Digg

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

All » Lifestyle » Educational

God doesn't exist, science does watch!

youtube.com — Professor Richard Dawkins argues that belief in god is irrational and inflicts great harm upon societies.

Bury

neave 1 year 305 days ago, made popular 1 year 304 days ago

2016 diggs
digg it

719 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Reliant, on 10/12/2007, -30/+39A definition of religion is an institution to express belief in a divine power. Somebody remind me, how many eons old is the concept of religion?
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -84/+87Approximately as old as chauvinism, homophobia, murder, thievery, and professional sports.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -131/+225How are some people so threatened by my (and other's) faith in God? Yes, it is faith...having to prove the existence of God, as a Christian, goes against my beliefs. If one has faith, no proof is necessary. Furthermore, forcing someone to believe in God is abhorrent also. It just isn't what true Christianity is about.
  
  If you don't want to believe, then fine, and if you want to say that the existence of God cannot be proven,then fine, it is your prerogative in a free society as it is your prerogative according to my faith.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -114/+92"How are you so threatened by my faith in God?"
  
  Because you bastards are friggin' bonkers.
- h00paj00, on 10/13/2007, -80/+9@kalis: So you're saying Football(Soccer) is to blame for everything? Ok.
- vandread, on 10/12/2007, -127/+34If there is no god, then what's the harm in believing in one?
  
  However if there is a god, then I at least have a shot at going to heaven if I believe in him. Sounds to me like its safer to follow the belief road.
- Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -88/+37Dawkins is a moron. Im an atheist, but it doesnt take a zealot to recognize a retard.
- PrometheuZ, on 10/12/2007, -60/+194@datastorageguy: And I have faith that there are multi-tentacled purple people on Pluto...no proof is necessary, right?
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -34/+202I have no problem with people believing in God but when they blindly believe then I have a problem. They blindly blow off any science that goes against the Bible when there's no evidence the Bible is the words of God while there is evidence for scientific theories(evolution for instance).
- EGOvoruhk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+96datastorageguy: We are threatened by their extreme hypocrisy, and the things people do to show their "faith"
  
  Personally, I don't care what people are doing, so long as there is no harm done. I'm just saying that I see where people are coming from in their beliefs
- dcgray2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+106vandread,
  
  In my view if a person substitutes the "inner voice of God" for rational thought and logical understanding then they are likely to make less than optimal decisions. In short the person is saying, "I won't take the time to educate myself, or think through this decision, I am going to place it in God's hands".
  
  When that applies only to themselves I don't have a problem with it. Whom am I to say what is optimal and sub-optimal for them.
  
  But when they have influence or power in my community and society and their sub-optimal decisions affect me directly, I have a big problem with it.
  
  And as others have said how do you have a rational argument with someone who has made a deicision based on God speaking to them?
- Mallus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+130No one is threatened by anyone else's belief in any god or gods, any more than anyone is threatened by anyone's belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
  
  What some people dislike about religion (and other rigid, dogmatic belief systems) is that conflicting beliefs have frequently been the cause of conflict, frequently leading to wars, pogroms, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, jihads, and the like, all in the name of some god or other other.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -47/+20I couldn't agree more datastorageguy.
  
  As a side note: Spirituality is something science cannot and will never be able to explain. There's some intensely spiritual about life some times. Something poetic, something inspirational and something that just blows your mind.
  
  Science can't tell me why a waterfall might move a man to tears. Science can say, the man has certain receptors, which the scenery around him allowed the man to produce chemicals to fill those receptors, hence the reaction.
- techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -18/+129"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
- 23r17i05o42n, on 10/12/2007, -44/+27If you believe in a magical man in the sky, you are a moron or a sheep.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -51/+68It makes me sad that any mention of religion, or specifically Christianity on Digg becomes a festival of anti Christian commentary. What makes me sad is how twisted some view Christianity, based on evil idiots like televangelists and radicals who do not speak for 99.999% of practicing Christians.
  
  What you who have not been raised actively in a Christian do not know is how sincere and helping the vast majority of Churches are in America. They are full of loving caring people who are there to share their love in a greater power, and share their caring for their fellow man. Like all churches, mine is one that is dedicated to helping our our neighbors, without asking for anything in return. We don't feed our neighbors, build our neighbors homes, take care of the terminally ill, help place orphans and educate the poor because we want them to "convert", or because we want somebody to pat us on the back. We do it because its the right thing to do,and we love to help those who we can help.
  
  What you see on the boob tube about Christians in America is a caricature of what a Christianity really is. Its just your co-workers and neighbors getting together on Sundays and sharing their love in God. No big deal, not nearly as uprooting as one may expect.
- joemommasfat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+85vandread,
  
  pretending to believe 'just in case' is not faith.
  
  I don't believe there is a god, but if there was one, I don't think he would be fooled my me pretending I do as a precaution.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+67@datastorageguy
  
  Last I checked there haven't been any bloody conflicts that lasted for hundreds of years over non-religion.
  
  Maybe it has to do something with the fact that religion can lead to zealots which strap on bombs and fly planes into buildings.
  
  ... and for what? total belief in things that cannot be proven... just so that these people can feel better about the world... as opposed to dealing with the harsh realities and learning to develop a REAL sense of morality... and a REAL sense of virtue. (not one that comes from fear of a bad afterlife... or pursuit of some mythical post-death rewards...)
- DBCubix, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Of course this comes from the same guy who can't even define what an 'idea' is. See memetics.
- Jwymon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Vandread wrote:
  "If there is no god, then what's the harm in believing in one?
  However if there is a god, then I at least have a shot at going to heaven if I believe in him. Sounds to me like its safer to follow the belief road."
  
  Yes, that is in fact the feeblest attempt at sounding faithful I believe I've ever heard. To bet with your eternal time sounds like a safe game, it should lure tons of people toward your opinions. I'm not taking a stand against your beliefs, but that kind of rationalizing isn't what religion is about in my opinion. If you want to get down to it on the betting scene, what if there is nothing else? Then you've spent much of your time pretending to be faithful to a cause that you saw as the better end of a deal, but in fact you wasted your only chance at consciousness. Oh well, sorry for the rant, just thought you might want to rethink your reason for belief.
- alphavision, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@vandread
  It seems like you base your belief on the fear of consequences rather than faith. Fear mongering can be harmful. Given that those two statements are true, does that logically imply that belief(based on fear, not faith) is harmful? =/
- doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6@yabos and other "evolutionists":
  
  From a "Friends" episode:
  Ross: You don't believe in evolution?
  Phoebe: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.
  Ross: Too easy? Too.... The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms is... is too easy?
  Phoebe: Yeah, I just don't buy it.
  Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
  Phoebe: Oh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
  Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
  Phoebe: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
  [There's a knock at the door]
  Chandler: Uh-Oh. It's Isaac Newton, and he's pissed.
  
  And also this tidbit:
  
  Ross: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
  Phoebe: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.
  
  I love Phoebe......
- DarKry, on 10/12/2007, -16/+15Dawkins is an excellent Biologist, unfortunately he gets carried away with the whole religion thing... not to say that I fundamentally disagree with him in principle, but he would do better for himself if he wasn't quite so confrontational. His books on Darwinism and evolution are quite good and I would recommend them to anyone (realist christians included).
  
  As to the point some one made of belief in a higher power being the safe road... I think it was douglas adams (coincidentally another athiest) who said, if there is a god, and he is the type of god who is impressed by that type of logic, I don't think that I would choose to worship him anyway... That is of course paraphrased but you get the idea.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31betterth:
  
  There is this science called Psychology that explains why people are moved to tears over certain things. It's really nifty. Look it up.
  It also explains why people cling to delusions, and what neurochemicals are responsible for that as well, and how certain triggers in childhood can help allow for people to develop a need to ignore reality in favor of a delusion.
  
  Often in psychology the most common use for people of this type of delusion is to play a game that is called "happy family" in the psychological world.
  
  IE: My parents beat me becuase they love me so much and they want to see be succeed and not do bad things. (Happy Family)
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43Funny that the best argument in this thread on the christian side is "who does it hurt?" Here's the issue: it hurts all of humanity when people have unfounded beliefs. If I believe that god wants me to fly jets into buildings, then my ridiculous beliefs about the afterlife are having a very real effect here in the real world. Christians have demonstrated their ability to inflict real pain on others with their belief in the super natural: the inquisition, persecution of scientists, persecution of homosexuals, slavery (yes, the bible says it's ok to have slaves), and paving the road to the holocaust by promoting centuries of antisemitism in Europe, all come to mind.
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+75"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate"
  
  That is soooo ***** funny.
  What kind of idiot would mark this as inaccurate? ..............
  .......................... Oh yeah. "those" "people"
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26"Somebody remind me, how many eons old is the concept of religion?"
  
  Eons ago, it wasn't known as "religion." It was known as "the law."
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2oop nm, comment here was supposed to be lower in thread...
- dodoporridge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Hmmmm, probably about as old as racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and countless other isms and forms of bigotry Oh, and probably as old as superstition. Those are pretty old too. So they must be right, then. Is that what you're saying?
  
  edit: opps! someone already made my point
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@ tocard
  
  I can only speak for my religion and not for others. I can assure you that Christ never preached violence or death to non believers. The crusade was, quite possibly, the most anti-Christian undertaking to have ever occurred. Christ taught peace, not war.
  
  I do agree with you that following blindly the instructions of someone claiming to be the voice of God is extremely dangerous. I do not believe that any man can stand between God and human beings, and anyone that claims to be giving direction from God, is clearly up to something of the contrary.
- apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20Pointless to argue over this.
- TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38"It makes me sad that any mention of religion, or specifically Christianity on Digg becomes a festival of anti Christian commentary. What makes me sad is how twisted some view Christianity, based on evil idiots like televangelists and radicals who do not speak for 99.999% of practicing Christians."
  
  40% of Americans believe that Jesus is probably comming back (20% are sure that he will) in the next 50 or so years. They think he will start a fiery armegeddeon. Roughly the same percentage believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old (meaning it was created after the domestication of dogs!). Like it or not, these people are reading the same book and practicing the same religion as you. These people speak for at least 50% of christians (not 0.001%), like it or not.
- FFpixel, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7@Yabos
  If you really want to try the 'evolution vs creation' then consider that they are easily viewed as non-conflicting theories.
  
  The assumption that a pristine world without any history is what was created is the root of the debate. However, if one considers that something that is Omni-scient/present/potent can make *whatever* he/she wants and he/she makes 'Man' in the middle of his life-cycle, why cannot he/she also make a universe in the middle of it's life-cycle?
- bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8tocard, there are the same people in every religion. Radical fundamentalists, are present in any religion and saying that one group is worse than another is just silly. All those late night televangelists do is con money out of poor people with a lot of faith just so they can fly around the country in a fancy jet so they can make more money.
  
  You also mentioned that the Islamic fundamentalists need to find a REAL sense of morality not one caused by fear of a bad afterlife or want of a good one, but is there not the same motivation in Christianity? Many people are Christians and do "good Christian things" out of fear of going to Hell. This is doing something out of fear of a poor afterlife is it not? The argument you have presented is very hypocritical.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24"there are the same [radical fundamentalists] in every religion."
  
  And this is supposed to make us feel beter about religion HOW?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23@datastorageguy
  
  I didn't say I have any problems with belief. I'm a libertarian... belief.. I'm all for it... have whatever beliefs you want. Beleif is FAR less dangerous when it is PRIVATE.
  
  It's RELIGIONS that I have a problem with. Really, it's any time that people subjugate their own ideas and morality to the notion that a group ideal is somehow superior - that problems start.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@blogmon
  
  Uhm, read my comment again. I didn't mention Christians or Islamic fundamentalists.
  I said RELIGIOUS.
  
  ALL religions. No hyprocracy. It was a sweeping statement. I have no desire to single out any particular religions. I find them all equally dangerous and problematic, ranked only by size and popularity affecting the possibilities for danger.
- ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37A lot of folks are using Pascal's Wager:
  If there is no God, then belief doesn't really hurt anyone.
  If there is a God, then belief is really good.
  
  To the religious, it's been noted, that's sort of cheating. But moreover, it's a false dilemma.
  
  Sure, if the only two possibilities are a Judeo-Christian God and no god, then it works really well. But what if there's a deity that will only punish those who believe things without evidence? What if Allah or Krishna or Buddha or Cthulhu or the FSM will punish everyone who doesn't believe exclusively in him?
  
  Given the innumerable possible deities, gambling on any one of them is probably a losing bet. If that's the system, odds are, you're damned anyway, so why bother?
  
  If one day I stand before the Creator, I will proudly tell Her that I considered the evidence, and found it lacking. I will then explain that it's unimaginably cruel to punish weaker creatures for failing to take part in an impossible guessing game, and that any deity that is so exceedingly cruel is not worthy of my worship anyway.
  
  If I am then cast into the lake of fire for my insolence, I will take solace in the fact that my Judge was a petulant ass, and that I did the right thing.
- SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18"If there is no god, then what's the harm in believing in one?
  
  However if there is a god, then I at least have a shot at going to heaven if I believe in him. Sounds to me like its safer to follow the belief road."
  
  Yeah, Pascal tried that wager too...
  
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
  
  That's not faith, that's fear.
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7betterth: a man being moved to tears can be explained by science easily. Using the science of psychiatry would give us an explaination. There will be something in his past emotionally that's causing it...
- pagit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3he never says in his interview that God does not exist
- PrincessSalami, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7the big problem with religion and Christianity is that you take a book that should only be used as a reference for how to be moral and use its stories and teachings as a guide book for how you should treat your fellow man. in a good peaceful loving way most of the time...
  
  and you take this book and accept everything it says in it without any empirical evidence as FACT simply because it was written in the book and if you didn't accept everything in it as fact your faith would be in question and you could no longer believe.
  
  it is my belief that today's bibles should avoid all assertions about science, the world being created in 7 days, Noah's ark, any parlor trick used by Christ etc. and only focus on the teachings of Christ: being a good fellow man and loving everyone, be that a prostitute , homosexual or anyone. If it was true LOVE you preached then wouldn't you allow for homosexuals to marry if they wanted to, wouldn't you allow for anyone to do anything they wanted to as long as it was with the intention of love and peace towards fellow man, and not against the law.
  
  Religion will never go away simply because people who do not truly educate themselves before blindly believing in such things are too afraid to accept the idea that we are mere animals the products of hundreds of flukes of evolution and that being what we are cannot be anything but the doing of a being greater then ourselves.
  
  in conclusion: religion is harmful when those who believe in it take their ego's and try and force their beliefs and morality on those around them.... because this is in the doctrine of many religions;
  
  therefore religion is inherently harmful.
- Dataplume, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It dates back thousands of years. But what's important to note is that as we move back through human history the further back in time we go the more the human race digresses. I would easily argue that religion is one of the last bits of nonsense that we continue to carry through to modern times with us. Remember that the same people that created religion are are the forefathers of the same people that attack us today. Why would any one believe in something created by a group of individuals that are violent and continue to feud today. Besides isn't religion supposed to make things better? I can't think of a single group of people that have benefited from the feuding, killing, and ignorance that is spread by religion.
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@tocard
  "Last I checked there haven't been any bloody conflicts that lasted for hundreds of years over non-religion."
  
  Not ones that lasted hundreds of years, no, but it's rather hard to say ridiculously bloody conflicts haven't happen. Remember that guy named Stalin?... Y'know, the one that killed people for not conforming to non-religion all over the USSR?..... Look it up, hundreds of churches destroyed, tens of thousands of people persecuted/tortured/killed....
  
  Anyway, it should be up to the individual to decide, there've been a good deal of rational arguments for the existance of a God (most tied to arguments regarding the immortality of the soul.) And plenty of arguments against God (Well, since Freud it's more or less been one argument, but it's a good enough argument to stand on its own.) But regardless, contrary to digger belief churches can be very beneficial to society.... Or do you forget the large numbers of colleges, hospitals, orphanages, and homeless shelters ran by church organizations?
  
  I mean it's just as easy for the individual to do good or bad things with or without religion, but honestly, a lot of people wouldn't go as far with good things without religion. It's harder for a lot of people to understand a rational argument for morality without some huge "God says so" statement, so organized religion is still very useful.
  
  PS:I'd say the labeling as inacurrate is happening because of the title... not the content.... Since the title is a matter of opinion that can't really be definitively proven.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well, no one is saying you can't blindly believe. But believing I am a millionaire is one thing, but actually being one is physical and requires more then just faith.
  
  Humans just inherently need something to believe in. If you look at all cultures and religions the thing they all have in common is a goal, something to live for.
  
  Without that, humans would probably just become depressed and whither away.
- Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@cliffzdude
  
  "What you who have not been raised actively in a Christian do not know is how sincere and helping the vast majority of Churches are in America. They are full of loving caring people who are there to share their love in a greater power, and share their caring for their fellow man. Like all churches, mine is one that is dedicated to helping our our neighbors, without asking for anything in return. We don't feed our neighbors, build our neighbors homes, take care of the terminally ill, help place orphans and educate the poor because we want them to "convert", or because we want somebody to pat us on the back. We do it because its the right thing to do,and we love to help those who we can help."
  
  Well if you felt that way and you weren't christian, you could still be a good person, you could still feed neighbors and do all the things that you do as a christian. How is being religious a ticket to do good things or a reason to do them. If you as a human want to help others, then you should do it.
  
  Most religions have some form of good deeds to do and some deeds that are considered evil as well as some punishment if you don't follow those good deeds. With or without religion there are consequences for reactions and it is a basic human trait that when good is done we feel good and when bad is done we feel bad.
  
  To be moral and ethical in life you need not be religious.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Faith I am absolutely for; without faith humanity is nothing. Religion will be our downfall.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Datastorageguy, "The crusade was, quite possibly, the most anti-Christian undertaking to have ever occurred. Christ taught peace, not war.", I guess that proves that Christianity can't hurt people?
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think most people, on all sides of the fence(s) should be able to agree with this statement:
  
  Forcing things on others is wrong, regardless of how much good you think you are doing. This is where we run into conflict regarding religion. People who aren't religious want places like the United States to be open for worship, but they don't want to be forced to follow the beliefs. There are people who step over the line from both sides, because they tend to miss the point and get caught up in the sensationalism of it all.
  
  It would be no different for me to say that you have to have the favorite color of Orange, and that if you didn't, I would shoot you. It is just silly. Let people make up their own minds, and stop forcing others to think the way you do.
- OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Vandread
  
  You are almost ready to embrace your freedom from religion. If you would like to know more, respond with your email or AIM SN or something and I can show you the way. I know because I travelled down a similar road of thought. You're almost at out, bud :)
  
  Trust me, you'll be 10000% happier. It shows in your logic and wording that you see how little hope your beliefs actually give you. The good news is, the universe is ALMOST magically awesome if you take it for what it is.
- aMMgYrP, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@PrometheuZ
  
  Multi-tentacled purple people on Pluto (or 134340) as a belief system is fine with me. As long as it helps you sleep at night and helps you discover your inner strength. Even if you feel the need to spread your faith to others I am OK with it. Just so long as in your faith you respect the wishes of those who would choose not to be converted. I am OK as long as you do not attempt to force the multi-tentacled purple people on Pluto (or 134340)'s moral code upon the unwilling.
  
  Within each and every faith, religion and philosophy (atheism included) there are zealots. Those who would want to spread their beliefs, by fear, by insult, or by the tip of a sword, Those are the people who make the rest of the faithful/ religious/ philosophical look like ignorant, silly, moronic buffoons. Which they are by and large most certainly not. The Zealots would have you believe that you cannot believe in God and Evolution. and would have you believe that Science and Religion are at odds. They are not. They are separate ideologies that inhabit separate realms and satisfy different necessities in the human mind.
  
  Perhaps you do not have the need to believe in a higher power to maximize your potential. And maybe prayer does not give you the emotional boost to get through the difficult times. Does that make me respect you any less? No. Should you respect me any less because it works for me? I should think no.
- Dataplume, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"How are some people so threatened by my (and other's) faith in God? Yes, it is faith...having to prove the existence of God, as a Christian, goes against my beliefs. If one has faith, no proof is necessary. Furthermore, forcing someone to believe in God is abhorrent also. It just isn't what true Christianity is about.
  
  If you don't want to believe, then fine, and if you want to say that the existence of God cannot be proven,then fine, it is your prerogative in a free society as it is your prerogative according to my faith."
  
  To answer this question I need to clarify that I do not believe in god but I have a strong sense of morality. How this effects me and others who agree with me is the point that most religious people miss. You see, because I feel that when we die there is nothingness much like there is before we are born, I realize that life is far more important than can be imagined. Its a unique and amazing instance that should be regarded higher than any gold, diamond, or form of currency in the world.
  
  Religion gives people a false feeling that there is a second chance to life. So if life doesn't go quite the way you had wished, so long as you were a good person and believed in your being of choice you would be justified which unfortunately isn't true. In my eyes that is a selfish waste of some one else who could have lived a productive life. Selfish because religion is a self actualized social group that takes advantage of people who want to belong with other like themselves. Since religion claims to accept anyone regardless of the person its a group that any one can belong to with a catch, it requires you to accept selfishly an idea that god will give you the second chance at life since this one isn't so great. People that accept this could have lived lives that could have fought for the true benefits of society helping to make this life better for all instead now they participate in a group that has a very narrow look at the world, makes very poor social decisions based on beliefs that were created by the ancestors of the people we call terrorists today, and that just praying and believing will set things right.
  
  When you have enough people on that boat it begins to have a huge impact on our society just as it is having today. If I need to point out how let me just say that George W. Bush was not put in office by merit, but instead based on the popular belief that he was a man of good moral. The Christian community continues today to have a blind eye toward the horrible acts of treason, disregard of human life, law, our freedoms, and privacy in return supporting him so that ideas such as abstinence, an end to abortion and homosexuality, and the support of a completely crackpot concept of intelligent design.
  
  Though this seems to be an admirable attempt at saving society from itself, the problem is Christians have a total disregard for the need to effect other social aspects of life to curb these unfortunate social disfunction's. You can not fix them by outlawing them, they can only be fixed through education! Education, something else that is under attack by the religious right.
  
  And while I'm on this subject I'd also like to point out the negative effect that religion is having on education and science. Science used to be Americas strength. We've won wars and have prospered because of it. But because Science is on the rights ***** list, we are destroying the gift that has helped us become the country we are today. Less children are taking interest in science today and that is being encouraged. Something that few people realize is science is an institution of philanthropists. No body becomes a scientist to reap the fortunes or to become insanely popular, nor do they do it to disprove god! In fact most people do it because they want to make the world a better place. They want to have a positive impact on the world. And it disgusts me to know that the very people who devote there lives to saving human lives, to helping resolve hunger in the world, that basically does what Christians claim Jesus did, Give up there lives for the betterment of man kind are being mistreated disrespectfully by the right. And in this way Science does way more than Christians do to make this world a better place. They selflessly sacrifice their lives so that all others can live happily and healthily.
  
  Finally as intelligent human beings, being us liberal, lefty, non believers we realize that religion comes from ignorance and violence. We recognize that religion has a very disturbing history and that many people have frivolously died for and because of religion. And most importantly religion has often supported ignorant ideas such as the world is flat, and that you will burn in hell for eternity if your not right with god.
  
  All I can say is nothing can be worse than this type of suppression and behavior. I'd gladly take hell any day to being controlled by these people and that is why we care or as you put it feel threatened. Because we (lefties, I prefer intellects) know that humans are not so different then we were thousands of years ago, and that we could easily revert to that kind of suppression all over again.
  
  Granted you may not be an extreme right winger, but you participate in something that continues to propagate ignorance, which even in small doses is very dangerous. And that why we feel threatened.
- headswine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, religions were created to control people. Belief in God is something else altogether.
- mexter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I disagree. We'll be able to debunk this "Multi-tentacled purple people on Pluto" religion in a few years once that probe heading to Pluto arrives.
  
  Of course, this sort of religion has a way of surviving. The subsequent claim will be that the Multi-tentacled purple people on Pluto moved to a more distant "planet" because they felt threatened by the probe. And lets face it. Alien probes don't have a good reputation!
- hammydude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6(voice of john proctor):
  I say...I say...I SAY GOD IS DEAD!
  
  Believing in god is like is like believing in santa clause. Its fun for a while but once you realized the truth you can't beleive how stupid you once were. Go ahead, try and call me a liar and try to damn to hell, I really don't care as there is not god nor hell.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@tiak
  
  Little is said about Stalins actual beliefs.
  The huge conflict was with whom.. oh... a devout Christian... Hitler.
  
  Also... Charitable organizations are not solely the domain of Churches, and morality exists perfectly healthy outside the Chruch. (I would in fact posit that morality is stronger when it is not derived from fear of reqard or punishment in an afterlife)
  http://www.americanhumanist.org
  
  Just becuase Charities HAPPEN to use religion to their ends to call it a religious charity... If that's your claim... then I want you to take and add up EVERY SINGLE donation that was made NOT in the name of god or jesus, and add those up... Every business... every person... who has ever donated and didn't mention God. Those are Athiestic donations.
  
  It seems the level of Charitability just switched sides...
  The reason why you can claim that there are so many Chritian charities is becuase the religious organize around a central concept... Athiests don't sit around saying "I believe there is NO god"
  For the MOST part, atheists just DON'T believe, it's not really a thing that requires activism. I'm sure many Athiests have even given to Christian run charities many times in the past... I know I have. Just becuase they happen to have the most public facades now, doesn't mean it will always be that way... There are plenty of non-denomonational charities... in America though... where charities STRUGGLE mightily to just "get by" it probably wouldn't be smart to call yourself an "athiest charity" becuase the majority of CHRISTIANS would refuse to give to an Athiest charity, and Athiests aren't aren't so focused about what religion the person in a charity is, becuase it's not so much related.
  Make a little more sense now?
- nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2>>If one has faith, no proof is necessary.
  
  "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
  -Kurt Vonnegut
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@quasipalm
  
  Aethists commit crimes everyday, so were supposed to feel Ok about aethists how?
  Your argument is circular.
- PYREX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1they arent independant of eachother.
  
  Einstien once said "I want to know god's thoughts, the rest are just details."
  
  most of the best physicists today who are working on UFT believe in in a higher being.
  
  the argument that since science is real, god cant be is a logical fallacy, more precisely a Syllogistic Fallacy. an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premiss.
  
  mr Dawkins is simply wrong.
- klaymen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i am just replying to the first message so i will be near the top.
  
  just wanted to give a shout out to my friend mike. hey mike.
- bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2How can some one say this is inaccurate?
  For ***** sake it opinion, very boring opinion.
- herculez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3cliffsdudz,
  Maybe you're right, most Christians are loving people who value service to others and are not like the raving Falwell's and Dobsons we see on TV. But you must see how these people are hijacking your religion, turning it into politics and law, and harming us all in the process.
  
  You're speaking out against them now, and good for you. But the vast majority of Christians are silent when it comes to defending their religion against these people. How many churches are standing up against the war? When's the last time you stood up in defense of gay people when they were viciously maligned? How many Christians are writing to their lawmakers demanding they keep their religion out of politics? What would Jesus do? Jesus, it seems to me, was a radical and an outsider, and would have certainly done all these things. Pope Benedict is a different story.
  
  I agree with basic Christian philosophy in theory. But where is it in practice? Why are all the self-proclaimed Christians we see bigots who refuse to reason and can't argue anything without quoting scripture? Why aren't there more Desmond Tutu's out there? Where are the true christians? Where's the love, man? Until you show us what your religion is really about, forgive us our distrust and disbelief.
- pagit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Datastorageguy, "The crusade was, quite possibly, the most anti-Christian undertaking to have ever occurred. Christ taught peace, not war."?
  
  what about the inquisition ?
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"How are some people so threatened by my (and other's) faith in God? Yes, it is faith...having to prove the existence of God, as a Christian, goes against my beliefs. If one has faith, no proof is necessary. Furthermore, forcing someone to believe in God is abhorrent also. It just isn't what true Christianity is about.
  
  If you don't want to believe, then fine, and if you want to say that the existence of God cannot be proven,then fine, it is your prerogative in a free society as it is your prerogative according to my faith."
  
  Here's the problem with your claim: MOST religious people aren't OK with a live and let live attitude. Yes, MANY are, but to claim that MOST religious people don't want to convert everyone is absurd. The vast majority of religious persons (not just Christianity) are unquestionably interested in one or both of:
  
  1) Growing thier ranks, aka converting you.
  2) Regulating non-believers behavior to suit thier religiously motivated goals.
  
  This is a universal fact, applying to the US and other countries, Christianity and other religions. The only variation is in which religous group has the majority in that geographical location, and as such gets to dictate the rules.
  
  Again, I am NOT claiming that ALL people who believe in a religion are like this, or that all religions even have these elements in thier believers. I am asserting that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT one or both of the above two statements are true when speaking of a religious person, and that this fact makes the entire institute of organized religion "bad".
  
  PS: Forcing people to believe in God isn't what Christianity is about? Wake up and read a little history before you try to claim the moral highground.
- detonate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If there really is a god and it wants me to believe in it, it should do a better job at providing me evidence of its existence (other than heresay from a 2000 year old book).
  
  Anyway, I don't know why it would be concerned with whether I believe in it - unless it has an ego problem or low self esteem (reputedly it created us in its image).
  
  If it wants me to believe in it, then it should have programmed me to believe in it in the first place.
- Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1''If there really is a god and it wants me to believe in it, it should do a better job at providing me evidence of its existence (other than heresay from a 2000 year old book).''
  
  It makes sense to say this, however considering the situation this does seem like the best way to achieve the desired results. The fact that the book is old and verifiable also plays a vital role in its significance. Especially since it seem to contain all the answers to all of our questions.
  
  -
  
  ''Anyway, I don't know why it would be concerned with whether I believe in it - unless it has an ego problem or low self esteem (reputedly it created us in its image).''
  
  Apparently, God as it may has a concern for his human creations much like a parent does for his or her own children. However he fully supports our own given rights as free moral agents. He created us in his image in the same way that we have inherited his creative abilities. Knowing the difference between right and wrong and being in control of our own destinies. Unlike animals which are confined to specific tasks.
  
  -
  
  ''If it wants me to believe in it, then it should have programmed me to believe in it in the first place.''
  
  That would be a violation of freedom and would not exemplify his personality as a creator. There is much greater joy in a parents heart seeing there children make there own decisions between right and wrong than forcing them to do so. Everyone is free to accept or deny his existence. Anything else would be unsuitable circumstances.
  
  Interesting questions...
mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -30/+67Professor, I couldn't agree more. I constantly get into arguments with people about this..
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -39/+66Same here. It's so frustrating dealing with people who believe in something they've never seen evidence of. Any sort of reasoning goes out the window.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -23/+57Thus the term "faith".
- jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -21/+47Its because people don't like to have their beliefs shattered on the ground before them. Many people cannot wrap their mind around the complexities of our reality, they need something intelligent to be behind it all. The 4 forces of nature + whatever quantum forces there are, simply don't explain nature as it is to them. God is their handle on reality, because quite simply he is the answer for everything, leaving no unknowns.
- plarp, on 10/12/2007, -18/+47zealotry causes harm onto society..
  
  zealotry in the belief in god
  zealotry not in the belief of god
  zealotry in a political system
  zealotry in which operating system one should use
  
  some would just like to use religion as a scape goat.. for there own zealotry..
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5@burke: like Americans who believe in Communism.
- plarp, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9jguy584: would you rather there be something very not intelligent behind it all?
- oakeybloke, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11You can't count on your hands and toes how many things you believe in because you read about it in a science book without having ever seen it. It all boils down to a belief in whose evidence is credible. How can you believe in Abraham Lincoln, have you ever seen him? You have evidence, and it's because you believe that evidence to be true and that the people who wrote it are correct is why you believe Lincoln existed. It's a matter of whose evidence is considered by the person as Actually True.
- ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -23/+12People who say everything has to be proved to be true are ignorant of the reality of science.
  Just because someone found out that the sun comes up every day because the Earth spins, doesn't prove that someone didn't design it that way.
  All that happened is someone figured out how it works, that doesn't disprove inteligent design.
- bigredsk10, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8You have to realize, though, that faith is based on evidence that a person has seen and observed from their own experience. I don't just automatically trust someone and have faith in them. That person has to show me that they are trustworthy first. I think faith is the most misused, misunderstood term, by everyone, in conversations like this.
  
  I have a very grounded, practical set of beliefs. I realize that I do not have answers to all the questions, nor can I prove beyond certainty that my Christian beliefs are correct. Honestly though, neither can you. So why ridicule someone with different beliefs than you.
  
  To me, Christianity fits my view of the world and the nature of things more accurately.
  
  ps. I dont really blame you for being frustrated when you get into arguments about this. Ive seen a lot of really dumb, basic answers given by christians. That doesnt mean that Christianity doesnt offer any reasoning or fact/philosophy based answers. Its just lost on whoever you are talking to.
- dcgray2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15oakeybloke,
  
  You are Right! What have I been thinking all this time?
  
  Please show me the evidence for the existence of God, so I can make an informed decision.
- Arpowers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33I was fine with religion in America, then they vetoed the Stem Cell Research bill... >(
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@plarp:
  
  thanks for the zealotry comment. that's probably the most sensible thing that can be said on this topic, period.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@plarp
  
  Uh huh... sure whatever... Where's that 100+ year war over non-religion...
  
  Where's the last GROUP of athiests you saw strapping on bombs and flying planes into buildings?
  
  Tell me again about Zealotry? Please. I think you and I MAY be discussing an ENTIRELY different level of what Zealotry means...
  
  I think you think Zealotry means... "fervent discussion" whereas I think it means blowing yourself the f**k up in order to kill hundreds of innocent people.
- returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3'Thus the term "faith".'
  
  Faith is absolute. You either do or you don't. If you have faith that the Bible is literal truth, then one acting rationally would have to dismiss all evidence which contradicts its words or lose faith. If you don't believe the Bible is literal truth, then how could you possibly hope to derive any sort of accurate interpretation of it.
  
  Everyone needs beliefs, but when those beliefs are contradicted by mounds of empirical evidence, they need to be questioned and dismissed. That is rational behavior.
- plarp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4tocard:
  last group of atheist to strap bombs to themselves??
  they didn't do that.. they just took guns and started shooting..
  see the Russian, and Chinese revolutions..they make the crusades look like a bad game of tiddly winks.
  
  like i said.. zealotry.. god..politics..food..language.. all used to fight..
  
  understanding stops zealotry.. communication stops zealotry.. compassion stops zealotry..
- derkaas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tocard
  
  You're forgetting the zealous actions of some very infamous athiests by the names of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Many millions died as a direct result of their fanaticism, and the ideology that drove them was strictly godless.
  
  Religion does not hold the monopoly on zealotry. Humanity does.
- JamieBarrows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@tocard
  "Uh huh... sure whatever... Where's that 100+ year war over non-religion..."
  Lets see, looking at history, I believe that England and France fought a war for 100 years over who owned France. That is not the only war, that we have direct historical records of, that had NOTHING to do with religion. Most wars throughout history have been fought for reasons other than religion. Religion has often been often tacked on after the fact as an attempt to legitimize the wars, but the wars would have been fought even without the "religion" add-on.
  
  "Where's the last GROUP of atheists you saw strapping on bombs and flying planes into buildings?"
  Well, I can't say that they flew planes into buildings, but I can say that the more radical communists, who were atheist did strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up to take out their enemies. Look at the Vietnam war, or the tactics of the Bolshevists in Russia. Not that that justifies it either way, but you did ask. Both are wrong.
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@plarp:
  
  I have faith that the Torvalds will see that you burn in a pit for all of eternity for that comment.
- jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"Same here. It's so frustrating dealing with people who believe in something they've never seen evidence of. Any sort of reasoning goes out the window."
  
  That's just ***** stupid. prove you love your wife. Prove you love your parents. You can't, at least not objectively to me or others. That sort of 'logic' is just stupid.
  
  It's called 'faith' for a reason, dumbass.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2To everyone who quotes me as Stalin, Mao et al doing acts of evil in the name of godlessness... It's just not true.... They were following an ideology of COMMUNISM. Not ATHEISM. So... to say that they were commiting acts of evil in the name of NON-RELIGION is patently inaccurate and false.
  
  BTW - Communism, Facism, and Religion are all about on par with me in my distate of them. Communism and Facism want to control your body, while religion wants to control your thoughts and ideas.
- ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"That's just ***** stupid. prove you love your wife. Prove you love your parents. You can't, at least not objectively to me or others. That sort of 'logic' is just stupid."
  
  If you use a logical framework (an axiomatic system) which sets up some agreed definition for love as a property between two individuals, with specified correlations (frequent proclamations of love, repeated gestures of affection, ...), then you proceed to compare different sets of individuals looking for a high incidence of the correlatives, and develop a probabalistic framework based on comparing those properties with results from self-report surveys, to reduce your margin of error, you should get a pretty good handle on determining whether you love someone within a certain margin of error. These results would be repeatable to you or others.
  
  Seems simple to me. Did you have another problem?
Himself, on 10/12/2007, -48/+19"belief in god is irrational"

faith is not an act of reason; it is however an act of another power of the soul. its illogical to conclude that faith is irrational.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30It said religion is irrational.. not faith. "Faith" doesn't always have religious connotations.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Faith is inherently irrational since there is no reason behind it. If there were, it wouldn't be faith.
  
  *wonders how many times people are going to have to say this*
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3@mrASSMAN,
  You are splitting grammatical hairs. @Himself clearly meant "faith in (a) God".
  
  You know that as well as anybody. Argue the point, not the delivery.
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Faith in your friends is neither irrational nor without reason. The term faith can be used outside the realm of religion.
  Obligatory Sci-Fi quote: "Your faith in your friends is your weekness"
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11faith is irrational. yes.
  
  "existence" is an irrational concept as well.
  
  this debate has more layers than richard dawkins or any of the arguments so far posted on this page acknowledge. people, do yourselves a favor and abstain from having a strong opinion about this subject until you have read enough to be confident that your opinion has a strong foundation.* until then, you might as well be cavemen debating how to jet a carburettor.
  
  * this is a trick. once you've read that much, you'll realize that a simple statement of opinion isn't nearly enough to do justice to this topic.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Oh Christ, you're not pulling out that tired old Cartesian *****, are you? For *****'s sake, man...
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I believe in "souls" just like I believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus!
  
  Derp!
- ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@ddb123
  
  re: "You of course would say that the mere presence of rational thought within us is evidence of a higher being. However, calling something you observe proof of god because you cannot explain it is hardly proof at all. People only a couple hundred years ago looked at birds in flight and called it an act of god and yet today we can explain through science why an animal is capable of flying through the air."
  
  Yes we can explain HOW flying works but we can't explain WHY it works, what gave that bird the knowledge to fly? Furthermore, what gave us the knowledge to explain how the bird can fly? And how did everything get set up just perfectly (gravity, climate, etc) to allow that bird to not only fly, but exist at all? Some chaotic "Big Bang" event? I suppose it's possible. Intelligent design? It makes more sense to me personally. But the point is that we don't know and until one side or the other has 100% concrete evidence that it is correct, belief in either side takes faith.
- ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Sorry guys, I clicked on the wrong reply link....ddb123's comment is below.
- DarKry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1sorry wrong place
- truthisjustalie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the world of science has a lot of faith that its laws do not change over time.
  
  of course that faith grew from observation. as opposed to say scaring people into believing it because of the dire consequences of not believing it.
banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -66/+21Richard Dawkins is an idiot, and a propagandist. Hardly a serious intellectual and most definitely not a scientist by even the loosest definition of the word.

Next time an atheist tells you that his human mind- his reasoning capabilities, his conclusion that evidence is lacking, is how he arrived at his atheism, remind him of this devestating quote from Mr. Darwin himself:

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"

— Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.

How can we trust Mr. Dawkins' evolved brain to exhibit "rationality" or to determine with any accuracy what is irrational? Did evolution have true belief or correct knowledge as a precursor for survivability? Of course not. If Dawkins is right and his brain is the product of evolution then we have every reason to suspect that everyone's "rationality" is anything but, having after all arisen from the mind of a monkey, as Darwin describes above and lacking any scientific evidence whatsoever to support the contention that an accurate perception of the whole of reality is a prerequisite for suriving the evolutionary process over the millenia.

This absolutely devestating rebuttle to the atheist's materialist philosophy is developed and expanded upon in C.S. Lewis's book Miracles: A Preliminary Study as well as the writings of Alvin Plantinga.

That atheists seem never to have considered this rather obvious and glaring contradiction in their world view suggests that they are anything but "free thinkers" and that rationality of any kind is exceedingly rare among them.
- relentless1914, on 10/12/2007, -55/+15Probably the most insightful comment on digg ever.... well said.
- Quakes, on 10/12/2007, -14/+55The fact that we evolved from lower species does not in any way suggest that we would somehow lack rationality, and I can't even fathom how you came to that conclusion. Evolution brings improvement (most of the time), and nobody would argue that we're still on the same intellectual level as monkeys.
  
  In any case, whether humans are rational creatures or not, blindly following belief rather than considering evidence and probability will not bring you any closer to it.
- sparrow88, on 10/12/2007, -27/+12C.S. Lewis
  
  Yes, take it from a man who wrote fairy tales about which fairy tales are true.
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Evidence is lacking and yes we all have "monkey minds" our reasoning is flawed obviously. You just pointed out the obvious. Welcome to philosophy/biology 101.
  
  If evidence wasnt lacking there wouldnt be so many atheists to begin with.
  
  but no really, give up your petty theist/atheist arguments. Join the dark side go Nihlism.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9@Quakes
  
  It doesn't suggest that we lack rationality and nobody said it did. There is no reason to believe however that evolution has correct knowledge or true belief (which any meaningful concept of 'rationality' would require) as a prerequisite for survivability. In fact one can postulate many scenarios in which having a false belief would infer survivability to the host organism.
  
  Lacking the evidence that evolution can produce such a brain, one has every reason in the world to ask people like Dawkins on what grounds he bases his claims on, since clearly rationality is assumed and not proven.
  
  But don't argue with me, argue with Darwin. His quote inspired the argument, and I didn't formulate it.
- ddb123, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49So basically what you are saying then is since we atheists believe in some form of evolution then we must not be able to form competent and rational thoughts because our ancient ancestors were monkeys?
  
  Like it or not, if we are children of god or the product of millions of years of evolution we all come from the same place. If atheists thoughts and commentary are null and void because of our attempt at rational thought with regards to the evolutionary process, then you too are included in that boat as well.
  
  If I do not have the ability of rational thought, neither do you. In which case, why should I even reply to your commentary since we both cannot think.
  
  You of course would say that the mere presence of rational thought within us is evidence of a higher being. However, calling something you observe proof of god because you cannot explain it is hardly proof at all. People only a couple hundred years ago looked at birds in flight and called it an act of god and yet today we can explain through science why an animal is capable of flying through the air.
- llipsis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I think where we came from is irrelevant in proving rational thoughts or not. saying that coming from monkeys shows that our minds are not capable of rational thoughts is the same exact argument had if you think we came from god.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Here is the problem with your argument, you think that all scientific data is static. When in fact it changes over time, unlike God who is unchanging ( "For I, Yahueh--I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed." Mal. 3:6 ) . Science changes when the correct answers are found. While this so called all knowing god remains wrong (Lev 11:13 - 14:18).
- xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Stop framing the argument this way. First of all atheists are not materialists. Starting out by calling him an idiot and a propagandist is a good way to avoid the argument. But then again I think you just proved his point.
  
  Scientist: I think it is easy to prove that religion begets violence.
  Believer: What? How dare you insult me you damn propagandist!! Idiot!! ****** his gun*
- jackal230, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4One of the first things you learn in evolution is that it has no direction or rank. There is no higher or lower. Humans accomplish the same basic principle of life that any other organism does: the propagation of DNA, which Dawkins stated. Cephalization occurred because those that had senses interacting with the environment had a higher chance of survival. I believe rationality is tied to every brain, even the most simplest of brains. Your (or Darwin's) claim that a monkey's brain is irrational is pretty much irrational in itself. The brain was developed to be rational. The monkey knows to how to get its food and how to run away from danger (seems like pretty rational things to me). Let me state this again: evolution has no rank or direction. There is no path leading from any organism to a human. The picture which shows a monkey evolving into a human is vastly inaccurate because it implies there is a linear development, which isn't true. Humans are not the epitome of evolution. What I'm trying to get at is that humans aren't so special that some other force had to have created them.
  Most scientists, even Dawkins, admit that one cannot prove or disprove god. He did say there is a possibility that a god exists. By the way, the title is pretty lame. Dawkins is arguing more about organized religion and its effect on the world, rather than arguing about whether god exists or not. Even still, he comes off as somewhat arrogant to me. As my professor said, those that are too engrossed in science will claim that science is the be all and end all. In reality, it takes a bit of everything (like science, phiolosophy, etc.) to make a good person.
- DarKry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ddb123
  
  The problem is that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Creationists always simplify it to a "Big Bang" (which by the way is another theory entirely). The question is not how the bird happened to be perfectly adapted to his environment. The bird could not have been anything but perfectly adapted as he was shaped by that environment. As this is an article on Dawkins I suggest you read some of his work, he does an excellent job of breaking down evolution into terms the human mind can easily understand. He also covers the evolution of religion and why it logically must exist.
  
  To say that creation makes more sense to you is just silly.. unless of course you discount all of science and therefore all of human achievement. The scientific process dictates that a proposed theory can only hold up until evidence is brought forward that disproves it. The theory of evolution as understood by Darwin, Dawkins, and the rest of the logical world, has yet to be proven false. This is not to say that it won't be, at the time that someone shows me evidence disproving this theory I will discount it and look for another. However, the theory of creation as preached by biblical literalism has not only been scientifically disproven but never had a scientific basis from the beginning. It would be like me saying today that I believe the moon to be made of cheese, and attributing my lack of sway, when shown concrete evidence refuting this, to something called faith.
  
  All this is not to say that there is no higher power, or supernatural being. I have no evidence for or against that and neither does Dawkins from what I have read of him. He attributes his non-belief to statistical improbability based off of his study of evolutionary biology. In fact if one chooses to believe in a god there are plenty of theories to subscribe yourself to that do not fundamentally disagree with all the physical evidence. The catholic church even teaches that evolution was the work of god. Seems much more logical to me to believe in a god clever enough to design evolving processes rather than waving a wand and saying "poof". Of course if your problem with evolution is that you can't handle the idea of having evolved from apes, you are on your own. Sorry, I just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that humans are in some way special and different from other animals.
banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6@Quakes

Also your assertion that evolution "brings improvement" begs the question. What is the nature of improvement in a Darwinian paradigm?

That we're not on the same intellectual level as a monkey completely misses the entire point of the argument.

You wouldn't trust the "convictions" of a monkey's brain. Why do you trust the convictions of a human's brain? On what basis do you assert that evolution requires full, correct, complete or accurate knowledge about and perception of the external world for increased survivability?

You say you can't fathom how I came to the conclusion when it was Darwin who postulated the question in the first place.
banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4For those of you "free thinkers" who can't wrap your little brains around the concept I outlined above, I refer you here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html
- ddb123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Do not back down now. Why are you referring us to other people and what they say? I do not want their views on the subject. I am trying to get yours.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1@ddb123
  
  You seem to insist that I accept the premise of the atheist- namely that our brains are the product of a purely nature process of evolution- but I don't. Any other views you'd like?
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Who is this Victor Reppert, and why is he in drastic need of revisiting a basic pamphlet on logic? I see a terrifying number of premises, none of which are examined. It's an apologia, nothing more.
- ddb123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I understand that is what you are saying.
  
  I want to know why this seems less logical then the theory of god? How does it make more sense to you that a supreme being with the power to do anything would grant us with such a thing?
  
  Make no mistake, I am not saying that you are wrong or that I am right. I just want a logical explanation of how you come to the conclusion that god must be responsible for the things that come out of my head.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I'm tired of people equating "Relgious" or someone having "faith" to mean that they don't believe in evolution. Sure there are some who are religious who don't believe in it, but a majority of spiritual people do.
- Velireon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7None of us have any problems wrapping our brains around the *concept* you outlined. What we're having a problem with is how you could lend such a retarded idea even minimal credence. It is an argument that by its very formulation defeats itself -- and therefore is not worthy of consideration.
  
  It matters not that Darwin said it; he was as fallible as any other man. Canonizing him is as silly as canonizing Einstein, who had some real stinker ideas, too. Looking to CS Lewis for support is about as academically rigorous as ringing up Jerry Falwell.
- ddb123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@banderbe
  
  I find your lack of explanation disturbing.
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ddb123
  
  Well, since you asked for an argument, I'll give you one. While it doesn't necisarily make it "more logical" it leaves it being another option. Basicly, it's all based on subjective experiences of "God" which are a but hard to either use in arguments, or disprove. But regardless, if in your thoughts and conscious experiences, you encounter the idea of a "soul" frequently, and believe there is some core of your self that is more than corporeal. Something that can't readily be explained by benefitical processes to produce more offspring and keep said offspring alive, and perhaps something linking you with someone you love in such a way that makes little sense in terms of your own survival or the survival of your offspring, then you could draw from that soul, that it's something beyond the human mind, which will be around both before and after you die. Now, if you have such a system in place, what created these souls, and where do they come from or go? That'd be where the belief in God comes in in THAT logical argument.
  
  There is also the argument that all societies throughout history and the world had some concepts of beauty, morality, etc. Now, if you don't feel like believing these are mental faculties or necisary parts of any society that doesn't self destruct or at least a society that leaves a record of its existance, you have to ask yourself, where those concepts come from in all humans. Their answer of course is divinity.
  
  Or you could just wonder why humans managed to turn out so distinctly different from the things around them, and why consciousness itself seems to have certain, properties that aren't really observed elsewhere.
  
  These are three fairly popular arguments for a God, there's pleanty more I'm sure, including "My family told me so", Pascal's wager, and whatever C.S. Lewis was on about (I honestly can't remember other than that he's famous for it). Please note, none of them involve disbelief in evolution itself, just that it's the only factor or it wasn't ultimately set in motion (or designed itself along with the nature of the universe) by some outside force.
  
  Of course, I also feel the inclination to include a link to the definitive, all-knowing expert on the subject: http://www.alexchiu.com/philosophy/godframe.htm he has PROOF!
- ddb123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I appreciate your response.
  
  The only thing that I wish to point out is that there is not even a shred of evidence to lead you to those conclusions. You ask perfectly good, honest and valid questions. However, you must realize that the only reason you are coming to the conclusion of divinity in each of these questions is solely because there is no evidence to support any other theory, not because there is evidence to support acts of god.
  
  I cannot sit here and say that you are wrong because I have nothing to refute your claims with. Just as in the past when people have attributed countless acts to god and today they are disproved, your questions will be answered with facts that have been verified through research, theory, experimentation and finally conclusion that will lead to facts.
Tomnibus, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I have heard good things about this book coming to realize God is real through reason.

http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/
- sl4x0r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10i have a feeling Descartes and Plato have more interesting writings on the question
- Tomnibus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Plato supported the idea of one god.
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@sl4x0r
  
  sadly, not really.
FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8This has GOT to be inaccurate. The Bible says so...
- greyghost487, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Some Denominations like Lutherans dont believe literally in the Bible. The bible was written by fallible humans.
  
  The bible talks about keeping women as slaves and that the earth is flat or that rabbits eat their cud, and other things that science and common morals have proved wrong.
  
  Believing in the bible literally is still done by many followers as they believe it is the WORD of god. However many (like me) believe that it is the meaning of these historical documents, not as a RULE book, that should be followed.
  
  Similarly we should be following this same idea with the Constitution. Did our for-fathers mean "to bear arms" as a go ahead for every tom, dick , & harry to keep a stockpile of automatic weapons in his house?
- sbrickner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@greyghost487
  
  "The bible talks about keeping women as slaves and that the earth is flat or that rabbits eat their cud, and other things that science and common morals have proved wrong."
  
  What a strange bit of circumlocution. One of the basic elements of theism is that morality comes from the god. The only way you can know what's right or wrong is from what the god says. Since the only source of what the god says (for virtually all Christians, including Lutherans) is the bible, then there's no such thing as "common morals" - unless, of course, you're accepting that some sort of rational morality (an ''atheist'' morality) is inherently superior to biblical morality (and thus Christian morality)
  
  "Some Denominations like Lutherans dont believe literally in the Bible. The bible was written by fallible humans."
  
  This leaves two possibilities - either you look towards a central authority to learn the "true" interpretation (as in Catholicisim), or each believer is free to make their own interpretations. The latter is pretty scary - the book says to love thy neighbor, but makes it pretty clear that "neighbor" means "people who believe the same thing you do". Or else "love" includes throwing rocks at them intending major bodily harm.
BrainedChild, on 10/12/2007, -29/+3Dawkins is a tool.

God doesn't exist. Did he use science to prove this? Nope. Nor can he.

Angels don't exist. Did he use science to prove this? Nope. Nor can he.

Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Once again, did he use science to prove this? Nope. And I doubt he'll ever really try.

And if we tried, we could prove Science doesn't really exist; from a philosophical standpoint.

Why is this news?
- giantrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Dawkins says that he can't prove that god doesn't exist. He is a scientist, and knows that you can't prove a negative like that.
  
  You also can't prove that there is not a teapot in orbit around Mars. But why would you want to prove that there is or is not a teapot revolving around Mars? It just seems irrelevant. Dawkins thinks that proving the non-existence of god is impossible, but worse -- it is just not that interesting or relevant.
  
  And frankly, until there is solid evidence FOR the idea that god exists besides the mass hysteria of billions, it is a safe assumption that God does not exist. There may be new evidence tomorrow, but it just isn't terribly likely. Until then, it is just easier to assume god does not exist.
  
  See his explanation of this argument here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA
  
  (about a 2 minute clip)
- Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ giantrobot
  "it is just easier to assume god does not exist."
  
  While I tend to agree with you, I'd like to point out that for the majority of people it seems that it is easier to assume that god does in fact exist.
sparrow88, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7From banderbe's article: "One can look to the beginning of the universe..."

Actually, you cannot look at this at all. And how do you know the beginning is the beginning? Where is the proof that it began?
- minorthreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Im not knowledgeable enough to know if we can look back that far, but we have stars 400 million light years away. Which means it takes 400 million years for their light to reach earth. Hence when we watch a star form that is 400 million light years away. We are looking back into our past 400 million years.
  - SLAM22, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0how can you take it for fact that its 400 million years, and not 4 yrs or 4 seconds or 4 trillion years?
    
    see what i mean, its all based on theory not fact, cause how could anyone possibly base fact on stuff that would occur MILLIONS of years ago, it would be impossible cause none of us would be here....at least i hope not. lol
- JoelBushart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So far, Theory and math can explain to within a large number of places aproximately what happened from about 1 trillionth of a second after the big bang to now.
  
  Was this the begining of the universe?
  
  We don't know, and can't prove it. However we can say that nothing that existed before this this 1 trillionth of a second after the big bang is anything we can ever know or measure. As the math fails, here. It is (as far as we know) impossible to know what happened at the big bang or before it.
  
  All evidence of what may have been before the big bang was erased by the event. So for all intents and purposes, The Big Bang was the begining of the universe.
  - SLAM22, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0Joel with all due respect, the big bang was created by somthing, obviously somthing "big banged' excuse the terminology, so even if you dont want to acknowledge God or a supernatural being as God, than whatever exploded is eternal and in fact God for that very fact...see what im saying in a way?
    
    this is somthing that as evolutionists argue with christians, how God always was, but the other side of the coin is, where did the stuff that exploded come from? whether it was matter or whatever scientific mumbo jumbo its a God in some form of the word or another
rubberbrush, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39He mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
- Zoids, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Arrr!
- Shaggy6ster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8ftw!
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another reason why he's wrong though, beer volcano theory clearly explains that it's impossible for there NOT to be a God.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why doesn't someone just ask the Midgit?
krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7God might disagree with Dawkins on this one.
- cesig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Assuming God exists.
toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22i only have faith in what exists. i have faith in america and its people. i have faith in humanity. i have faith in my family and friends. i dont care at all for some "all powerful being" that hasnt done squat for us. if he does exist, why should we believe in him? what has he done for us to deserve our praise? did he create teh universe? if he did, good for him! but he doesnt deserve our unwavering loyalty. i believe in the atom and the void, humanity and science. death is the end of the electrical impulse in our brains. there is no heaven, no hell, no purgatory, only life, humanity and what we make it.
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1just to be a nitpicky bastard: believing that something "exists" is itself an act of faith. :)
- rickypc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Humanity exists? Have you seen the news lately?
someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11These type of arguements are worthless...
neither side is willing to change their beliefs so whats the point of trying to prove your point...
- axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17They will. There are more atheists every year. The rate of change is actually pretty staggering.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@axiomflash
  
  Can you give us the source for your claim?
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5the rate of christian converts are rising as well...
  most are not actually athiest in the first place...
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@axiomflash
  
  in that atheists tend not to jihad/crusade/otherwise kill each other quite as often as religious zealots, this is a moderately heartening trend.
  
  the number of people who actually understand what principled atheism (or agnosticism, depending on how you choose your terms) entails, however, is still immeasurably low. most atheists just believe in atheism like it's a religion.
- Rescu3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Atheist statistics from countries can be found here:
  http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
  
  There are a lot more atheist in this world than most would think.
- wmbittner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think it's grossly naive to say that you can never change a person's mind. The history of progress is filled with people trying to advocate a point. There are many beliefs that were once more accepted and commonplace, until a person or group of persons advocated that such a belief was wrong and changing enough people's opinions would better society. That's what Galileo, Darwin, Thomas Paine, the abolitionists, Susan B. Anthony, and Marin Luther King did.
  
  Of course, many bad things were done by changing people's minds as well (Crusades, Holocaust). I'm not saying it's always right. I'm just saying it's possible.
axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6AMEN!!!
shane828, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Right, because you know everything.
Wildthing, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Pretty sick of all these anti-religion stories. We get it, you're all too smart and elite to believe in a being greater than yourself. Just change the name of Digg to BashReligion.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4"Bash Bush, Bash Religion, and Bring your Posse: A guide to getting Dugg on Digg!"
  - SLAM22, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0hahahahaha.....just pray guys, i know it sounds like the "cliche" bible study response, but it rings true, like someone mentioned earlier, WE will never convert anybody to believe in Christ, but the Holy Spirit through us can work wonders.
    
    I really would like an honest athiest to sit down with me and let me tell them some of the stories ive experienced in my life, and then try to tell me God doesnt exist....and trust me, i question EVERYTHING, so you better believe, when i put my faith in Jesus Christ, it was not somthing i did blindly....but through prayer, and things that have happened, its just not feasable to believe that this earth is all we got. That deep spirit within you, you know, that thing that gets you fired up for sports teams, for your favorite band, for anything that gets your adrenaline rushing, or the moments of sadness and the unexplainable feelings deep inside, the need to reach out for somthing more (we have all felt it)
    
    i just think we as a human race, are worth so much more than to just have happened by accident, from some cosmic explosion, and i respect the beliefs of evolution, and no, im not using religion as a crutch to get through life, i just believe that all this, was not by chance....
    
    i mean if this is the case, then what or who created the concept of right and wrong... quick example, say somebody murders someone, who deemed that as wrong? i know thats extreme, but lets take it down a level then, if someone takes somthing that doesnt belong to them, if their belief that its ok, then whats the problem? who deems or deemed what is right or wrong?
    
    just my 2 respectful cents, and tho i prolly will be dugg into eternity, think about what i have spoken with an open mind, when you go out and look at the sheer beauty of the night sky, just think about it.
    
    feel free to private message me or email me at jcomitz@trumark.org
Maku, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Here's how science is just another creation of God in the following question.

How can something come from nothing?

Science answer: It can't.
Christian answer: God.

owned.
- tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You're using that as your argument?
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not quite sure who owned who here.
  
  Who says there was nothing?
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The simple answer is usually the simplest.
aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Why is this hate mongering on digg? What's next? News letters by skin heads?

Really, this man speaks of the irrationality of religion but has he bothered to perform why he is so bothered by religion? Is his preoccupation rational?
monomyth, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5denial of the existence of something without valid scientific proof as irrational as belief in the opposite.
- ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I disagree. The proof is that no facts have been found to show there IS a god
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think the whole argument is a stupid waste of time.
- machew, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Just like anything else... No proof doesn't merit that it is impossible.
  There are a lot of things that we believe in and even use and apply to scientific study and even everyday life that is still just "theory"
  
  For example: Evolution has not been proved, yet so many believe in it as "fact"
  
  What people fail to realize is that under scientific definition, evolution is still a "theory"
  Sure there is evidence that may support it, but again, just like anything else it doesn't mean we have it all figured out. Often times with science, the more we figure out, the more we learn there is to figure out.
  
  Contrary to what other's have said, there is evidence that an intelligent being designed the universe. Go and read a creationist's point of view to gain their perspective on things.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@machew
  
  "What people fail to realize is that under scientific definition, evolution is still a "theory""
  
  And what you apparently don't realise is that this is possibly the stupidest thing an anti-evolutionist can say, betraying as it does a lack of understanding of the basic concepts so fundamental that it renders valueless every other opinion you might offer. Congratulations.
- jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"I disagree. The proof is that no facts have been found to show there IS a god"
  
  To play Devil's Advocate (sic), I could say the proof is the existence of the universe and you yourself. Go ahead - blow youself away and prove me wrong!
jonathan4465, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Like it or not, in my opinion we are the way we are because of a mixture of beliefs. Did we physically evolve from monkeys? Most likely. Did we go from primitive life forms to giving lectures on particle physics by sheer evolution? Probably not. I believe there was some sort of catalyst that sparked intelligent thought. What that catalyst was I can not say, but like all wise men I can admit that I don't know everything. There is too much that has yet to be proven about evolution of our species for me to close the book and kick back on the recliner.
NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus

Put that in your pipes and smoke it!
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5your thinking is flawed...
  i hate when people bring up these points...
  its about choice... if you want further elaboration, try reading a bible...
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Don't digg me down without an honest reply, prove me wrong. What are you scared of? the truth?
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4That is one of my favorite quotes, simply because it shows, if you are to believe in god you should be practicing deism http://www.deism.com/
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2why would i be scared of the truth?
  i know the truth... seems like you are searching...
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Thanks for replying. But can you please explain how my thinking is flawed? Don't be scared of the truth even if it goes against what you believe. Why exactly do you hate when people bring up these points? I agree religion is about choice, nobody can force you to believe in something if you already dont need any proof to blindly follow. and i am just begining to read the bible as i hear it's one of the best ways to criticize and find its many flaws. All i've really read so far in the bible though is the equivalent of Aesops fables with morals behind them. Nothing more.
  
  Edit: Kind of arrogant in your belief of knowing the truth dont you think? i guess thats what religion does though.. it just breeds sheep blindly following the pack.
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6so you go in looking for flaws? thats a good way to read the bible...
  I am not here to convince you either way...
  There is not point as you clearly are more closed-minded than you think...
  as most athiest are...
  
  LMAO at an athiest calling someone arrogant... This is the truth i believe... whats true to me might not be true to you...
  
  *gets dugg down*
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Because there is no one single proof of evidence for anything thats written in the bible. Other than things that commonly happen. Like droughts, floods, swarms of bugs, etc.. You live your life based on a book with no proof. The only close minded person i see here is the one who closes his eyes to the facts and pretends he's "holier than thou" because he has faith in a fairy tale meant to scare children into behaving.
  
  PS. i am God. Prove me wrong!
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"so you go in looking for flaws? thats a good way to read the bible..."
  
  Yes actually it is, it means you are not going to just believe anything that is presented to you.
  
  Do you believe that Huckleberry Finn is a true story? How about from the Earth to the Moon? Of course not, not because the stories are not "believable" but because one can use deductive reasoning to say that they were not true.
- jonahatan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what do you mean with 'evil'?
  those nasty things we humans do to each other?
- someguyouknow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2hahaha...
  seems i have been "tricked" into agruing about what i said i wouldnt...
  with that, i am done... nice "debating" with you all...
  while it certainly has not changed either persons beliefs, it give insight into the opposites train of thought...
  
  no hard feelings...
  peace...
- Olle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6When discussing religion, atheists follow the rules of arguments that is being used for all other topics. Logic and reason.
  
  When the discussion deadlocks religious people respond with "You have to have faith to understand. I have it, you don't". Paraphrased, but that's essentially it, agreed?
  
  A Christian that stops using logical arguments and falls back on that argument can be the nicest person in the world but that argument is arrogant in its core to an atheist.
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I do understand that. What i ask myself is, If he loves us all so much, why does he dislike gay people? They are born that way, they didn't choose that lifestyle. If we are created in Gods image and likeness. Why would he "create" gay people? and what exactly is Science not saving me from? A God who would condemn someone to hell for eternity, for not blindly following others? Someone who thinks for themselves? If that's so then thats a God i'd love to rise against.
  
  Edit: ++digg for thebra and Olle for a good argument and not falling back on the common banter of "you're wrong i'm right" usually seen on digg
- zaltaz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3God is able to do anything. He has given man a free will.
  God has 3 wills
  1. His perfect will
  2. His permissive will (HiM allowng you to write your foolish statement)
  3. His overriding will
  Remember this, Heb. 9:27
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"God has 3 wills
  1. His perfect will
  2. His permissive will (HiM allowng you to write your foolish statement)
  3. His overriding will
  Remember this, Heb. 9:27"
  
  So then god is limited by 3 laws of will?
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Zaltas i can't argue with that.
  But I still haven't been proven wrong because you base your arguement on unproven facts. Which is kind of redundant when we're already arguing over religion and science.
- NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8But isnt the bible "the word of GOD"? So i'm assuming that if you're sent to hell for being who you are (gay, lesbian, whatever) your "loving" God doesn't really love you..
  
  "We will all face God one day wether you believe or not."
  
  Let me give you the scientific equivalent of that....
  
  We will all die, decompose into biological waste and fertilizer and never show any signs of life again. Please don't force your religious veiws on anyone.
- machew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2NoFXY:
  Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. (Agreed)
  Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. (uninformed argument, explanation below)
  Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? (A Explanation below)
  Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus (Agreed)
  
  Generally when I critique other people's point of view I try to put myself in their shoes to try and see things from their perspective. In order to debate with Christians you have to present arguments to them that are structured and relevant to their point of view. There are ways to do this and still present your argument to your satisfaction. Generally when you are arguing something pretaining to God, you should base your arguments on what the Bible says about God, since it is the basis text of Christianity. This is what my take on this is:
  
  Firstly, I am a Christian. I have no reservations against science. In fact I see science as useful to explore our surroundings and better our society as a whole. God gave us brains , rational, and reason to use them.
  
  I agreed with you or the quote on some points because they contradict the definition or description of God that the Bible gives. Hence I have no reservations in agreeing with you on some points.
  Explanation:
  Often you will run into Christians who really have no idea what the Bible says about God. Instead the conjure up their own point of view of God based on their own experience, instead of referring to their own text (the Bible), or picking and choosing which verses to use so that they have a skewed view of God, when the Bible is meant to be read as a whole (90% of the time)
  This common habit of Christians is responsible for much of the contradictory views of many Christians.
  
  Is God able, but not willing?: Well, there's more to it. God is able, and willing, but He opened up a can of worms when He gave humans free will. The question that should be asked is: Can God truly give humans free will, without allowing humans to do evil?
  Humans are responsible for evil, not God.
  Since God is just, He will repay them for their evil..... when they die and enter into eternity (infinite amount of time).
  
  The last point of the quote would prove that the being described isn't God. Which is why I would agree with this point.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So often that same straw man argument has been used. What of free will? Would you consider a God that prevents free will from being exercised benevolent or malevolent?
  
  According to your "questions", it would appear that you believe free will has no value and that God should interfer with our free will to prevent all harm.
- aeoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@NOFXY:
  
  For the record, my own position is impossible to elaborate with regard to the existence of God, and nor is it a non-position either. In other words, I don't find much in common with either materialist-atheists nor with theists.
  
  I wanted to give you kudos on nice argumentation. However, that argument is flawed. :) It's flawed because it assumes that God is a separate and discrete entity. If God is not a separate and discrete entity, then it cannot be analyzed in the manner of separate and discrete entities.
  
  Basically all argumentation based on sharp delineation is going to be lacking against someone who is even slightly wise. But... It's still good argumentation for those who see nothing wrong with sharp delineation of entities. So, if a person thinks that God is something external and discretely self-existent, then your argumentation is a good one. However, if the person doesn't have a trivial view of God as a man in the sky pulling strings, then it's not that powerful.
  
  Reason is a powerful "thing". Surprisingly, reason works very well against materialistic monism also, which is what most scientists adhere to. In other words -- matter-energy is the God of scientists. You can't prove that either matter or energy exists. All that we have is experience, and if experience of firmness is "matter", then chairs in my dreams are material entities, and so on.
  
  Much (all?) common scientifically accepted belief is nonsensical philosophically speaking. I'm all for critical analysis of religion, but you can go wild analyzing materialism as well, and you should. If not, then you are just biased.
- aeoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@machew:
  
  "God is able, and willing, but He opened up a can of worms when He gave humans free will. The question that should be asked is: Can God truly give humans free will, without allowing humans to do evil?"
  
  I don't think any will that's been handed out is free. Giving predicates the possibility of taking. If will is something that can be taken back, then it's not free. If will is not subject to being taken back by God, then it's not given either.
  
  If you look further into this, you'll see that the whole notion of "giving" is somewhat arbitrary and bogus, but that's another story. If you accept a conventional notion of giving, then it necessarily comes with the possibility of taking or receiving to make it meaningful. If I give you an apple, but you cannot receive an apple, then how can I be said to be giving you an apple? On the other hand, if you are accepting an apple, then you already have free will prior to my giving you an apple. If you neither accept nor reject my apple, such as for example, if I simply place it on top of your head, then what I am doing cannot rightly be called giving. Giving is a notion that's predicated on the receiving party already exercising free will. :)
  
  Cheers.
- derkaas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@NOFXY
  
  Epicurus makes a good point, but it requires agreement on the meaning of "evil," does it not?
  
  So, if you don't mind my asking, what is evil? Is it the opposite of good? What is good?
  
  Without including some absolute reference point in the definition, it is rather difficult to avoid a relative, subjective definition. Enter God.
- jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Christ, you didn't just trot out Epicurius, did you?
  
  Ha, you've got to do better than that.
  
  Here's a two word response to destroy that little quote: Free Will.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

God doesn't exist, science does watch!