and loving it because you have a chance to figure even more stuff out.

  122. Any person studying philosophy could tear Richards arguments to pieces. Catholics are encouraged to use reason as well as faith. Anyone who knows what reason is will clearly see that the starting point of reason is assumption. Richards starting point is that 'there is no God' - this is Richards dogmatic assumption. Richards starting assumption is no more empirical based then Faith in a loving God.

  123. Well. Nice documentary. I would simply go for survey rather than just a few cases.
    I believe he is in its way to become a Muslim. But he should take into consideration now the Muslim religion, and see if he can falsify something. I am sure he has a hard life.

  124. Evolution is a FACT , for some time now , only the proces is still a theory cuz of the huge amount of years the human specis has pased

  125. All that is vile, aggressive, violent and deluded is sadly demonstrated through this documentary. Why can't religion be a private personal worship with the deity of one's choice. The world would surely be a better place without religion as far as some wars and conflict is concerned. Sigh.

  126. This is fascinating in many ways. His concluding remarks are rather life affirming, when he explains how lucky and unique we are to be here. Religion does not focus on this life; it bases morality on a ‘voice’ form another world which suggests that we are not intelligent enough to make up our own minds on what is right and wrong.

  127. Yo, scaring the c@#$ out of kids is messed up. Richard Dawkins is a bit of an instigator - I think, but maybe he needs to be. The people on the other side are worse. Ask yourself, if Jesus had a conversation with Dawkins do you think he would threaten to call the police on him and kick him off his land?

    Arguments the people like that Evangelical dude put up are ridiculous. I think the most reasonable thing we can all agree on is the truth (Objectively). These people need to stop playing dumb, look at the facts and reassess their beliefs.

    Great documentary, the last part was inspiring!

  128. Religious people scares me....more so after seeing this docu.

  129. Science is not faith, it is a conclusion based on the available evidence, peer reviewed and tested.

  130. @Dale
    Do you know what's great? The fact that once we find out that the moon is older than us we accept it, this is our new theory, that is what I love about science it is always expanding never fixed. What I don't get is that surely God claims that the Moon is about 6000 years old right? So this discovery does more damage to god than science

  131. Heres the real mind bender. Science now tells us (against there will of course), that string theory leads physicists directly to a creator of some kind. It says the universe is extremely well tuned and the slightest change in any of the underlying principles would not allow life or the universe itself to form in the first place. so we added multiple universes !This allows for many mistakes in other universes that would leave at least one(our universe) to develop flawlessly. And yet,if we follow this theory all the way to the end,again it leads to one creative force of some kind. Let us not forget of course that string theory isnt science ,its philosphy.

    And yet, its the most elegant theory of everything we have. And to me is going to create shockwaves in both the religious and the scientific communities. I believe it was the vedic scripts that said "science and religion will both lead us down the same path to the same conclusion". Not sure on that ,cant remember where I read that years ago. But ,I have always beleived the 2 would merge one day and give us all the answers. Perhaps string theory is the step in that direction.

    And lets not knock the Bhudda. There is great wisdom in some of his teachings. And great flaws as well. The most important thing he said IMO ,is that all attachment leads to sorrow. In our world nowadays ,we see this as ridiculous. And yet, attaching ourselves to science or religion or anything else ,leads us to exactly what is happening in this thread. If you werent attached to one or the other,you wouldnt be here arguing for your cause. This is the same with all things. Yin and yang sum it all up. There is a balance to all things. I think we as a species have to realize this and actually think about it sometimes! Or we will never answer the really important questions.

    And Bhuddism is more of an outline to living a happy life than a religion. It doesnt give any answers or make any claims. It just states often overlooked truths. Im pretty sure it was labeled a religion so the other religions could say it was heathen in nature. I mean who would possibly want to be happy? Id much rather argue about everything and live in constant fear and confusion till the day I die ,how about you?

  132. attrades
    "religion causes war and war breeds technological advancemment therefore religion causes technological advancement rather than the accepted theory that it holds it back. from a human perspective war is not a good thing but without it we would still be in the dark ages"

    I disagree. Compare the technological advancement from (for example) 0 to 1900 and from 1901 to 2010. I don't think that someone would argue that the number of innovations made in the last 100 years alone are far greater than 1900 years before that. Of course, there weren't less wars or conflicts during both periods. Now, religion was more present back than so it was preventing science to "develop". That means if religions were not present or they were not preventing science to develop, we would be 1900 technologically more advanced (according to my example).

    The Dark Ages lasted for about 800 years (not sure, because I forgot about my history class). That means we could have been 800 years more advance today.

  133. Dawkins will go to hell for this , he will go directly to hell, he will not pass heaven and he will not pick up 200 virgins.
    on a serious note though there isnt a lot of point in trying to change the mind of an indoctrinated religious person due to the fact that part of their indoctrination is that anybody who tries to change their mind is an unbelieving infidel heretic satan worshipping liar.
    this being said though without religion we would not have got to this point in our own species evolutionary cycle.
    religion causes war and war breeds technological advancemment therefore religion causes technological advancement rather than the accepted theory that it holds it back. from a human perspective war is not a good thing but without it we would still be in the dark ages
    however hopefully at some time in the future we will no longer need religion and therefore the evolutionary process will kill it off despite dawkins assertion that religion is fighting back it is not controlling anything like the power it had 500 years ago which is a very short period in evolutionary terms and has a few years to run yet.
    we are unfortunately as a species not as enlightened as we like to think we are (YET)

  134. I need to clarify the age of the universe is based mostly on measured expansion from the big bang till now.The same method used on the moon and earth the moons steady movement away from earth.Shows the moon to be no older than 1.4 billion yrs.You can't have it both ways measured expansion is either right or wrong can't be both.Also you say the moon was tested,you and I both know thats a lie,a great example of what i'm talking about,a few surface rocks gathered 40 yrs ago were tested.The theory the moon is a part of the earth comes from,"It must be where else could it have come from"luckily for science common sense rules most of the time,what worries me is the rest,Don;t get me started on lucy

  135. First of all the moons age was proven by one scientist using a brand new method,tungsten based and this was only 5yrs ago,the 8 billion year mark is just one estimate I've heard, I'll be damned if I can remember where now.I will keep looking,I don't just throw s*** out there unless it's backed by someone. I also remember one scientist claiming that with the moons steady movement away from earth, its been calculated that the moon would be touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago.

    Also there are many scientific theories about dust accumulation and rock and meteorite buildup over the years making moon-rock testing to age the moon dubious.What I'm saying is the scientific community isn't sure about the moon, how can you be?What test did our geniuses use to age the universe? Actually the Mayans claim the universe earth with it to be 16.4 billion yrs considering the accuracy of their calenders,why not.Level of education has nothing to do with intelligence,actually too much "education" can stunt and limit growth. Doctorates get boxed in.

    When something like workers buried with honor at Giza,wasn't slaves that built pyramids proven recently.They don't know what to say.How many amazing articles and whole sites are tossed out or lost, I can't count the screw ups in the 8 yrs I've been researching. I can build a list if you'd like I find most don't want it.

  136. the age of the moon is ~4.5 billion years old. where did you hear it was 8+????

    the earth is only ~4.5 also....the universe is only ~13.75 billion years how can the earth be older than the universe? where are you getting these ideas???

    the moon has been tested and dated to the age i gave, also the universe and earth and our solar system. they are tested and dated like you say they should be yet you ignore it and make your own ideas up...

    evolution has been proven through testing also...have you been living under a rock? what makes you think there are no tests for anthropology or evolution? what is your level of education?

    science isnt the problem in those instances. the fact that science was able to produce those results means it humans use that knowledge is the problem. not how they acquire it.

  137. back for one more.A classic problem I have with the scientific lobby to totally monopolize all teaching,a great example is the creation of the moon which was taught to me and obviously millions more,it was thrown off by the earth.It is,as far as science is concerned a piece of the earth.Recently though it has been proven that the moon is twice the age of the earth.8 billion plus years to the earths supposed 4.5 billion years.I personally don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion 16.4 more than likely.Still DIFFERENT than earth,but it's taught in school as gospel,pun intended,if science wanted more credibility it would STOP TEACHING THEORY AS FACT wait until some is PROVEN TESTED true before introducing it to schools for consumption as fact.Truth is if they did that there would be very little to teach.Obviously i'm speaking of evolution science,and anthropological science history of MAN.Chemistry is provable,stick with current lab proven science no theory or conjecture allowed.As for religion its a good thing corrupted beyond belief.Its created small groups of lunatics,so has science by the way,science is responsible for some horrific human ills.Created viruses,poisons,so called medicines thalidamide a good example there are many more.GREED is the culprit here not faith.

  138. Stalin and Mao were not religious and how many people did they kill? Dawkins you tool, if there was no religion the world would be full of crackpots like them. Stick your head back up your own backside.

  139. Though I agree with most of what Richard Dawkins says, I also agree that he often seems arrogant. At any rate, I do agree that dogmatic, fundamentalist religions are the greatest evil and danger facing the human race.

    However, I also think that faith and reason are both important. I like what Einstein said about the two: "Reason without faith is lame and faith without reason is blind." It is not easy to achieve a perfect balance between faith and reason, but personally, I would rather err towards being lame than towards being blind.

    Without faith that honest but critical searching for and testing of evidence will result in the discovery of truth and improving our understanding of the world around us, there would be little or no motivation to pursue or practice science. The essential difference between science and religion is that in science, faith must always be tempered by and subordinate to evidence and reason, while in religion it is the other way around. Religion too often insists that faith must always trump evidence and reason when there is a conflict between them. This often guarantees that error, when it occurs, will be perpetuated indefinitely.

  140. In November 2006, prostitute and masseur Mike Jones alleged that Haggard had paid Jones to engage in sex with him for three years and had also purchased and used crystal methamphetamine.[1] A few days later Haggard resigned from all of his leadership positions after he admitted his sexual infidelity and methamphetamine use.

    After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. In February 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph, said that Haggard "is completely heterosexual."[2] Ralph later said he meant that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side." As of early 2009, Haggard continues to receive counseling, and now he says that he is a “heterosexual with issues.”[3] On June 1, 2010 Haggard announced that he intended to start a new church in Colorado Springs.[4]

  141. You want proof the bible is bull? Ok, fine, here it is:

    Every time there is a court case people swear on this "Bible" and every time SOMEBODY is LYING!!! Does your "God" ever strike them down? NO! Because he either isn't real, or doesn't care. Either way, the bible is wrong.

  142. What Jesus preached and the miracles he is said to have performed isn’t necessarily true. After all, he may have been a radical priest who was then spoken about and then as his legend grew, the stories grew. Much like King Arthur and Round Table. Do we *really* believe the books written hundreds of years after his time that he had a *real* magic sword? Come on, he may have existed, and had a nice sword, probably made of a stronger material than the common swords of the day, but not magical. It’s a nice story that got embellished. And we write books about it, hundreds of years later. Maybe in a few hundred years, people will worship King Arthur, and his Knights will be his angels, and Merlin will be his 2nd in command, and Mordred can be Satan.

    But oh wait, I’m sorry, if Arthur actually *does* magically return from Avalon (heaven) to restore Camelot, and bring peace and prosperity to the earth, the Christians will make him out to be the anti-christ… Lol

    But oh! Wait! Arthur wasn’t the only one who was said to return! Maybe Quetzalcoatl, or some other “heathen” god… Here’s the real question, if some false god *does* show up one day, how would we tell the difference? For all we know, Satan’s greatest trick wasn’t making people believe he didn’t exist, maybe it could be having you believe that he’s god, and causing you to fear questioning his religion to the point where you will follow him even if your mythical god showed up right in front of you.

    There’s just too many possibilities to count. God may exist, he may not, he might exist but not be who you think he is… It’s all a bunch of nonsense. In just one post I showed several different beliefs. None of them mine but the funny part is, they all have the same amount of “proof” to back them up. Zero. All you can do is live your life as best as you can, and hope for the best. After all, even your bible says two things that show that it can’t be proven to anyone.

    1) NOBODY will come to believe in god and the church unless god calls them. So arguing will never save anyone’s soul. If you convert someone by arguing a point, you have just proven that you are in the wrong version of Christianity by your own bible. Because it says: “How can he hear except by a preacher, and how can he preach except he be sent?” So only a priest can have a hope of converting ANYONE! You cannot save anyone, not even your own child, unless you simply introduce them to a priest who can persuade them.

    2) The bible and god are matters of FAITH! This is the most important part, if the bible itself (and therefore god him/her/itself) says that it’s all about faith, then by *definition* it CAN NOT be proven! The bible itself states that faith is the belief in things UNSEEN! Therefore the bible SAYS that it can’t be proven. STOP TRYING!!!

  143. It's true that some scientists do falsify data, but the simple fact that you KNOW they did and that they got caught differentiates science from religion. You cannot say whether a mullah or priest is a fraud or not, since there cannot be any physical evidence in this regard. Also, it is true that some scientific theories may be articles of faith for a public uneducated in that particular scientific domain, but the idea is that IN PRINCIPLE you can test that theory and see whether it is true or false. Not to mention the role science as an institution plays in establishing the truthfulness of a theory.

  144. The difference between science and religion is that science is based on proven facts. Nothing is taken at face value. No idea or theory is said to be true without evidence. There is a saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is the difference between religion and science. Religion teaches us to accept things as "fact" without any testable evidence based solely on "faith".

  145. an afterthought.I wonder now that a wooden ship,huge wooden ship was found by chinese and turkish christians 13000 ft up mt ararat.What is science going to do with it.?Also I have noticed that some hairs have been found where yeti's are regularly seen,these hairs were tested and were found to be unknown the place that tested them had over 30000 different hair samples and couldnt find anything that matched,a new species?not supposed to exist science says just like science can't explain a ship in a glacier on ararat.

  146. "In their heart, there is a disease and God increases their disease, a painful doom is theirs because they lie"(Quran 2: 10).

  147. Deeply disappointed that such a well educated man could be sooooo arrogant.A statement he made several times made me laugh though.The world being 4.5 billion years old,the age of the earth is constantly being changed,i'm sure that 20 years ago dawkins probably made the statement that it was 2.5 billion years old.He wanted to bet the guy it would still be considered that old in 10 years thats a bet I would have jumped on.At 35 minutes on part 2 he quotes a man that says a good man does good an evil man does evil,it takes religion to make a good man do evil.I wonder how many good men there would be if there was no religion.I do agree that corrupt evil men have taken advantage of good religious people.When evil,greedy men want war they organize a tragedy.Pearl harbour,911,london 77,oklahoma city,gulf of tonkin and on and on. Good religious men like JFK RFK MLK all shot to remove them from influencing the path of mankind.Mr Dawkins ask yourself how many good men would there be without any religious guidance?Just because evil men have learned that the power of faith can be perverted does not mean we should eliminate all faith,it means we should eliminate the perverters of it.Also the maya are well known for their calendars and their impressive accuracy,they say the earth is more like 16 billion yrs old I'm inclined to believe them.Science has been proven wrong so many times I find most scientific experts and their organisations hide and deny new info that does'nt suit them.Your your own worst enemies.

  148. Shane I disagree. If a paper is written about a new discovery in nuclear chemistry, I do not have to understand how the experiments were done, or the concepts behind it. That's what the peer review process is for in the scientific process. Others who are expert in the field review the new paper, looking for errors and flaws under every rock.

    When the pope came out and said (in the 1950's) that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven/'the sky', there was no peer review. Only nods. The pope is incapable of error. Scientists are.

  149. the person who most fascinated me was cohen,
    the new york jew, moved/raised in a west bank settlement,
    and ultimately became a rabid islamofascist.

    can you imagine HIS family reunions?

    religion is a menagerie. some of the beasties
    are gentle, some not so much.

  150. IMO religion is a tool created by men to control other men by taking advantage of their prime evil fears of disapproval or damnation by the creators or creator . Religion if too strictly followed ,
    can cause brilliant minds to follow instead of lead .
    Maybe it's not religion that the creator gave us , if there is a creator . Maybe it was just the gift of life friendly elements that are plentiful throughout our universe , no more , no less !

  151. After reading the comments above(or below me whichever way this is posted) I have noticed that most viewers are missing the single point, it's at the end of the film where he addresses the fact that accepting hard evidence for reality leads to a more fulfilled life with appreciation of the moment, the 'now'. Because you reason doesn't mean life is meaningless with void, life is meant to be enjoyed to it's fullest. Not waiting out the process to go to an after-life which doesn't exist. It's extremely disturbing that a large portion of the population lives in this manner. Dr.Dawkins says, along these lines, why do people think there is much more in the after-life? How much more can you possibly want?

  152. All you religees have let your beliefs get in the way of seeing the facts and obviously the point Dawkins is making which is based on reason and facts. Pity.

  153. it's funny how some of the smartest people on earth that lives and breath science make the wrong conclusion of not only seeing God in their work and even rejecting God. It's funny that the creationists that obvious to everyone else lacking in scientific knowledge actually make the right conclusion and acknowledge God the creator. Talk about a dog who bites the hand who feeds him.

    Atheism has been tried and tested in USSR and it failed. It only makes sense in theory but doesn't work in real life when you're dealing with human beings. Eugenic and, genocide are just some of the inevitable conclusion that one can come up with when one think life is just one big accident. One owes nothing to other human beings if survival of the fittest is the rule, after all, anything that one do to ensure one's survival is permissible in the harsh life of survival of the fittest, if genocide of one group of people ensure peace of one's family, in the atheist world, it's totally ok, as long as one do not genocide one own's people thus ensuring one's group to survive and evolve. Human rights, morals, ethics are empty and has no basis to one's survival hence one has no reason to live by it. If you reject God and still think you're moral and ethical, then you're just a theoretical atheist. Wake up and live in the real world, who's gonna protect that big head of yours when all hell brake loose in atheistic society?

  154. Who else wanted to wipe the smile of Ted Haggards face?

  155. I love Richard Dawkins. I think I'm in love with him, actually.

  156. dawkins does come off as arrogent or forceful in his beliefs but I think that is what is needed to lead the way for more rational thinking and to challenge the thousands of years of blind faith.

  157. Very worthwhile film. The culmination of the two documentaries at the end of part 2 is inspiring.

  158. Typical athiests create all knowing statements... that there is no all knowing being is one of them. Everything they read about religion in the news is filtered by those who have no rules. Unforunately, he is very negative in his approach and argues that faith has not done any good in the world. Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other religions have shaped science. I wouldn't doubt he filtered what actually the preacher said to him, because it wasn't shown on the tape. Lieing is not acceptable in science. Then he also says a peaceful parade at Lourdes is "dangerous"! We all struggle with our own "world view" because it was shaped by our world we grew up in. Don't accept that every religion or person has the same answers that come in his video.

  159. @satyanarayana

    Check out George Carlin's bit on The Ten Commandments for an interesting rebuttal to your statement.

  160. I enjoyed the videos and appreciated the concern of atleast one person with a different approach towards life, though I do not approve of this. All the religions (or so they call themselves) fail to distinguish the principles (or DHARMA) of living from the religious code of conduct to be implemented (to inculcate discipline) in the society. I would rather request all those at the helms of all the "RELIGIONS" to teach and spread SPIRITUALISM and the basic tenets of "DO NOT KILL; DO NOT STEAL; DO NOT TELL LIES; DO NOT SHOW DISGUST TOWARDS ANY ONE; DO NOT COVET THE LOVE OR FIDELITY OF ANOTHER PERSON'S SPOUSE; DO NOT COVET ANOTHER PERSON'S WEALTH"---THESE AND THESE ALONE WILL ENSURE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PURIFICATION", MUTUAL RESPECT AMONGST THE PEOPLE AND BALANCE IN THE NATURE.

  161. What's happened to this website? It look like it's on windows safe mode or something.

  162. Very good Documentary.
    His view is a scientific one so he is a bit biased, other than that I like his blunt attitude towards religious belief.
    All religion's are guidelines NOT fact.

  163. All Hail the chinese Teacup from outer Space!

  164. A very good watch.

    I could not disagree with a single thing Dawkins said, even though I was fully prepared to do so.

    Bad thing about religions is you can't be freeking neutral, it is either a religion or "atheism" that is equally treated as one by society.

    I wish there was space for spiritual privacy, to believe in whatever you wish without having to state it with your clothes, behavior and social circles.

    Religion and moral may coexist but the first isn't the prerequisite of the later.

  165. Should we compare the faith of inelastic theological systems, with the faith in accumulation of empirical factual data that can be tested.......
    religion has no credibility if the bible the koran the tora or any mystical book, where on trial it would certainly not be considered "evidence" of any kind. so why do people base their personal lives on it?? strange
    and they do so in the most hypocritical of ways as well..
    fyi 20 min in the interview with ted haggard, he later came out saying he had homosexual

  166. Dawkins picks up the philosophers hammer, that has been lying in a ditch somewhere, and pummels at religion for the house of glass it really is. What it basically comes down to is this: do we encourage people to beliefs that are stupid/wrong/irrational, or not? Dawkins is one of the reasons I have faith in humanity. Thank you for your wonderful argument against irrationality.

  167. Very good doc. Interesting part about children and the idea that religious teachings are akin to mental child abuse. Its of course pretty intuitive that a child's brain is disposed to believing all that is taught to it from authority figures, which is why most religions begin their indoctrinations at extremely early ages. After all, what adult with no undue pressures would believe in the Scriptures if not already predisposed at a formative age?

    What part of it makes any bloody sense?!?!

    A good corollary film is "Jesus Camp", which explores this subject further.

  168. Nobody noticed that Pator Ted Haggard in the first video was the same Pastor Ted Haggard that was caught with crystal meth and a gay hooker in a motel room. Apparently been with this gay hooker for 3 years.

  169. I am the true lighteth! When thou departs this mortal coil thou shall getteth everything thou wanteth, (including free cable). Give me your minds (and send be a cheque payable to "The Divine Spaghetti Monster who liveth in the skyeth" and post to PO Box 777) and I shall send thee an information pack including a picture book, and a free sticky badge with my divine image upon it. Eat of my body and drink my red wine... don't forget the parmesan and the garlic bread.

  170. Anybody that undervalues their life to the point where they have to make up a 'am in the sky' to give their life meaning, purpose and fulfillment is an absolute failure.

    Religion kills everything that makes humans great, individuality, tolerance, respect for other viewpoints and the evolution of science (as well as the science of evolution) to name a few.

    Religion, as well as it's followers in any shape or form sickens me, and proves to me the sheer level of gullible people, who appearanlty are incapable of rational thought.

  171. "So when can they prove that this theory of evolution is a FACT."

    Its hard to believe so many people on here are so ignorant and proud of it, to bad it's not part of your specific cult to be rational and inquisitive.

    P.S. - Faith is not required nor wanted in science, this is one of the stupidest things ive read and its a repeated meme on these posts. If a scientist had faith in his preferred hypothesis he would have to discard this hypothesis when evidence refuted it. The person that proposes a hypothesis must also provide a way to disprove it.

  172. "well I wouldnt know anything about the Nuremberg Rallies..." Ig-norant hi-ck

  173. God rules!

  174. Good question, Sally. At least I think that was a question, but questions usually have that weird "?" thing at the end to distinguish them from statements. Anyway, I don't think anyone can answer your question, as that would require us to see into the future. And if anyone knew when evolution would be proven as fact, then we would already know it was a fact, because in order for it to be proven factual in the future, it would have to be factual now. So I guess the answer is sometime between right now and the end of the universe. Or never. One of those.

  175. So when can they prove that this theory of evolution is a FACT.

  176. Definitely worth watching if you're interested in the opposing view of religion and society. However, although i agree with his arguments, Dawkins has little people skills when it comes to interviewing. I would much rather watch an intelligent discussion between a believer and a non believer than a partially arrogant scientist belittling those who he interviews (i think the Christian pastor really nailed it on the head with what he says to Dawkins).

  177. To O. Von Thomas,

    Well, I see perfection different than you, but that's just me. If I'm ignorant because of that, it's OK, you have the right to your own opinion. Just like everybody else.

  178. Perfection is static, and since no stasis occurs in the universe it therefore cannot be perfect. Species go extinct, stars burn out and the universe will expand until it collapses. The nature of all things is cyclic and changing; evolving. The most ignorant attitude of all is to believe in your own perfection as an entity.

  179. God, God, God, blame him/her (we have to be politically correct :)) for everything. How extremely convenient. Do you people realize the perfection of yourselves and the universe - it could be made by God or not, I don't know. And neither does Mr. Dawkins (because if he knew everything he would be something like a god).
    All of you people are so convinced in your own attitudes and beliefs, you don't even realize what's in the core of existence - BALANCE. You all are so dichotomous you don't realize that thesis and antithesis equal synthesis. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

  180. I agree also, Vlatko.

    "We must question the story logic of having an all- knowing, all powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." (Gene Roddenberry).

  181. A very profound thought O. Von Thomas

    "If there was such a thing as god, our existence would be that gods greatest shame, and the universe would implode."

  182. The stupidity and naivete of people is so abrasively in my face each day, I can't even stand it. The reality of every facet of human existence is so corrupt and damaging, that our complete demise is the only worthwhile goal of the planet. The only beauty left in this world, is that which humanity played no part in. If there was such a thing as god, our existence would be that gods greatest shame, and the universe would implode.

  183. Its interesting that even some of the intelligent comments here are doused with naivety. The comparison of Dawkins faith in science; to faith in religion is irrelevant. The scientific method is strictly policed by the most intelligent of our species, constantly trying to prove the theory of his/her peers incorrect by continuous testing, thereby garnering evidence. Therefore any lasting theory has been so well tested, with continuous positive results, you can damn near call it fact. You don't need faith in truth. Also, I guarantee that Dawkins is well versed in any field of study he might happen to mention. You don't go into the battlefield un-armed. I urge you to do some research on Dawkins, maybe watch some of his amazing interviews which are available on youtube. While you're at it, since this topic is obviously of interest to those of you here; do yourselves a favor and check out Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as well.

  184. ah but Sam doesnt that cause segregation?
    id pref everyone to keep there beleifs to themselves and not impose them on others.

    a beleif can be dangerous where an idea cant.

    doubt is humble

  185. Part 1, 41:25 the terrorist supporter speaks the truth. Too bad no one realizes.

    It's not about proving atheism right or religion wrong. People participate in the religious structure because it satisfies (what is often legitimate) needs and desires. If atheism or non religiousness wants to thrive (I hope they do) they too should form an institution/culture of intentional community, aggressive positivity, etc. We can satisfy the needs of people without compromising the truth. The atheist community focuses too much on truth, but people join religion because of love.

  186. oh and darwins other theory was that imbreeding would be the seeds of this master race so guess what he did..... eugh
    and you know what...... his theory there was way off. I mean imagine what the christians would do with this info.... talk about a smear campaign lmao

  187. it seems everyone has missed a big point to this.....
    altho i agree with him genraly obviously me being an atheist but what i dont agree with is how he like teachers (and indeed the majority of the religeous populous) he imposes his beleifs on peolpe he sees as less enlightened than him, and him saying that religeon cant live side by side with science is rubbish, tell the head of the human genome project who is an out and out christian.also if he is questioning the morality of holy figures and idols, do some research into his idol darwin, he had some crazy imoral ideas about creating a master race!!!! (heard that somewhere before) he also backed steralisation of women who had handicapd or less interlectual parents or siblings. what i surgest is to live and let live. also i thought id shit myself when that jewish guy called him a fundamenatlist belever in darwinism, which i thought myself just as he said it lmao

  188. Dawkins the poster child for drooling atheist's the world over. Very entertaining if you enjoy fictional/spinal tap type doco's, then this is for you.

  189. This film although not perfect demostrated well how we basically brainwash our children. Eventhough I'm a card carrying Atheist, its almost impossible to erase the religious teachings of my upbringing. In the beginning of life children are the victims of religion, in the end we are all victims of wishful thinking and superstition. Well worth my time.

  190. This documentary is a good watch for those who are much more in an antagonistic phase in their lives than being an absolute atheist.

    I did find some of the fundamentalist morons to be extremely pathetic in their ignorant fallacy and calling dawkin's question's about religion as an intellectual ignorance.

    Personally I would have enjoyed this documentary further more if dawkins went a little further of equally examining fundamentalists from many other religions like hinduism,islam ,jews ,etc than just restricting most of his interviews on Christian fundamentalist and bible discussions. This documentary surely can be said as biased and why not. Thats the day dawkins wants it. Because on a rational scale , the documentary has to be biased to reveal the biased religion on the other side.

    For the questions he asked are so simple,fundamental,profound and logical which irritated the shit out of those who didnt want to understand the reason for the existence of these questions rather just have some sort of an answer for it and just for the heck of it which by far explains the lunacy that religion creates.

    Lolz to that part where the guy in the end says chimps are like MS-DOS and humans are like Windows 2000.

    I guess rational and compassionate humans are like "Macintosh" and the religious ones are somewhere in Windows 95 zone :P

  191. Thats pretty interesting III, never thought of moral encoding like that before ..:)...need to read more on that:)

  192. to X:

    dawkins is an evolutionary biologist by profession. the 'moral code' he is referring to makes sense when considered from this perspective.

    we all come programmed with instructions on how to survive. it is called genetic memory and is in your dna. this is commonly referred to as instinct. for example this is how babies know to suckle for nutrition.

    with this in mind you can couple it with natural selection. lets say you have a giant tribe of early man, and they are all homocidal. one small faction breaks away and decides NOT to kill each other. the homocidal group will eventually die off and the other group will eventually expand. the offspring of group b will have their parents upbringing and memory (nature + nurture) instilled in them. you give that a few thousand years and voila.

    of course there are going to be traces of group a, thats why there are still killers among us. they are the minority though. however it is important to note that most people who kill do so for religious reasons. ie they have to convince themselves or be convinced that there is a reason they should kill. there is a lot more group b dna.

    this is of course a simplified explanation but i hope it served to explain what is meant when biologists use that term.

  193. 4/5

    a mostly serious and good watch.
    i really enjoyed that he pointed at the fact of abusing children mentally through teaching them beliefs.

    -1 pt., tings i didn't like that much:
    dawkins didn't seem to be prepared to handle certain types of people,
    for the documentary sometimes cuts to another scene whenever he isn't able to cope with his interview partners "arguments".
    sorry, but that's not how to deal with these things.

    i also wish he had more interview partners on the same topic to show that a single religious belief always varies within itself,
    but also to point at certain fundamental parts that are deeply engraved and not negotiable.
    (well, at least he points out that all the religions are generally the same: instruments of control).

    in addition i really doubt the "fact" that morals are encoded within human genes.
    i believe in no such thing, chimpanzees may have social behavioral patterns, we don't.
    is there any proof for us being moral by default?
    please tell me, i will also try to look it up myself.

    ... and last but not least again this terrible manipulating music, i want to watch an intelligent documentary, not a musical that tries to openly bias it's viewers, really can't stand it.

  194. I enjoyed this documentary, I almost fell down laughing at some points at the sheer lunacy of the fanatics Dawkins displayed for us.
    For all of his talk on science, this documentary is WAY to biased to be science. If this was a pure scientific concept, I would immediate be asking for the percentages of people that think like this, how many are fanatical how many are just believers, how many are just regular people that every once in a while try to touch something they think is greater than themselves.
    As well his approach to the people he interviewed was WAY to harsh at times I could see a dimly lit windowless room, Dawkins in a trench coat and hat, the interviewee strapped to a chair and Dawkins pointing a spotlight in his face.
    In any case enjoyed it just kinda defeats his purpose a bit by being too absurdly biased.

  195. Things proven by the scientific method can be proved by anyone anywhere anytime. It's much like when you have a recipe for a cake, anyone can reproduce it.

    Talking about "faith in science" is like saying you have "faith" that if you drop a rock it will hit the ground. That is simply not faith. It's something that's been proven time and time again - a rock that is dropped will fall to the ground.

    I dont need to have faith that the rock will hit the ground. It's been scientifically proven.

  196. haha this bloke is the silliest man ive ever seen. he really doesnt get it. i feel for the guy

  197. i am appalled by the pseudo-intellectual garbage in the comments above..

    to insult dawkins method based on your utopian ideals that science and religion deserve equal status shows how uneducated you all are. it literally screams ignorance. dawkins does not have faith in science. indeed he would certainly agree that unlike fabricated stories, science requires no faith to explain truth. furthermore if any of you starbucks philosophers bothered to learn what the scientific method IS AT ALL you would see that it is specifically designed to DISPROVE A HYPOTHESIS. to sit there and give credit to any faith structure by equating baseless incredibility with peer reviewed evidence is a pathetic.

    as for not going into 'depth' about enlightenment views...dawkins assumed his audience would be educated. he wouldn't need to spend time rehashing what people already knew. it would have been insulting to do so...clearly he never counted on you guys.

    bottom line. you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    1. Amen

  198. i disagree with "Der Oberst" absolute believe in science is not as dangerous as absolute believe in religion. No one has ever really died in the name of science as people have in the name of religion. Science tries to look at the world uniformly. Religion keeps people like gays and lesbians from being treated as equals, and religion denies certain groups of people freedoms that they should be free to have.

  199. Faith in the unknown, and empirical data, are opposites.

  200. I fear some hear ate missing the obvious.

    Any real research involves publication and pear revision.

  201. at least science dont have to believe in some fantasy god or base their whole moral's on a book written by a bunch of old thinkers. the ultimate truth is, the human mind can be maniupulated no matter how smart or inteligent we might be, history proves this. i believe that the reason religion have been around all these centuries, is due to fact that its been passed on from generation to generation, therefor, making it seem authentic to us. but a time will come in the far future when absolute faith in religion will cease to exist, and become totally irellevant.

  202. I admire Dawkin's courage but not his methods. Where I think Dawkins, and most science in general fail is that it seems to have forgotten its roots in natural philosophy. The major fault-line of science is that no one is given an education that guides the student through the chain of reasoning that led to the diverse number of scientific disciplines that we now have. We're given brisk coverage of Galileo's trial without understanding why it was such a big deal at the time. Only with great effort can a person learn the intermediary debates that underpin much of our understanding today.

    Dawkins expresses a lot of European Enlightenment beliefs and implicitly assumes that those ideals are shared throughout all of society. He creates a lot of tension and conflict by mowing over that fundamental debate that used to give science and religion common ground for rational discussion. He ultimately portrays himself as a man completely ignorant about the fundamental philosophical support of science while getting his feathers all riled up without understanding why.

    No one can claim to understand science without first understanding its roots in the European Enlightenment and natural philosophy.

  203. I agree with what was stated by "Shane" and "Paul" here.

    Dawkins' absolute "believe" in science is just as dangerous as the faith of extremist Jews, Muslims and Christians. I am sure that he would not object to genetic engineering, stem cell research etc.

    Drawing a black and white picture is bad journalism. If one decides to make a documentary one should be fair to all sides.
    A documentary should gave the viewer the chance to make up his own mind, this is clearly lacking, I believe it should not be called that ("propaganda" is more appropriate").

    For his blatant bias the "documentary" deserves no more that 1 out of 5 Stars.

    Best Regards,
    Der Oberst

  204. Good observational work. Dawkins believes (rightly so) that religion has been a source of unchecked and endless intolerance and destruction throughout history. But his faith in science is sometimes lacking in the same objectivity he applies to religion.

    Scientists, like mullas, priests, etc. share the same human nature. They can be impartial or be opportunists. There is regular news of researchers and scientists who, funded by special interest, minimize the negative and inflate the positive in forwarding the agenda of their financial benefactors.

    And while faith has it's dark places, there are many who become better, more responsible and more constructive because of that faith.

    Dawkins goes too far in creating a 'black' and 'white' contrast between science and religion.

    The foundation history of the Mormon faith, for example, is one of the most discredited in the western world. But most Mormons you'll meet are often honest to a fault.

    Atheism doesn't address well explored hypothesis like collective consciousness or offer anything rational for individuals that exhibit true para-normal abilities. And 'science' is largely responsible for horrendous missteps like Eugenics.

    Science, like religion, won't change human nature just like Communism eliminates dictators or Capitalism workes best without regulations.

    We have to stop creating divisions and start looking for common ground.

  205. The language is the indoctrination.

  206. I like his point that absolute faith very often leads down a ruinous path. I also like his point that dismissing reason as the correct basis on which to formulate our beliefs, in favour of 'faith' leads to division between peoples.

    However, I believe he fails to see his own unwavering faith in science. For any "scientific fact", if you haven't seen the data, understood the experimental method and controls, and evaluated the statistics on which the conclusion is based, you are taking that 'fact' on faith, and faith alone.

    In the documentary, he goes around the world interviewing people with strongly held (indoctrinated) religious beliefs, but then, mostly, mutes what they are saying, and 'paraphrases' it in voice-over. I'm not sure why it irked me, I probably would not have cared what they were saying, or would have been incensed by their lunacy.

    Worth a watch though.