Dawkins is too stupid or too prideful to realize his own athirst beliefs are ultimately base on faith and faith alone. Members of other religions should press their governments to have atheism declared a religion.

Wow, these people have issues.

Faith is irrational, since it cannot be proven by objective means, but not necessarily insane.

Exactly right Mac Lorry. Atheism is a religion and no less of a faith based belief system than any other. It is no less irrational than any other religion.

Dawkins, like most leftists, is a fascist about it.

Believing in nothing. What a lonely and sad existence.

Mac, the greatest weakness in a militant atheism is that the people who proclaim authoritatively that there is no God would have to know everything to make that statement. Obviously there are new discoveries all the time which render the things we used to believe -- like the sun rotating around the earth -- obsolete. I don't believe we'll ever be able to PROVE the existence of God, but it's just logic that the lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack.

I don't believe we'll ever be able to PROVE the existence of God, but it's just logic that the lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack.

I do believe Paul is--haphazardly--channeling Rumsfeld's famous ""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line.

lol ;-p

The logical conclusion of atheism is that might makes right. If no moral code exists outside of biology, then we have no reason to treat animals, or humans, for that matter, as obstacles to what it is that I want. Funny, if you try to take an atheists wallet he will call you a thief, when all you are doing is taking what you want as a "utilitarian".

Sorry, I got distracted in the middle of that last comment! What I meant to say is that if might makes right, we can treat animals and humans however we please, because they are obstacles...

You know, if some Christian questioned the rights of atheists regarding indoctrinating their children, Dawkins and his ilk would be [hypocritically] up in arms.

sometimes you feel like a nut...

sometimes you don't feel like this guy...

Thank you, Peter F -- I knew I was close but not the exact quote.

JFNK, the truth about militant atheism is that it isn't saying there are NO gods, it's saying that everyone is HIS OWN god. Everybody will have a moral authority, the only question is whether the person will create his own or accept someone else's.

BTW, that's the way I read Ayn Rand's philosophy and why I can't stand her stuff.

"all moral questions, from the prohibition of incest to the allocation of kidney machines, should be decided by 'utilitarian moral philosophers' trained to assess the 'balance of suffering and happiness' such questions address."

Dawkins should pick up a history book and study about life in Germany from about 1933 until 1945. The Germans became very proficient at creating a society run on the principles of ever-increasing efficiency and progress by the state. If people got in the way (wrong ethnicity, physically or mentally handicapped, terminally ill, etc.) they were simply eliminated. Ironically, intellectuals the world over (including America) were dazzled by the Germans until they started killing too many people. I wonder if that would make a difference today?

I guess in Dawkins' view, if his happiness scores a 51 against a 49 for my suffering, then he wins and I simply suffer, with no recourse against him and no advocates to support me, because doing so would be officially sanctioned as "a waste of time and resources" by the government.

God help us all, if such a government ever rules a nation again.

Dawkins is the Jerry Falwell of atheism.

Believing in nothing. What a lonely and sad existence.

Atheism is not "believing in nothing."

I do believe Paul is--haphazardly--channeling Rumsfeld's famous ""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line.

That's not Rumsfeld's line, it's Carl Sagan's.

Yeah..agreed..this guy is a crack pot... just like the current Pope
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=6615

Atheism is not "believing in nothing."

Explain.

Atheism is not "believing in nothing."

Explain.

It's real easy. Not believing in one thing is not the same as believing in nothing.

I do believe Paul is--haphazardly--channeling Rumsfeld's famous ""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line.

That's not Rumsfeld's line, it's Carl Sagan's.

And you're an amorphous twit/twat for making such a corrective nit. Go read your Ms. Manners.

And you're an amorphous twit/twat for making such a corrective nit. Go read your Ms. Manners.

It's Miss Manners, not Ms. Manners. ;)

It's real easy. Not believing in one thing is not the same as believing in nothing.

A belief in the nonexistence of a God. A belief that there's nothing better or greater than yourself. Just a belief in a concept.

Comforting.

mantis:

I'll let the good Dr. handle this one.

A belief in the nonexistence of a God.

Well, in my case I don't completely rule out God, but I find it very unlikely. I don't believe in any God because I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that one exists. If there is no reason to believe something exists, I don't.

A belief that there's nothing better or greater than yourself.

I believe there are many things better or greater than myself. I'm just a bug.

Just a belief in a concept.

I believe in many concepts. Scientific inquiry being foremost among them.

Comforting.

I find comfort in many things. A belief in magical beings would not be a comfort to me, considering the universe he/she/they supposedly created.

I don't believe in any God because I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that one exists.

Maybe you're just not looking in the right places.

I believe there are many things better or greater than myself. I'm just a bug.

Please don't insult bugs.

I believe in many concepts. Scientific inquiry being foremost among them.

Nothing like a cold scientific fact or theory for comfort to carry one through life and on one's death bed. Enjoy!

I find comfort in many things. A belief in magical beings would not be a comfort to me, considering the universe he/she/they supposedly created.

The universe is beautiful and perfect; it's ugly people with ugly thoughts and who commit ugly actions that make it less so. Blaming God is an ignorant copout.

I believe in many concepts. Scientific inquiry being foremost among them.

Science is an effective concept in dealing with things subject to scientific inquiry. The foundational tenets of science, however, exclude the existence of a God such as witnessed to in the Bible. Therefore, scientific inquiry is powerless in discerning the truth of such things. Like all human inventions, science has it's limitations and wisdom begins with that understanding.

A belief in magical beings would not be a comfort to me, considering the universe he/she/they supposedly created.

A truly profound understatement.

Maybe you're just not looking in the right places.

Do you have his address? Give it up!

Please don't insult bugs.

Zing! Good one, chuckles.

Nothing like a cold scientific fact or theory for comfort to carry one through life and on one's death bed. Enjoy!

I have other things to comfort me. In any case, why do you give a shit? I'm very happy that you find comfort in your beliefs. I hope they continue to comfort you.

One would think, since you seem to despise me so, that you would wish upon me the torment of not believing in your magical friend who comforts you at night. My life is so cold and meaningless! The horror! How do I go on?

The universe is beautiful and perfect;

Tell that to the beings on a planet whose star goes supernova. Or is obliterated by an asteroid. Tell that to children born with horrible diseases. Tell it to the tsunami victims. The universe is full of chaos and indifference.

it's ugly people with ugly thoughts and who commit ugly actions that make it less so.

Yeah, ok.

Blaming God is an ignorant copout.

You still don't get it. I don't blame God, because I don't believe he exists.

Science is an effective concept in dealing with things subject to scientific inquiry. The foundational tenets of science, however, exclude the existence of a God such as witnessed to in the Bible. Therefore, scientific inquiry is powerless in discerning the truth of such things. Like all human inventions, science has it's limitations and wisdom begins with that understanding.

I don't dispute that (mostly). Peter seemed to be saying I couldn't believe in concepts (and well, anything), because I don't believe in God. I was just providing an example.

I would quibble with this:

The foundational tenets of science, however, exclude the existence of a God such as witnessed to in the Bible.

Not necessarily. If we could record appearances by God as described in the Bible, they could be scientifically scrutinized, and thus understood. Too bad he doesn't make personal appearances anymore, huh?

Upon re-reading, I think I mistook what Peter was saying with "Just a belief in a concept." I don't know what he was saying, but it doesn't seem to be that I don't believe in concepts (rather it seems he's saying I only believe in a concept, or something). So nevermind; my mistake.

In any case it's not that I don't believe in God because science has proven he doesn't exist (which it can't), but because nothing has suggested to me that he does.

Since there is no God and human is a product of mindless evolution. THe survival of the fittest is the goal of society as well. Witness the communist countries where atheism rule and you will see the logical consequence of atheism. What is wrong with killing millions of people to speed up the evolution process?

Do you have his address? Give it up!

www.deepinsideyou.com

One would think, since you seem to despise me so, that you would wish upon me the torment of not believing in your magical friend who comforts you at night.

Despise you? No, no, no. When you're being an self-righteous, arrogant, condescending and cryptic asshat, THEN I despise you. Other than that, I find you intelligent, resourceful, occasionally amusing and a person of conviction.

My life is so cold and meaningless! The horror! How do I go on?

Oh, and you're cheap sarcasm, too.

Tell that to the beings on a planet whose star goes supernova. Or is obliterated by an asteroid. Tell that to children born with horrible diseases. Tell it to the tsunami victims. The universe is full of chaos and indifference.

Now we're getting somewhere! These are difficult questions even the faithful ask. I know I do. I would answer, to the best of my limited theological ability, that there is light in the darkness and light after after the darkness. The light is there when the world comes together to help tsunami victims; it is there to comfort a gravely ill child; and to comfort the grieving parents. Simply put, these events test our faith. It is easy to have faith when things are good; it's far more difficult to have faith when things are trying or bad. There are lessons in each event, sometimes painful lessons. Whatever happens, good or bad, is meant to bring us closer in love to God. That is all He/She wants. The universe may be chaotic and indifferent, but God is not.

You still don't get it. I don't blame God, because I don't believe he exists.

No, no, I get it. Not directly blame, but the whole tsunami-supernova-planet-exploding thing is very close in tone to the familiar faithless refrain of "why would a compassionate God let X happen!?" That's all I'm saying.

The foundational tenets of science, however, exclude the existence of a God such as witnessed to in the Bible.

Not necessarily. If we could record appearances by God as described in the Bible, they could be scientifically scrutinized, and thus understood. Too bad he doesn't make personal appearances anymore, huh?

One of the foundational tenets of science is that the universe is unreasoning and that it's governed exclusively by natural laws. If not for that tenet humans could not understand the universe, and science, which seeks to do just that, could not exist. Therefore, for science to exist, it must reject the existence of a universe creating and controlling God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, only that God's existence must be rejected by science.

God need not make personal appearances to threaten science. For example, irreducible complexity leads to a conclusion that a purposeful (intelligent) process is involved, which violates the foundational tenets of science, and thus, is rejected with malice by those with careers in science. That doesn't mean irreducible complexity doesn't exist, only that its existence must be rejected by science. There's a light science cannot look into and survive. Atheism is then without scientific foundation, and confessing it is a matter of faith just as with any other religion.

In saying "science" I have so far been talking about official academic science. On an individual level many scientists understand the limitations of science, and within those limitations, they use it's rigorous methods in their research. Yet apart from their work they hold religious views, even to the point of believing the Bible is the truth.

"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

Cringing at my typos/grammar errors. Yuck...

If you dont' believe in God you take much for granted. The Mathmatic probabilities involved with our Universe existing as it does are INSANE. I am sorry that your fathers screwed you athiests over. The Judeo-Christian model of a perfect universe suffering under a curse explains that too.....

nogo, did you actually read that article? 'Cause that wasn't the author's point at all.
Or are you just stating that because you disagree with someone, they are a nut?
Wait a minute, that's been your logic for sometime. Silly me.

BTW, how long before otters rule half of the Earth?

For his part, Dawkins has said he would remove all financial support from Christian, Jewish, and Muslim schools and make them teach atheism;

So what does he really have an issue with: "religious power-seekers" or religion?

According to Dawkins, morality is "biologically determined,"

Or, biologically challenged, as in his case. It would take a lot more than two french fries to give this guy a Happy Meal.

Lets's see now. Hmmm. Has anyone ever proved that there is no God? Anyone?