Digg - Richard Dwakins is the guest on The Late Late Show, RTÉ 1,

Richard Dwakins is the guest on The Late Late Show, RTÉ 1, watch!

youtube.com — Once again he is asked the hardest questions and brilliantly handles the job. He's an island of logic in a sea of confusion. Note how he remains calm and courteous while those who are religious are antagonistic and anxious.

Bury

deepdiggdude 1 year 266 days ago, made popular 1 year 265 days ago

1647 diggs
digg it

442 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -21/+167Excellent job.

You can see him struggling to stay calm at some of the inane questions and arguments but he succeeds.

The main arguments expressed there for religion - it's comforting, it gives purpose, it provides answers where science hasn't yet reached - just sound more and more irrelevant and fanciful the more I hear them.
- Ru55, on 10/12/2007, -19/+183As an atheist, an Irishman and student of UCD (where that ex-atheist is a professor), I apologise for this sorry excuse for a debate. I found this really difficult to watch, Professor Dawkins's intellect was wasted on these idiots.
  
  Most of us are not all religious morons like this audience. The Late Late Show audience is an example of where the catholic church still has strangle hold over the minds of some of the Irish population.
  
  This type of backwards thinking is thankfully on its way out in Ireland as newer, more enlightened generations take over.
  
  I don't want all of Digg to think that all of us Paddies are like this, so I pray to god almighty that this doesn't get on the front page! :)
- ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -35/+26@ru55 - As an Irish atheist in Kerry, I gotta add that RTE isn't the worst TV station, you should see American talk shows... Dr. Phil is in league with the anti-Christ.
- Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -10/+89This was shown on the bottom of the screen at around 4:20:
  
  "THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD-MADE RELIGION AND THOUSANDS OF MAN-MADE SO THERE IS YOUR ANSWER FROM A PROUD ROMAN CATHOLIC"
  
  "DAWKINS DOES NOT PROMOTE SCIENCE BUT THE RELIGION OF SECULAR HUMANISM. KEN"
  
  "RICHARD DAWKINS USES EVENTS LIKE FATIMA, BUT LEAVES OUT CRITICAL INFORMATION TO PROMOTE ATHEISM. THE MR DAWKINS DELUSION. ROBERT"
  
  Ends around 5:10. There could be more later on.
  Talk about ignorant propaganda...
- DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -123/+22Actually Dawkins isn't bright or logical at all. He sounds like everyone else on Digg so I guess that's why you all think he's so great, hahaha. As neither an atheist nor a religious person, I find Dawkins to be, although educated of course, a very repetitive, immature, narrow viewed, boring, and trendy.
  
  Of course, there is also another side of me that thinks he does this on purpose simply to gain popularity as, of course we all know, he is only popular because of his biggotry. What a sad man... to think that you waste so many years educating yourself and getting highly prestigious degrees, doing numerous studies and reports, yet the only thing you become known for is putting down other people's beliefs... I deeply feel sorry for him... Inside he is hurting bad I can tell, you can see it in his face. He doesn't want to do this, but he needs to feel loved and this is the only way he can... love from a few hippies in cyberspace... Poor ol' guy...
- Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -39/+6@DogmaticAtheism
  
  You forgot /sarcasm. (I think some people need to see it)
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -64/+15I never liked Dawkins tone.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -80/+10Richard Dawkins has shown time and time again that he has his own definition of the word "God", and when the audience is asked "How many of you believe in God?" and many hands go up and Richard Dawkins is asked "So these people are deluded?" he says "I fear that's right and proceeds to go on a spiel that revolves around his definition of God. Nevermind that all those people have different ideas about what aspects they consider belonging to God, or the whole Clockmaker/personal God issue.
  
  >There is no evidence that there is a God.
  
  I've seen plenty of evidence that there is a God.
  
  >Dawkins constantly uses scientific evidence (which is the closest thing we have to the absolute truth), to back up his claims
  
  Not in public forums he hasn't. So far, it's been much like my declaration above that I've seen plenty of evidence there is a God. He hasn't even presented a formal definition of God, and from my perspective he's defined any serious definition of "God" out of his definition of God.
  
  On top of that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins says that he was later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, so it was't that long ago that Richard Dawkins himself thought that there was evidence of God.
  
  But we still haven't even gotten down to a rigorous definition of what "God" means.
- Dainjah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+98"On top of that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins says that he was later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, so it was't that long ago that Richard Dawkins himself thought that there was evidence of God."
  
  You do realize that he 'reconverted' when he was like 12 years old? At 16 he was taught Darwin's theory and has doubted the existence of a created ever since...
- Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44Hmmm... after watching more of it, the debate is getting really stupid.
  The OP has a really bigoted desctiption. (Whether intentional or not)
  
  Anyway, more from the bottom screen:
  
  "MAYBE IF MORE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD THERE WOULDN'T BE SO MUCH CRIME AND MURDER IN THE WORLD. DAVE"
  
  "THIS MAN IS A DISGRACE. HOW DARE HE QUESTION SOMETHING THAT GIVES SO MUCH HOPE TO SO MANY. WITHOUT FAITH LIFE WOULD BE EMPTY. SUE"
  
  "OF COURSE YOU CAN'T PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. HE IS BEYOND SCIENCE. GERRY"
  
  "RICHARD DAWKINS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST THINKERS AND WRITERS OF OUR TIME. HIS BOOKS SHOULD BE COMPULSORY READING FOR ALL SCHOOL LEAVERS. JONATHAN."
  
  "I THINK WE SHOULD BE FREE TO HAVE OUR OWN BELIEFS, AND NO ONE CAN TAKE THAT FROM US. AOIFE."
  
  "WHAT RICHARD SAYS IS COMPLETELY CORRECT RELIGION IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. HAS NOBODY HEARD OF EVOLUTION. DANIEL"
  
  "AT LAST SOMEONE TALKING SENSE. RELIGION IS ALL TO DO WITH WHERE YOU WERE BORN. RELIGION IS THE CAUSE OF MOST WARS AND VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD TODAY. JOHN"
  
  "THIS CRAZY MAN IS JUST PROMOTING ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL BOOK AND CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW LIFE OR THE UNIVERSE BEGAN. DONAL."
  
  "HUMANITY HAS A NEED FOR BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING. THAT IN ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. JACKIE"
  
  It seems both suporters and adversaries of Dawkins and/or religion were commenting. Decide for yourselves how and which comments are ignorant.
- Somebee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40Hackwrench: What kinds of evidence have you seen supporting the fact of God's existence? If you have actual evidence of this I am pretty sure that you have a really unique definition of 'evidence'.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -30/+2"You do realize that he 'reconverted' when he was like 12 years old? At 16 he was taught Darwin's theory and has doubted the existence of a created ever since."
  
  That's beside my immediate point, which is whether there is evidence to suggest the existence of a God. It's one thing to say that there is insufficient evidence that God exists and quite another to say there is no evidence.
  
  The key phrase is "because he was persuaded by the argument from design". Sounds like evidence to me no matter how insignificant. Insignificant, though close, is not the same as none.
- jonathantneal, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59"THIS MAN IS A DISGRACE. HOW DARE HE QUESTION SOMETHING THAT GIVES SO MUCH HOPE TO SO MANY. WITHOUT FAITH LIFE WOULD BE EMPTY. SUE"
  
  That particular quote reminds me of when I was in elementary school and was ridiculed during a Christmas parade by a group of parents, after I told my friend that Santa didn't exist. They said almost the same thing, but I didn't even get it then.
- mooatr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@ Ru55, Dawkin's intellect was not wasted; his purpose of going on this show was to try and change the opinions of these 'idiots'. I feel that your calling them idiots was rash, because they probably had not thought about god logically, but had just accepted what they had been taught at a young age.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3"I am pretty sure that you have a really unique definition of 'evidence'."
  It would appear I do, but I don't know how others' definition of 'evidence' differs from mine. However trying to say that something is evidence for God doesn't do any good until an agreement on what is meant by "supporting evidence" is reached. Then there is the matter of defining what it is we are looking for. As I have said before, Dawkins uses a different definition for "God", "faith", and I don't know what else off the top of my head, than I do.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -8/+46If you haven't read his book "The God Delusion" yet, you need to go pick up a copy right now. Richard Dawkins is brilliant, and makes some very compelling arguments. If you're religious, you should also read this book. Sure, it tries to convince you the error of your ways, but your faith is strong, right? :)
- Ru55, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32@ mooatr
  
  It may have sounded rash from me calling them idiots, I should have specified why I called them that.
  
  I called them idiots, not because of their belief in god, but their inability to argue in any rational way. They just spouted ***** without thinking (including the professor from UCD), and it made me cringe.
  
  Many brilliant people believe in a god and I have heard some amazing debaters arguing for the existence of god.
  
  So in summary:
  
  Belief in god != Idiot
  Spouting inane crap = Idiot
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5He may be right and intelligent, but he's still an arrogant *****. Just leave people alone and let them believe in their God and Allah and Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's not like you're actually going to win people over by insulting them.
- Ru55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@ hackwrench
  
  All of Digg would love to hear your evidence for the existence of a god.
  
  Please elaborate...
- dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11This whole religion thing is precipated on the erraticly evolved brain of us primates. We have a hard time dealing with certain existential issues and we project the most insane nonsense when thinking about what to our mind is effectively unthinkable. But this assertion won't ever sway any of these believers. Only when we start redesigning minds we will see that once we upgrade certain minds these old "religious" notions will simply not catch on with the newer minds (and quite likely they will have all manner of new tiny psychotic disorders).
  
  I guess we are stuck with religion for quite a while. The believers will not go down quietly and will conspire to keep this disorder alive even when faced with insurmountible evidence what they are thinking amounts to a mental disease. They will cling to their affliction because without it they will feel this searing hollowness of being utterly alone.
- apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"Many brilliant people believe in a god and I have heard some amazing debaters arguing for the existence of god."
  
  Can you give some examples? Because I have not heard any.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2>Dawkin's intellect was not wasted; his purpose of going on this show was to try and change the opinions of these 'idiots'.
  
  Then he isn't doing a very good job. If I keep experiencing "semantics failure" when encountering him, think at how much of a loss those people are to explain their disconnect, without even the concept of "semantics failure" to help them.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2It is my believe that if you go to certain "places of worship" long enough, and with an open mind and heart, you will happen upon evidence of God. This is for a very generalized pattern for the concept of "places of worship". That is not to say that it is true for all places fitting that pattern and I don't believe the evidence is unique to one system of believing about God.
- pixelate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@ hackwrench
  
  the mind is a powerful thing. if someone sits in a room with other believers and wishes it upon themselves hard enough, many of them can experience an emotional rush unlike anything they've ever known. taking drugs can have a similar effect. knowing the difference between an emotional reaction and a supernatural presence is the key.
  
  as someone quoted below...
  
  "Religion is the opium of the masses."
  - Karl Marx
  
  true on many levels.
- ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1WHO IS THIS RICHARD DWAKINS TO SAY WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT GOD? HE HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED GOD IN THE WAY A CHRISTIAN HAS THEREFORE HIS VIEW IS NON-VALID. END OF DISCUSSION.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@hackwrench, there is a pretty simple definition of factual evidence (aka reality) - it is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists.
- BoyinLA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1What are you talking about? In the end ( where he becomes a little upset) he is shown that the conclusions he/they offer up are no better than what religion can offer. More importantly( I see) is that he is the mirror opposite (with the same beliefs, passions and prejudices) of those who he argues agents.
  
  This is made clear when he's quoted from his very own book(and he gets a little upset) about his belief of life in other areas of the universe and is almost certain about it...but has no proof.....he has faith. Belief without any real evidence.
- axox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thank god for nonreligious people.
- debt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1According to dictionary.com:
  religion:
  3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
  
  Atheism falls under that definition, along with every other religion in the world.
  
  Please, everyone:
  
  "Keep thy religion to thyself." - George Carlin
- aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Hello everyone,
  
  This is my first post on digg which I have been reading for a while. I am a 36 years old Muslim theist, I am also a software engineer working for a major computer company, a maths graduate with a big interest in Physics, Astronomy and off late quantum mechanics. I take a little offense to language like "religious morons," used by some. This kind of language just does not say, "an open-minded rational debate."
  
  About the show, Professor Dawkins started with a basic factual error when he talked about Muslims believing in a different God. This is not true, the fact that Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews is something that any scholar talking about this subject should know. Even if he had really meant Hindus or Buddhists in his example, the argument about which religion is true, is logically flawed because any variations in human beliefs or actions vis a vis religion have NO bearing on the debate about existence or otherwise of God (his own -correct- argument when answering questions about benefits of religion).
  
  Firstly the fundamental question that should bother atheists is, what caused the universe to come into existence, if not God. Of course there is no scientific answer to this (IMHO, there cannot be, either now or ever). Did the universe come into existence by "its own choice, even though it did not exist before." This is the fundamental question, I have never heard an atheist give me a logical answer to. Because there is no good answer the response is in form of the question "if God created the universe who created God." If you are thinking that way let me answer it:
  
  If you believe that universe came into existence on its own, you believe in God! Because if you believe in something powerful enough to create itself, you believe in God, we are just disagreeing on terminology for that entity. To put it less dramatically both theists and atheists agree that the original creation (God for theists and Universe for atheist) would have to defy the laws of cause and effect. In fact if you think about such events logically these events would be completely separated from all scientific laws of this universe, because the scientific laws themselves came into existence after the big bang (If you follow the time line every scientific law will become untrue as you approach the big bang). i.e. the explanation of creation of God (for theist) or that of Universe (for atheist) cannot be given based on science because all of what we know and will know of science would be untrue before the big bang.
  
  What is more likely?
  
  A) 1, trillion 0s, trillion 0s, trillion 0s, ... more trillion 0s, ..... trillion * trillions 0s....000,000,000,000,000, 000 of universes *decided* to *come into existence*, even though they did not exist before, without a fundamental cause. Each with different laws and constant of nature (in our universe things like electrons, protons, quarks, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, rate of expansion of the universe, etc, etc), in a *truly random* manner. Infinite number of universes with infinite number of laws and constants of *nature* which have infinite values.
  
  B) The one and only universe *decided* to *come into existence* out of its own *free will*, even though it did not exist before. Then *it* created specific scientific laws and adjusted hundreds of thousands of constants to grow up to be the current universe with galaxies, stars, planets and life.
  
  C) Our universe came into existence, its fundamental cause was a force referred by most humans as God or Creator, who existed before the universe and created the universe according to a certain design.
  
  IMHO, C is the simplest and most rational explanation. Atheists seem to want the proof of existence of God in the form of a mathematical equation. This expectation is not logical. If I created a closed system, say I write a basic calculator program with +*-/ = functions and 10 digits, can the calculator explain the creation of its creator using just the laws that it understands, namely +*-/=? It cannot, the system boundary and scope dictates that the calculator can never explain and compute billions of facts which are outside of its knowledge scope. So why do people think that humans should be able to apply scientific law of this universe to a problem which is outside the system boundaries of the universe.
  
  Godel's incompleteness theorem is a good way to understand the limitation of a system in being able to prove all truths even within the system, much less being able to prove facts one way or the other which are outside the system:
  
  "For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true1 but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."
  
  This also helps understand the massive difference between "scientific fact" and truth, which atheism seems to confuse with one another:
  
  scientific fact - noun
  an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
  
  truth
  1. Reality; actuality.
  
  Just because something has not been, scientifically or otherwise observed, confirmed or accepted *does not mean it is not true.* Hence Earth was always round even when no one had observed, confirmed or accepted it to be round.
  
  Another major flaw which was exemplified by a questioner in the show but the point seemed lost on Professor Dawkins, namely how can the end product of the process like, survival of the fittest, be moral. These two are completely contradictory forces. The question to ask here is, what did emergence of civilization coincide with, did it coincide with the natural selection which had been going on for millions of years or did it coincide with emergence of belief and morality?
  
  The bottom line is, yes there is no scientific proof of existence of God. But lack of scientific proof does NOT mean God does not exists. Lack of scientific proof is not even conclusive to establish truth about this universe much less conclude anything about existence of God.
  
  The more I read about quantum physics the more I go back what the Quran (I believe the Bible and many other religious scriptures) says about our Universe, the fact the universe is an illusion. The way I perceive it the Universe is this ultimate video game created by super programmer/hacker (God), like a really long dream which we believe to be 100% true, until suddenly we wake up (die) and within a moment we will realized it was all an illusion/a dream.
  
  Think about it, it is all signals to the brain, all matter is essentially empty, at a quantum level the fundamental particles behave like a wave not matter. All *matter*, *energy* and *information* in this universe adds up to nothing. Isn't that an incredible statement, it all adds up to nothing! I half expect to be unplugged from the Matrix by Morpheus any moment now :-) But in all seriousness in a way that is what I feel death is, unplugging from the Matrix called the universe.
  
  Anyways all I am saying is do not limit your search for truth. Science tells the how and what of this universe and it is fantastic journey to uncover the mysteries of our Universe. But there is world of truth beyond science which may answer some of the questions about why we or anything exists. In time we may all find out that it is not as important how we exist but why we exists.
  
  Peace.
  
  /Sorry I got a bit carried away for my first post.
- Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Very interesting comments guys.
  I will address one issue. Does something just come into existence? The evidence is emerging from Quantum physics and it is clearly "yes". Quanta emerge and dissapear. The future existence entangles and causes the emergence from 'nowhere'. We are just becoming able to comprehend the illogic of nothing being as unlikely as something. These are things being explored and explained, just as 'God did it' is superficially easier than genuine exploration.
  The psychological comfort and benefit of God belief can be utilised, for example in Tantra, the rich evocation is used for healing, well being etc AND is also recognised as a mind trick. God too can come into and out of existence just by thinking of Her hymn. So go sing, it does not make sense but the music plays.
  http://tmxxine.com/y/wikka.php?wakka=UroBorus
- anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@aamir2
  Very interesting post. Let me take fault with your position though. You claim to be a muslim and yet:
  
  "If you believe that universe came into existence on its own, you believe in God! Because if you believe in something powerful enough to create itself, you believe in God, we are just disagreeing on terminology for that entity."
  
  >That's really stretching the definition of god especially to Muslim standards. In Islam, god is explained as completely and utterly out of the realm of nature whereas you seem to think it's part of the system of nature. That's how Islam gets away with inconsistencies and your view would put serious holes in your own Muslim belief.
  
  You raised some good points about the limited reach of human knowledge; I am a computer scientist as well and I can strongly relate to your argument about the limited processing scope of a closed system. That is in fact a strong basis for agnosticism; by claiming it's out of our reach to know. IF that is the case, then that is as much an ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD as it is for god. If you can't process it, then how are you sure there is god?
  
  "Our universe came into existence, its fundamental cause was a force referred by most humans as God or Creator, who existed before the universe and created the universe according to a certain design."
  
  > Chicken vs. Egg...At some point, some animal evolved into laying eggs so there was a prehistoric chicken before eggs. We can't really tell how far down the loop we are by evidence inside the loop so why claim with certainty we are NOT at the top of the chain - and there is at least one above us which is *god*? Maybe big bang was the first link in the chain. I did read your rebuke to the atheist's rebuke and it was utterly senseless.
  
  Face it! You just can't get around religion by trying to explain it - At some point it will not register with a sane unbiased mind. A lot of religious people do themselves a favor and avoid logical discussion by making their own logic. (Interpret scripture with scripture)
  The way you are doing it, you are not making sense by your own rules.
  PICK SIDES! LOGIC OR FAITH?
  If you do choose the irrational side I will be very sorry to lose someone as articulate as yourself to the ***** side!
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I find the need to jump in here, but I find the whole "God" issue to be troubling on both sides.
  
  I'm not atheist, but agnostic. I find most people who call themselves atheist to be almost the exact same as the religious people, almost certain that they are correct. Dawkins is an exception (I personally believe he is more agnostic than atheist, but the media/general population doesn't know what that word means, so he probably uses atheist).
  
  Religious people blindly believe in God, and atheist people blindly believe in NO God. Both are ridiculous, because you can't prove either one. I understand the atheist argument that if you can't prove it, then I won't believe it, but you don't HAVE to believe it, you just have to accept it as an unknown.
  
  The Christian God, Muslim God, etc, are all statistically probably not real. I mean, anyone can just make up a theory about a God and call it possibly true. But that doesn't mean that there isn't SOME sort of God that created this universe, even if all religions are wrong about the exact details of the God.
  
  To make an analogy, there is a wall in front of you. Someone says there is a blue towel behind it because an ancient text told him so, someone else says there is a red towel behind it because a different ancient text told him so, and another person says you're going to have to prove it, because I believe there is no towel, since you can't prove it.
  
  Sure, there could be no towel. Sure, there could be a red towel. Sure there could be a blue towel. But what if there was a green towel, a yellow towel, a white towel, or a polka dot towel?
  
  You can't outrightly reject the existence of a creator, but you can't blindly accept it either. I mean, for all we know we are just a three dimensional flip book created by a four dimensional child with an intellectual capacity we can't even fathom. In that case, he'd be our God.
- aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I'm not atheist, but agnostic. I find most people who call themselves atheist to be almost the exact same as the religious people, almost certain that they are correct. Dawkins is an exception (I personally believe he is more agnostic than atheist, but the media/general population doesn't know what that word means, so he probably uses atheist).
  
  Religious people blindly believe in God, and atheist people blindly believe in NO God. Both are ridiculous, because you can't prove either one. I understand the atheist argument that if you can't prove it, then I won't believe it, but you don't HAVE to believe it, you just have to accept it as an unknown."
  
  Hi Aeiri, as I mentioned to anondigg, I agree that agnosticism is logically and scientifically the most sound position. However as I said before, science facts and truth are not equal, there many many truths that science cannot prove (either way) now or ever. Hence IMHO using science as the only means of finding the truth is limiting. I don't say that you have to believe in God as well, but just that people should not look for the truth about existence of God or otherwise in some mathematically equation.
  
  "The Christian God, Muslim God, etc, are all statistically probably not real. I mean, anyone can just make up a theory about a God and call it possibly true. But that doesn't mean that there isn't SOME sort of God that created this universe, even if all religions are wrong about the exact details of the God."
  
  I don't understand how you say God is statistically probably not real, i.e. how you would go about using statistic towards the questions of existence of God. On the other hand I could prove that statically the probability of our universe having the conditions to eventually produce humans like you and me are trillions of times more impossible than anything that can statistically be proven to be impossible. This could be done by modeling all the natural laws and constants of our universe and running all possible alternate scenarios. Even if I agreed to the scenario A (in my first post) where an infinite number universes just start coming into existence by their *own choices*, it would take infinite number of attempts for one such universe to get it right to produce us. This number is infinite hence impossible as impossible can be. Many years back I wanted to start a SETI@home like distributed program that would run a simulation in attempt to see if this universe's conditions can be produced by chance. But I quickly realized that it would be a waste of time as producing a truly random value for even a single constant of nature was impossible. Rand functions can produce only finite values where as truly random constants of nature could have infinite values.Going by statistic and probability alone conditions of this universe are impossible to be arrived at by chance, but I don't really consider that to be the proof of anything.
- aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hmmnn, Looks like I mucked up the indentation of my earlier posts. Lobster, anondigg, I replied to your posts further down the page (if this indents that is).
- Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I don't understand how you say God is statistically probably not real, i.e. how you would go about using statistic towards the questions of existence of God."
  
  You either misunderstood me, or I misspoke.
  
  I meant to say that the existence of the specific Gods that are worshiped today and have been worshiped in the past are statistically probably not real. This is because there are an infinite amount of possibilities of the true God, if he exists, so most religions are more than likely incorrect.
  
  That's not to say that statistically there is probably not a God. I have no clue about that, and as you say, it's probably impossible to know the statistics on that anyway.
cpmcd2000, on 10/12/2007, -35/+30If I wasnt atheist - I would believe Dawkins was God. Cause he is so much cooler than jesus.
- unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6that's like saying, If Jesus never existed on earth, then Martin Luther King, Jr would be his most obvious replacement.
- esourcemag, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18I think what is always sad about religious people is just that. they are religious instead of having faith. They attack him instead of going for the statements he makes.
  
  I believe in God and can understand his conclusions. It makes sense to me and follows a logic that seems very real and true.
  
  This DOESN'T mean I won't open my Bible and pray and believe in something with faith that it happened this way. That might sound stupid but the reality is that faith is basically falling backwards knowing someone will catch you even when reality might tell you otherwise.
  
  Don't confuse religion with faith.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I'd like to join this discussion, but I'm having difficulty getting the video to fully buffer. Is it located anywhere else? I haven't seen any mirrors linked in the comments.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think that kind of undermines the whole argument, much like Humanists who almost seem to institutionalise a lack of institution if you take my meaning.
  
  On another note, don't take the viewers of the Late Late too seriously, the average age of the viewer is about 50. In Ireland this leans strongly toward the older more theistic proportion of the population. Asking the younger population would produce much different commentary than the text messaging on screen would indicate.
2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -27/+47"Religion is the opium of the masses."
- Karl Marx

I have hope for the younger generations, at least outside of US.
- clashbomb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13yeah, all those Muslims would become atheists in a heart beat.
- 2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6@clush.
  eh. you're right.
- klitscher, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33And Marx's philosophy worked out real well too...
- mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6and Death is the opiate of the elite.
  
  why is god dead? so that all the stupid, ignorant "masses" will work hard for next to nothing in this life - you can't have much control over them if they think they are going to heaven, where the meek will have inherited the earth! no - you must convince them that they will soon be dead forever, so their only chance is to work hard - really, really hard - for the elites, and maybe - just maybe - they will enjoy 'peace on earth' for a few minutes before they die.
- Disease, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8But who can resist the offer of going to paradise where you will be given 72 virgins?
- CravenTwain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Marx' writings remain a useful tool for the analysis of capitalistic and cultural structures. He was a philosopher and economist - a seminal one at that. The failure of the revoloutionary Communist project was nothing to do with Marx. He didn't incite it - he merely inspired it. Unfortunately, power corrupts however altruistic the system.
2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -12/+72I deeply HATE every time somebody arguing with dawkins points out the "Alien" issue.
they're always like "ahah, he believes in Aliens and UFO, what a freak".
ignorance, ignorance and again ignorance. I can't stand it.
The believer people makes me so angry that I think to be a little fundamentalist.
- mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -36/+7well, he *has* to believe in aliens - you see, if there are no other intelligent life-forms in the universe, there *must* be a god. the laws of physics say so - because if they apply equally throughout the universe, then the only possible way we could be the only intelligent species is *if someone made it that way*.
  
  unfortunately for dworkins, the existence of aliens is in no way mutually exclusive from god's.
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18You're forgetting that, even if we are the only intelligent life-form in the universe, in no way does that support religion.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The difference between believing in a god and believing in life on other planets is that there is already solid empirical evidence that life does in fact exist on planets... Earth.
  
  And, given the billions of galaxies, with billions of stars each, with billions of planets, statistically, there is almost certainly life on other planets. Whether it's intelligent life is less probable, but, that probability exists because we have it here on earth.
- beatmonger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I was practically yelling at my screen for him to invoke the Drake equation.
  
  For me, that was enough to believe in life on other planets. You have to be a moron to think such belief is faith. It's math, for god's sake!
  
  For those that aren't familiar with it:
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html
- diggadong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@mistermachine
  How on earth would it be evidence of god if we were the only planet with life on it?
  
  This is exactly the kind of illogical argument that makes it so easy for Dawkins to walk all over the religious and make them look like fools every time he encouters them.
- rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think the evidence for the very probable life on other planets is this planet...
  
  EDIT:
  @beatmonger, nice one :-D
- zackr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Obviously what was said was pretty clumsy on the show. That's what happens when you get people who aren't that very well educated (probably on purpose) and pit them against someone who is an excellent public speaker and logician. It's like throwing the babies to the wolf.
  
  However, the argument should have gone that aliens are just as improbable, logically, as an almighty God. So, logically, since neither existence has been scientifically proven, neither existence can be discounted. Or something like that. Thus, for whatsisface to believe exclusively in aliens is like he's shopping around for ideologies/beliefs and isn't really being logical about it at all.
  
  Unfortunately, atheists cannot believe in the existence of God, and Christians cannot believe in the existence of aliens. Thus we're at an impasse, and a religious one. So all it boils down to is that despite Dawkins appearing cold, impartial, and logical, he's anything but.
- qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@zackr
  
  "the argument should have gone that aliens are just as improbable, logically, as an almighty God"
  
  That's rubbish.
  We have scientific evidence that life can exist on a planet - we are part of that evidence - thus it is reasonable for a scientist to think there might be life on other planets among the billions available throughout the universe.
  
  We have no scientific evidence for any god anywhere at any time. No reason to think there might be one.
  
  "atheists cannot believe in the existence of God"
  It's not that I can't believe in god, it's that I won't believe anything without good reason, be it god, fairies, santa or the easter bunny. If good evidence arrives tomorrow I'll start believing immediately along with the vast majority of other atheists.
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7My Drake equation:
  
  1 x 10% x 0.8 x 100% x 100% x 100% x 558
  
  = 42
  
  Proving that yet again, Douglass Adams was far beyond his time.
  
  thanks for the link, beatmonger
- zackr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@gazsxw
  
  So what you're saying is that you have scientific evidence of life on this planet. Using logic and probability, you extrapolate (WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC PROOF) that there are beings on other planets.
  
  It's just as logical to extrapolate from today's world that a God brought about what is - that God is the basis for all science since after all He created it and set it place all natural laws. For Christians, that is. Atheists can't reconcile it because of BELIEF.
- qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1don't be silly zackr
  
  I said it's reasonable to extrapolate that there MIGHT BE life on other planets.
  
  The idea of a god is not extrapolation from things that are known to science, check the dictionary.
  
  Why do you insist on twisting and distorting the arguments against you ? If you were confident about your own arguments it wouldn't be necessary. I assume you are not confident.
AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32"He's an island of logic in a sea of confusion."

the people that like Richard Dawkins (me included) make such weird metaphors

Dawkins, as usual, speaks beautifully in this debate/discussion
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16Beauty is an aesthetic principle and not much of a guarantee that the person is right.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1He is like the human version of Surak.
  
  There is a nerd metaphor.
- vagarach, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That would be more a simile :D.
- Lobut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I remember him being referred to as Darwin's pitbull.
vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38The scrolling text at the bottom was bloody annoying. "Maybe if more people believed in God then there wouldn't be as much crime and murder." I just covered it up with another window.
- Esteanil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6In Hinduism there are said to be 330,000,000 gods, you are an "Atheist" when it comes to all of these, as well as the thousands and thousands of other deities in history.
  As a good christian, you reject all of these gods, of which there is just as much evidence as there is for yours.
  
  I believe in one god less than you do.
  
  EDIT: This was supposed to be a reply to the (thoroughly down-digged) post below.
- tkcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow... so ironic...
  
  "Maybe if more people believed in God then there wouldn't be as much crime and murder."
  
  As the show is in Ireland... how would you explain why Catholic and Protestant violently clashed. If religion promotes peace and love, why such thing happened?
anicejew, on 10/12/2007, -96/+15I hate atheists. They devoutly believe in disbelief.
- sinurgy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+30I believe in digging you down for being a moron!
- Misogyny, on 10/12/2007, -18/+69I hate theists. They devoutly disbelieve logic and reason...
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39"I hate atheists. They devoutly believe in disbelief."
  
  That was completely self-defeating.
- Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18What about weak atheism? implicit atheism?
  
  You were born both of these. Don't be so ignorant.
- xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I believe in evidence. Where's yours by which you claim I should believe?
2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4-removed-
- Panace9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Wow..
  
  He is atheist, thus believes there is no god..which he doesn't have proof to back up (thank you for pointing out Burden of Proof, It calls for it in this case as it can be said for the religious side as well)
  Religious side believes God started creation, doesn't have tangible proof
  
  You will get both parties trying to convince the other of their view, which won't do much to sway the other.
  
  He is as bad as religious fundamentalist (not that he attacks others), but that he goes out of his way in trying to convince others of his views.
  
  Yes, he offers basic tangible proof about science in the world, where as religious arguments will be based on intangible proof..both atheism/religion are both faith based because there is no real tangible evidence to fully explain things yet.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Panace9, you distort his argument, which is that there is no proof of the existence of gods. He is not asserting that he has proven there is no god, he is not asserting anyone else has, nor is he asserting he would not believe in a god were proof to be presented. He merely asserts that there is no, zero, nada, none, no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a supernatural being or beings.
  
  You claim your god is real - yet claim, I am sure, that all other gods are false (Zeus, Wotan, Satan, etc). Yet there is no more evidence to support your claim than there is of the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or leprecauns.
  
  The burden on someone who makes a fantastical, extraordinary claim is to provide extraordinary evidence. So far, not even mundane evidence has been submitted to support the claim of a god's existence.
  
  There is a huge difference between someone who says, "aliens are reading my thoughts" and someone who says, "there is no evidence aliens are reading my thoughts". The burden of proof is on the former, not the latter.
thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -40/+16Dawkins a materialist-fundamentalist is just as bad as any religious fundamentalist or anyone who can't open their mind to possibilities out of their viewpoint. He's the pot calling the kettle black. The thing is at our stage of development we don't really know anything and most everything we do know now will be proven incorrect in say 100 years. Until we have more info, I'll be comfortably agnostic and not a closed minded fundamentalist or materialist.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6"or anyone who can't open their mind to possibilities out of their viewpoint. "
  
  There is no evidence that there is a God. So how is he closing off his mind to it? Dawkins constantly uses scientific evidence (which is the closest thing we have to the absolute truth), to back up his claims.
  
  I really don't see how you can say that Dawkins is as bad as religious fundamentalists. But I see where you are coming from.
- sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45He "is just as bad as any religious fundamentalist" ?
  
  No, he's spent a lifetime studying nearly all religions in depth. He shows no hatred towards anyone - religious fundamentalists show hated towards anyone who isn't a part of their religion. I think your statement is wrong.
  
  It's totally true what he's saying:
  1. People have always believed in something, stars, planets, myths, gods, jesus - there's a timeline of beliefs and they tend to come and go.
  2. You're pretty much born with the same religion as your parents, who tend to follow the same religion as their country - children aren't given an educated choice on what religion to follow or how to live their life.
- Panace9, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Chicken101:
  
  Because the absolute start of the universe is unknown. Science does not currently prove how everything came to be, thus, an atheist, like a religious believer, is putting faith in something to base their belief system on. In this case, it is our current understanding of science that this Dawkins is putting faith in to back up his claims/belief system.
  
  Whether you base your arguments on scientific faith, or religious faith to prove or convince someone else an unknown, it puts you in the same category. It will always be a futile argument because there will always be that "what if".
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2And when he says "Just about everybody in our society is taught that faith, that means belief without evidence, is a virtue", it's not totally true what he is saying.
  
  First, the world isn't just one big society. It's a society of societies. Based on the scope of his claims, I'm guessing that what he means by "our society" is the world society, but I don't know that for sure.
  
  Due in part to that first point being true, "faith" in many of those societies doesn't mean "belief without evidence" so the totality of truth in his statement fails.
  
  Faith has never meant "belief without evidence to me" and it also doesn't to anyone who makes a distinction between "blind faith" and faith. Dawkins never addresses this schism of semantics.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If his assertion that in society the less evidence there is for something the more virtuous you are, at about 3:40 in the video, then believers in leprechauns and unicorns would be upheld in society as the most virtuous members. This is clearly not the case.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Panace9
  "Because the absolute start of the universe is unknown. Science does not currently prove how everything came to be, thus, an atheist, like a religious believer, is putting faith in something to base their belief system on."
  
  Huh? I'm afraid I'm not following you. It's very true that the absolute beginning of the universe is unknown. That's why Science says (and you'll forgive me for both anthropomorphizing science and paraphrasing, I hope):
  
  vvvvv Begin: Cosmology in a Nutshell vvvvv
  All observable evidence shows that the universe is expanding uniformly. Thus it makes sense to extrapolate that the universe was much smaller long ago. As there is currently nothing that we can observe that is *making* the universe expand, we must conclude that the universe has been expanding unfettered for as long as possible. This puts the entire universe at a single point roughly 15 billion years ago. Observations of microwave background radiation are consistent with this.
  
  We currently don't know what may have caused this original expansion (aka Big Bang), and indeed our current laws of physics break down before one Planck Time, so rather than taking anything on faith, we'll just say "we're not really sure what caused the universe".
  ^^^^^ End: Cosmology in a Nutshell ^^^^^
  
  So, which part of that is based on faith? The only faith involved in science is faith that, if a large number of people observe the same thing, it's probably real rather than being a mass hallucination.
- emfb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Panace9
  
  "Because the absolute start of the universe is unknown. Science does not currently prove how everything came to be, thus, an atheist, like a religious believer, is putting faith in something to base their belief system on."
  
  Your statement is a perfect example of a logical fallacy known as burden of proof:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
  
  From the link: "This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The only faith involved in science is faith that, if a large number of people observe the same thing, it's probably real rather than being a mass hallucination.
  
  And all those people in church claim to be observing the same thing, and if you sit down with people with different religous beliefs to talk about God, some, not all, but some of their experiences will match. I call that "evidence", though, as said above my definition of "evidence" is different than other people's.
Klaatu14, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Always loved this quote from another great Humanist: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so". --Mark Twain
OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19"He's an island of logic in a sea of confusion."
"I love this guy"

Hey, at least idolatry is common to both atheists and god-believers.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -19/+13What an ignorant and prejudiced remark. Respecting someone's intellectual accomplishments is not the same as "idolatry".
- OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12It's a joke, lighten up.
- mistermachine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7"What an ignorant and prejudiced remark. Respecting someones intellectual accomplishments is not the same as "idolatry"."
  
  what an idiotic reply. just because his apparent accomplishments are "intellectual", doesn't mean he can't be idolized.
  
  "idolatry: excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion, etc"
  
  you saying that none of Dworkins supporters here show adoration, reverence, devotion etc? obviously, they do. and to me - and a lot of others - they show it in blind excess. just like - to you, me, and others - a lot of religious people show excessive and blind adoration, reverence etc.
  
  it's not very nice having what one believes made fun of, is it?
- FalseAnimal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah its nice to have a figure head that is charismatic. I think that Madalyn Murray O'Hair did many great things for secularism but didn't come off as well as Dawkins. Of course that could just be Dawkins dreamy accent *I kid*
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1mistermachine, you are battling a straw man. Dawkins (his actual name, not what you wrote) is just a guy with interesting ideas. He is not issuing commands to followers, no one is wearing Dawkin-robes, or Dawkin churches. Your whole premise is ridiculous, because you are applying one set of values to an entirely different situation - you might as well be talking about how people idolize bacon.
  
  The essential reason some people respect some of Dawkins arguments is because he appeals to reason, and promotes the values of critical thinking - which includes applying critical thinking to his own ideas.
  
  The concept of idolatry is completely foreign and incompatible with the values of intellectual inquiry, skepticism, empiricism, logical consistency, reproducibility and peer review, which lie at the heart of the scientific method, aka critical thinking.
  
  You don't understand this, you are afraid of it, therefore you apply characteristics from your value system, which is based on an authoritarian model of knowledge, where certain figures are "idolized" and considered inerrant (whether it is the pope, or Jesus, or Muhammed, or an Old Testiment prophet).
  
  That is not how intellectual inquiry works.
  
  It is also not a valid critique of ideas. Saying "you people are idolizing Dawkins" no more addresses whether Dawkins' ideas are meritorious or not, than saying "believing in god makes me feel good" has any bearing in whether that belief is based on a truth or a myth.
  
  In general, ad hominems are a poor substitute for substantial debate.
wintersland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Being Irish I can tell you one thing.

The country hates Pat Kenny (The Late Late Show Host)
- bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought he was a relatively intelligent host; I've seen MUCH worse hosts believe me. He was actually pretty sharp and spoke when needed.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would add that I am impressed that an intellectual topic like this, presented with a live audience in a talk-show format, would even be on late night TV - and I say that as an American atheist who supports Dawkins ideas.
  
  Can you imagine a late-late show on American TV that talks about anything substantial like this, with an audience of regular people off the street who can cite philosophy and talk in complete sentences with polysyllabic words? Can you imagine a US talk show that has, as its guests, two philosophy professors?
  
  More than the actual issue debated, watching this show just makes me weep for the ignorance and triviality of contemporary American soceity.
SecretSnack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41Mustache guy in the audience freaked me out. He had absolutely nothing to say and yet he would not shut up. It just reminds me how religion is not about evidence or rationality, it's purely emotional. These people use their own incredulity about science as evidence for God.

"I have a hard time understand evolution and the Big Bang. ...Therefore God exists!"

Give me a break.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Some of them also seem to mistakenly think that the Big Bang theory states that the matter came out of nothing at all, rather than it coming from an unimaginably dense mass of matter. That just goes to show that evolution and the big bang theory need to be given more emphasis in schools. That religious ideas are holding knowledge back is just plain ridiculous and embarrassing for humans as supposedly intelligent beings.
  
  An appropriate quote from NOFX:
  "The industrial revolution has a flipped a bitch on evolution.
  The benevolent and wise are being cornered, ostracized, what a bummer.
  The world keeps getting dumber.
  Insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason."
  
  http://www.nofxwiki.net/w/Lyrics:Idiots_Are_Taking_Over
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I thought the fat bald guy was the worst-- he was just saying words conjoined together in a string of insanity-- also what's funny is he considers himself a young man...
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Raian:
  
  compared to dawkins he is a young man.
SeraphimJulius, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3What would make my day is for Dr. Dawkins to look right at a camera in a live debate and denounce not only the crazy religious Christians but also the Muslim belief. Not because I am an atheist but just for the reaction that would come from it.
People are too afraid to denounce the Muslim religion however I think Dawkins can do it!
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11He has done it, repeatedly. As has Sam Harris, and other atheist thinkers. Read their writings.
- andersw2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Say what? He just did it in this segment.....
- shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Um, what? He denounces ALL religion. Where have you been? Denouncing one religion over another would contradict his main argument against religion.
- JurneyAhed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3He denounces God. Muslims believe in God - the very same one as the Christians believe in.
  
  Also, he denounces theists, not just a particular faith, and that includes Muslims as well.
richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6My favorite part are the little scrolling messages at the bottom, my favorite one is " If more peopel beleived in religion there wouldnt be so much crime and murder in the world" got a lot of laughs out of that one.

Also all the ones about him questioning God as if its not allowed. He tolerates religion jsut find but wants to question it, whats so bad abotu that. Go Richard your the man.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My favorite was along the lines of "Humans have a need for belief in a supreme being. That is evidence that god exists."
  
  Umm, tell me again how this proof works?
gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -28/+12As usual, Dawkins misses the point. Why is this man talking about suicide bombers? When is this man going to realize that earthly religion is not a prerequisite?

Secondly, the Big Bang is a simple event? Really Mr. Dawkins? Then, please - by all means, as a man of science, explain to us how simple it really is?

What's that? You can't explain the simplicity of the Big Bang? Could that be you are using your FAITH to explain the how the Big Bang went down?

Thirdly, invoking God to fill in any gap that might exist in the developement of the universe is not an explanation, as Mr. Dawkins puts it. Of course, what Dawkins fails to say here is that invoking God is, at least - ONE explanation to the question of how something can come from nothing, whereas Mr. Dawkins and sciences provide none.

Again Mr. Dawkins, as a supposed man of science, self-defeats himself again here not only because he asks for evidence of God, but also because he cannot provide evidence that there is no God.

Considering that science is an endeavor that is not equipped, by definition, to acknowledge or detect the existence of a supernatural being, it seems that science nor Dawkins (as a scientist) would be in any position to debate the existence or denial of God.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7Oh - and I forgot to mention Dawkin's feeble attempt at the explanation of love.
  
  "The twinkle in one's eyes?" LOL!!! Nice try Mr. Dawkins.
  
  Perhaps Mr. Dawkins, as a man of science, can put "love" in a bottle and sell it. I am sure he would make a killing.
- 2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5..and since we cannot disprove god, we can all believe in the magic teapot orbiting around the earth because nobody can disprove that either. It's always the same story.
  The point that dawkins is trying to say, as I interpreted it, is that even if the birth of the universe is probably a very simple event, that we -can not- explain at the moment (or that we will never explain), it's incredibly arrogant and close-minded to try to give it an answer invoking a complex, conscious, supernatural entity that creates it all, wich is an even more complex and less probable answer from any point of view.
  I think that at the moment all we can say is that we cannot know how the universe has been generated, but we can keep working to find out the rules that governs it and see if, in some sort of way, the universe is self-explanatory.
  just my 2cents.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"...and since we cannot disprove god, we can all believe in the magic teapot orbiting around the earth because nobody can disprove that either."
  
  It doesn't really matter what you call God or what you perceive him to be. He is "God", putting earthly names and characterizations does nothing to prove or disprove his existence.
  
  "The point that dawkins is trying to say, as I interpreted it, is that even if the birth of the universe is probably a very simple event, that we -can not- explain at the moment (or that we will never explain), it's incredibly arrogant and close-minded to try to give it an answer invoking a complex, conscious, supernatural entity that creates it all, wich is an even more complex and less probable answer from any point of view."
  
  No more arrogant that denying even the possibility of God.
  
  As for probabilities, who is to say what the odds are?
  
  "I think that at the moment all we can say is that we cannot know how the universe has been generated, but we can keep working to find out the rules that governs it and see if, in some sort of way, the universe is self-explanatory."
  
  Absolutely....and I would probably say the more we know about the universe, the more we realize how much we don't know. I find the notion of God to be quite complimentary here.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@gojeda
  "Of course, what Dawkins fails to say here is that invoking God is, at least - ONE explanation to the question of how something can come from nothing, whereas Mr. Dawkins and sciences provide none."
  
  So? Being able to provide an explanation doesn't mean that the explanation holds any merit. I could just as easily say that the universe was created by Cosmic Ninjas. Not only does that have just as little evidence as the hypothesis of creation by God, but it's a heck of a lot cooler, to boot. Does that mean that it's correct? Or does it just accentuate the point that providing an emotionally-satisfying explanation to something that is currently unexplained doesn't automatically lend weight to that explanation?
  ----------
  
  "Again Mr. Dawkins, as a supposed man of science, self-defeats himself again here not only because he asks for evidence of God, but also because he cannot provide evidence that there is no God."
  
  And you can provide no evidence that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Zeus, or Odin, or . . . well, you get the picture. It's not up to anyone to attempt to disprove the existence of God. God's existence *cannot* be disproved. However, this is not unique to God. Existence of things cannot be disproved in general (unless such existence is highly restricted).
  
  To disprove [X]'s existence, one would have to personally examine every single location in the entire universe, check each to see if [X] is there or not, and somehow make sure that [X] was unable to migrate to that location further on in the search. It's an impossible task. Compare it to proving existence, where all you have to do it point to [X] and shout, "There it is!"
  ----------
  
  "Considering that science is an endeavor that is not equipped, by definition, to acknowledge or detect the existence of a supernatural being, it seems that science nor Dawkins (as a scientist) would be in any position to debate the existence or denial of God."
  
  Science is equipped to acknowledge and detect anything that is detectable. If there is evidence for something, be it quarks or fairies, it's possible to compile the evidence and acknowledge that quarks or fairies do, indeed, exist.
- emfb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@gojeda
  
  "Again Mr. Dawkins, as a supposed man of science, self-defeats himself again here not only because he asks for evidence of God, but also because he cannot provide evidence that there is no God."
  
  Your statement is another perfect example of a logical fallacy known as burden of proof:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
  
  From the link: "This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10But, Dawkins doesn't deny the possibilty of God; he would openly believe in God if any evidence existed...
- Unitarder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dawkins never said there is no possibility god can exist, he says it's highly improbable. Try to listen to his points before assuming what they are.
  
  In other words, what MadNuke said (need to refresh more often).
- slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1tl; dr
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"Denying the possibility of God is not arrogant, it's logical."
  
  On the contrary, the possibility of a God is actually more logical....because something cannot come from nothing. That is a simple truth Mr. Dawikins, and all atheists for that matter, have a profound problem getting around.
- oSiBo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gojeda
  "On the contrary, the possibility of a God is actually more logical....because something cannot come from nothing."
  
  And your god comes from ?...
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1antechronos: "So? Being able to provide an explanation doesn't mean that the explanation holds any merit."
  
  If you choose to believe in "nothing", then that is your business - but a few things should be pointed out here.
  
  Firstly, the explanation does hold some degree of merit, at least logically. I don't think we need to get into the various logical proofs postulated through the centuries.
  
  Secondly, your explanation consists of, well, nothing. You do not have science to back up here for the simple reason that:
  
  1. Science, by its very nature, cannot take into account the question of a supernatural being.
  2. Science will never be able to explain the universe completely.
  
  So I fail to see how your non-existant explanation is on equal footing with an explanation that, at least, has some logical proofing behind it.
  
  "I could just as easily say that the universe was created by Cosmic Ninjas."
  
  As stated else, it matters little what you call God or what earthly characterizations you place upon him. That does nothing to prove or disprove the notion of God and is, therefore, superfluous to the discussion.
  
  In the end, though, what you are still saying here is that you still believe in "God".
  
  "Not only does that have just as little evidence as the hypothesis of creation by God, but it's a heck of a lot cooler, to boot."
  
  If the primary purpose to believe in God is to make some sort of fashion statement, then it seems the wider and more serious considerations and implications of the existence or non-existence of God is entirely missed.
  
  "And you can provide no evidence that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Zeus, or Odin, or . . . well, you get the picture."
  
  (yawn) Already addressed above.
  
  "It's not up to anyone to attempt to disprove the existence of God. God's existence *cannot* be disproved. However, this is not unique to God. Existence of things cannot be disproved in general (unless such existence is highly restricted). "
  
  Then you are getting away from the question of God's existence and getting more into the question of whether we exist or not, which is another consideration altogether.
  
  If you are not sure that "we" exist, then that seems a more fundamental question to tackle before considering the question of "God".
  
  "To disprove [X]'s existence, one would have to personally examine every single location in the entire universe, check each to see if [X] is there or not, and somehow make sure that [X] was unable to migrate to that location further on in the search. It's an impossible task. Compare it to proving existence, where all you have to do it point to [X] and shout, "There it is!"'
  
  Hence your erudite explanation of the limitations of science (most of which it will never overcome). Of course, your arguement here speaks more to the plausibility of a God than the implausibility of a God.
  
  "Science is equipped to acknowledge and detect anything that is detectable."
  
  And again, you highlight quite well the inherent limitations of science in, for example, using science to detect "love".
  
  "If there is evidence for something, be it quarks or fairies, it's possible to compile the evidence and acknowledge that quarks or fairies do, indeed, exist."
  
  ....in the physical world, yes.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1emfb, I suggest you re-read your citation:
  
  "This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a hypothesis must be true, solely on the grounds that it has not been proven false. For example, in argument, it could occur:"
  
  In other words:
  
  Dawkins - "God does not exist because there is no evidence of him."
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"And your god comes from ?"
  
  He doesn't come from "somewhere". If he had to come from "somewhere", then he would not be God.
  
  God "is".
- qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1aah, it's gojeda again
  
  Look at your arguments here gojeda. You don't seem like an unintelligent person so why can't you see that ALL your points require a very selective and distorted viewpoint, with a little twist of bad logic to finish off ?
  
  Why do you think that way ? Either you're intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you really see, or maybe you just enjoy playing devil's advocate and having silly arguments.
- scooter17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Of course nobody has evidence directly disproving a god. Similarly, nobody has evidence disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is logically impossible to disprove something that does not exist, so the onus is on religious people to prove that a god does exist. So far, NO evidence exists. And by "evidence" I mean something that suggests that god exists, not something that suggests god existence is beneficial to society, as so many flawed arguments have stated.
  
  As an atheist, I am, like Richard Dawkins, open to ANY new evidence and will gladly consider all of it. That's what science is all about.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"aah, it's gojeda again.."
  
  AH HA....its YOU AGAIN!! (shrugs shoulders)
  
  "Look at your arguments here gojeda. You don't seem like an unintelligent person so why can't you see that ALL your points require a very selective and distorted viewpoint, with a little twist of bad logic to finish off ?"
  
  Because you say so does not make it real. So I suggest, in the future, if you are going to make these sort of juvenile accusations that you, at least, make the effort to provide us with an example of your assertions. Perhaps you might actually impart a point and, therefore, make sense.
  
  Good luck on that.
  
  "Why do you think that way ?"
  
  Because it makes sense to me. Why do you think the way you do?
  
  "Either you're intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you really see, or maybe you just enjoy playing devil's advocate and having silly arguments."
  
  The second time you've made this claim. Demonstrate the point or please keep quiet. You are just creating a lot of white noise without saying anything meaningful.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"It is logically impossible to disprove something that does not exist, so the onus is on religious people to prove that a god does exist."
  
  A logical fallacy.....but aside from that, if we were able to prove the existence of God scientifically, then it would cease to be an article of faith, correct?
  
  I mean, seriously, do you realize how ridiculous you sound "asking for proof" of God?
  
  "So far, NO evidence exists. And by "evidence" I mean something that suggests that god exists, not something that suggests god existence is beneficial to society, as so many flawed arguments have stated."
  
  So "love" does not exist?
  
  As for a preponderance of a God, I would suggest educating yourself with logical proofs and things such as the notion of intelligent design. Maybe someday you might realize that God is, indeed, the greatest scientist of all. :)
  
  "As an atheist, I am, like Richard Dawkins, open to ANY new evidence and will gladly consider all of it. That's what science is all about."
  
  Science is the wrong tool in order to consider the notion of God. And that is the simple truth you and Mr. Dawkins seem to be wholly incapable of fathoming. To put it bluntly, you and your hero can't think outside the box. You are constrained by science.
  
  If you insist on hammering a nail with a screw driver, then please, go ahead with your exercise in futility.
- sidd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@gojeda
  
  You have repeatedly stated that the burden of proof argument for atheism is based on a "logical fallacy".
  
  The argument states simply that the onus is on theists to provide some evidence, rather than on atheist to attempt to disprove the claims of religion.
  
  Would you mind explaining carefully exactly where the logical fallacy is in this?
  
  Secondly, I don't see how knowledge of love requires more than sensory perception and a genetic predisposition. If love is an emotion, similar to that of anger or happiness, then surely we dont need anything super-natural to explain it.
- qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ok gojeda, I'll just pick one of your points at random.
  
  "On the contrary, the possibility of a God is actually more logical....because something cannot come from nothing. That is a simple truth Mr. Dawikins, and all atheists for that matter, have a profound problem getting around."
  
  A point of Fact:
  Nobody is suggesting that the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang theory does not imply that the universe came from nothing. Go read a book.
  
  A point of Logic:
  So, your justification for god is that something cannot come from nothing. Yet, this god supposedly did come from nothing because god is special. So god exists in defiance of the very logic that justifies his existence. That's not logic, that's *****.
albrown123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Notice how he..."

Your man lust borders on exaltation and is in itself evidence of our need to believe and to revere. The earliest cave paintings and artifacts such as posed bodies and flower seeds in graves suggest that there is something about this reverence that is fundamental to the human condition. It is not a recent development. God, perhaps not, but faith is genetic.
cmcrussell3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5I think discussion and exchange of ideas is healthy and needed. Name calling and dismissal of someone because of their viewpoint is a hindrance to the discussion, the great Richard Dawkins not withstanding.

When people argue that there is no such thing as God or call people who believe in him delusional or akin to having imaginary friends permits me to dismiss with as much fervor as he dismisses those of us that believe in something greater than ourselves.

A couple of things...first of all - I would rather believe that I am a Child of God and not an accidental descendant of a monkey - even if it is proven wrong...
and second - I wonder what Richard Dawkins would do in the proverbial foxhole? I would argue that he will never find himself there - the elitist and arrogant attitude he presents suggests that he would never stoop so low as to defend his beliefs with his life - he would allow someone else to do that for him. Thus never ending up in that foxhole.
- DubbedOver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree with your saying "dismissal of someone because of their viewpoint is a hindrance to the discussion, the great Richard Dawkins not withstanding."
  
  The atmosphere in the studio that day was off and most of those people were condescending to each other.
  
  You of course are welcome to believe what you want - I am still unsure in my life - but I do not have a problem with being an accidental descendant of a "monkey". Everything you see around you has evolved and changed over the course of time.
  
  In one ear I have my family, friends, girlfriend and a high majority of people around me in my daily life believing in God, and I have so much trouble believing the same thing. Yet at the same time I regret saying "God damnit" because I feel as though I'm being watched.
  
  I can't win.
- qazxsw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"dismissal of someone because of their viewpoint is a hindrance to the discussion"
  
  Dawkins does not label people delusional to insult them. It is a diagnosis based on the available evidence.
  
  "I would rather believe that I am a Child of God and not an accidental descendant of a monkey - even if it is proven wrong..."
  
  Hmmm, now that would be a hindrance to to any reasonable discussion !!!
  That statement is a very clear description of a delusional state of mind.
  
  Given that you openly declare that you don't care what the truth is, why do you care what Dawkins does or says ? You need psychiatric help.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@cmcrussel3,
  "first of all - I would rather believe that I am a Child of God and not an accidental descendant of a monkey - even if it is proven wrong..."
  
  First of all, evolution does not maintain that we are accidental descendants of monkeys, but rather that we share a common ancestor. The "descended from monkeys" crap went out of fashion during the Scopes Trial in 1925. Find more contemporary creationist arguments.
  
  "and second - I wonder what Richard Dawkins would do in the proverbial foxhole?"
  
  And second, the "there are no atheists in foxholes" crap is simple slander, bigotry and prejudice that flies in the face of well-known facts. Atheists have fought and died serving every free nation in the world, usually in numbers disproportionately high for their proportion of the population. Currently, according to Pentagon statistics, 20% of US enlisted personnel cite "no religion" as their beliefs - which is higher than the 15% of the general population that self-identifies in that way.
  
  Arlington cemetery has many gravestones inscribed with the A-atom symbol which is the military-authorized designation for an atheist soldier.
  
  My father, who volunteered in his 30's to fight the Nazis, is buried in a local cemetery with that precise symbol on his military-donated gravestone.
  
  I myself am a veteran of 4 years in the Middle East, six months of them dug into the modern equivalent of a foxhole behind enemy lines, and I am a proud atheist. I stood with hundreds of atheist veterans on a stage at the Mall in front of Congress during the first Godless Americans march, and the stage groaned under our weight, as we put physical lie to the shameful, hateful "no atheists in foxholes" *****.
  
  You, sir, are shamefully ignorant and afraid of people who are not like you. You need to get out in the world and out of your little circle of like-minded, like-believing automatons and learn that human beings come in all shapes, colors, and beliefs, and the good people and bad are present in every faith and none.
  
  In this day and age, with the wealth of free information at your fingertips on the Internet, to hold to such ignorant prejudicial myth is simply inexcusable.
- whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@cmcrussell3
  
  I find your comments interesting as they are similar to questions I've asked myself as I move through life - from Agnostic to Atheist.
  
  We are products of our various cultures. I grew up in a mainly Christian environment so I knew the concepts and the stories - but I was not raised under any religion. When I asked larger questions, my familial response was spiritual, but always rooted in science and intellect. It was never denied that there was a possibility of God or gods or aliens or an afterlife, but questions about such topics were answered with unknowns.
  
  My personal beliefs and faith has grown out of this - I find comfort in concepts like evolution because it makes sense. Scientific method, when applied properly, takes the ego out of the equation - results are available for anyone to scrutinize.
  
  History has shown me that humans are fallible - that's a pretty fundamental part of most religion too. And religion is made of people - along with all our faults. Science is made of hypothesis, test after test, proof after proof, opinion after opinion, until after years, decades and centuries, until anything that can't be easily disproved is purged and you are left with theory and law.
  
  Thinkers and philosophers throughout history, most religious, have used the tools available to them to help explain creation, our world etc. Our science is a result of this work. I have faith in that. I draw comfort from the fact that if the greatest minds that our species has every produced don't have a fraction of the answers to the greatest questions, well, I'm probably doing pretty good.
  
  Anyways the answer is 42.
InfinitySnatch, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9Jebus Christ, this place is proof that both strong atheists and religious fundamentalists can't behave any higher than 12 year olds.
And while Dawkins does make good points about the more outlandish claims that some religions make, he is also an old prick. But that doesn't stop half the people here from jumping at the chance to lick the bottom of his shoes.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, most atheists here seem to be interested in engaging in substantial debate about the specific issues Dawkins raises, while most (but definitely not all) theists here seem content, like you, to merely insult and attack the person while refusing to engage the ideas.
  
  Judging from the actual evidence, that is.
JAFFA, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Dawkins Rocks! :-D
kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Dawkins gets owned in this video.
CarolinaHeel23, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7digg is obsessed with this man. wouldnt be suprised to see yo ustart worshippinh him...
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I think your faith is dwindling, god has removed your ability to type.
banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -23/+13I'm so ***** tired of this never-ending debate. The extremists on both sides screaming at each other, pretending to be rational, pretending that there's some objective answer to be had.

This post alone is loaded with egotistical morons who think they've got it all figured out making fun of other egotistical morons who think they've got it all figured out.

The thing that's most disgusting about Dawkins is his pretense that science is some sort of blow to organized religion, and that science somehow supports an atheist point of view.

Sorry folks, if you believe that then you've been had. Plain and simple.

Dawkins is just like Falwell or Robertson, just on the other side of the fence. You zealots lap up his inane drivel without even blinking.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Would you make the same case with regard to Holocaust deniers and those who asser that the Holocaust did occur?
  
  How about those who insist that the Earth is flat, vs those that asser that it is not?
  
  It is a false equivalence to compare religious fundamentalists, who start with a conclusion and reject any evidence that contradicts it, and rational thinkers, who start with the evidence and let it lead where it may.
  
  If proof of a god's existence - or any supernatural phenomena, for that matter - were ever to be demonstrated, Dawkins and other rational materialists - and me, too, for that matter - would revise our understanding of the world - just as rational thinkers have modified their understanding of the world in the light of previous discoveries, such as the theory of relativity, quantum physics - or the spherical nature of the Earth, for that matter.
  
  On the other hand, there is NO fact, NO bit of evidence, NO proof that would convince a blind believer that there is no god - because the god belief is not a testable hypothesis, because it is not falsifiable.
  
  There is a big difference between a worldview based on critical thinking and a worldview based on blind faith. And the consequences to human society are dramatically different as wellll.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3@rationalist
  
  See what I mean?
  
  You're a complete and total ***** moron and you don't even realize it.
  
  You cannot demonstrate "proof" of something SUPER natural.
  
  Scientific proof is in the realm of the NATURAL, yet here you are demanding something of science that it can't offer and acting like it supports your position.
  
  You should kill yourself and spare us all the pain and embarrassment of having to watch you try and think.
  
  And you call yourself "rationalist". Please.
- emfb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Nobody better tell this dude Santa Claus doesn't exist. That might just push him right over the edge :)
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Well, if he's stupid enough to ask for proof that Santa can visit all the little boys and girls in the world in one night, an obviously super-natural feat, then yes I probably would go over the edge because I'm so completely sick of ignorant morons who think they're intelligent calling themselves "rational" while spouting the most tortured, inverted and ass backwards "logic" in an attempt to validate their silly worldview.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"There is a big difference between a worldview based on critical thinking and a worldview based on blind faith. And the consequences to human society are dramatically different as wellll."
  
  You seem to be under the misguided and myopic notion that someone who believes in God automatically dismisses science.
richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19He doesnt get owned, he makes his point calmly and rattionally un like 90% of the peoepl in the audience. The thing abotu love between people was expleined well by him, there is no proof that god love you, with a person there is. A person will hug, kiss, take care of you, hell some people will die for you for the love they have of you. God simply doesnt and cant cause there is no proof of him, that was his point.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -23/+7Define proof.
  
  You and Dawkins need a remedial course in basic logic.
  
  Here's a hint. Dawkins will define proof such that any incorporeal entity is ruled out a priori.
  
  Prove that tomorrow the Sun will rise. What? You mean you can't?
  
  Oh, right..that little problem of inductive proof. Woops.
  
  So, you see, anyone with half a brain can see how idiotic it is to ask for "proof" that God "exists".
  
  I'd ask you to define "exists" but that's an entirely different discussion.
  
  That so called free thinkers haven't even broached these topics tells you how superficial their free thinking is.
- feelingkettle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@banderbe: "Prove that tomorrow the Sun will rise. What? You mean you can't?
  
  Oh, right..that little problem of inductive proof. Woops."
  
  Unless I'm reading you wrong, it sounds like your post is nitpicking on words.
  
  No, you can't prove that something will happen in the future, because it didn't happen yet. But, if the sun rose today, and yesterday, and the day before that and that, and so on...well, what do you think is going to happen tomorrow? Based on prior evidence, it's reasonable to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.
  
  And why is asking for proof of a god wrong? After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't be surprised when someone rolls their eyes when a person says they "know" that God exists and yet they can't prove it.
- Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@banderbe
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
  
  I am sure that Dawkins, as well as many religious people, have been introduced to such rigorous discussion.
  
  I'm not sure if it's "idiotic" to ponder about such a proof of existence of God, or a god. You can take premises, in this case conditions for definition, about a god. In some cases, you can make some inferences, and in other cases, you can't.
- everywhereasign, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Prove that tomorrow the Sun will rise. What? You mean you can't?
  Oh, right..that little problem of inductive proof. Woops."
  
  I think Dawkins would happily take the scientific reasoning surrounding the gravitation attraction of the sun resulting in the rotation and orbit of the earth as proof.
  
  But he doesn't even ask for proof. He asks for evidence. Something beyond some Modal Logic problem that simply states God *could* exist and he has to prove that God doesn't.
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2You knuckleheads still can't prove the Sun will rise tomorrow.
  
  How amusing. Of course you can be reasonably sure based on past experience but that isn't proof.
  
  Yet, you keep acting like proof is the bar one must meet in order to believe something.
  
  I'm simply observing, correctly, that proof is not the sine qua non for rational belief.
  
  That doesn't mean there aren't other arguments to use against the existence of God, but demanding proof just makes you sound like a ***** idiot.
  
  Proof, last I checked, was a scientific term and science is the study of the natural world.
  
  Therefore, there can be no proof of God, if we assume God is super-natural.
  
  If you want to pretend that this supports your atheism, be my guest, but you're only fooling yourself.
- otomo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3We have dictionaries for a reason, but just in case you don't.
  
  proof |proōf| noun
  1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement : you will be asked to give proof of your identity | this is not a proof for the existence of God. • Law the spoken or written evidence in a trial. • the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement : it shifts the onus of proof in convictions from the police to the public. • archaic a test or trial. • a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
  2 a trial print of something, in particular • Printing a trial impression of a page, taken from type or film and used for making corrections before final printing. • a trial photographic print made for initial selection. • each of a number of impressions from an engraved plate, esp. (in commercial printing) of a limited number before the ordinary issue is printed and before an inscription or signature is added. • any of various preliminary impressions of coins struck as specimens.
  3 the strength of distilled alcoholic liquor, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100 : [in combination ] powerful 132-proof rum.
  adjective
  1 able to withstand something damaging; resistant : the marine battle armor was proof against most weapons | [in combination ] the system comes with idiot-proof instructions.
  2 [ attrib. ] denoting a trial impression of a page or printed work : a proof copy is sent up for checking.
  verb [ trans. ]
  1 make (fabric) waterproof : [as adj. ] ( proofed) the tent is made from proofed nylon.
  2 make a proof of (a printed work, engraving, etc.) : [as n. ] ( proofing) proofing could be done on a low-cost printer. • proofread (a text) : a book about dinosaurs was being proofed by the publisher.
  3 activate (yeast) by the addition of liquid. • knead (dough) until light and smooth. • [ intrans. ] (of dough) prove : shape into a baguette and let proof for a few minutes. PHRASES the proof of the pudding is in the eating proverb the real value of something can be judged only from practical experience or results and not from appearance or theory. ORIGIN Middle English preve, from Old French proeve, from late Latin proba, from Latin probare ‘to test, prove.’ The change of vowel in late Middle English was due to the influence of prove . Current senses of the verb date from the late 19th cent.
- feelingkettle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@banderbe "Proof, last I checked, was a scientific term and science is the study of the natural world."
  
  True, although if God created the natural world like the bible says, you'd think he'd leave at least a little bit of evidence. By the way, you sound like you're toying with words to make your point. Even Dawkins himself says that you can't prove or disprove God. But then again, as you may have already heard, the same goes for unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. We don't believe in those, so why would anyone rationally believe in God, as they define God to be?
  
  P.S. - calling people ***** morons and such doesn't bode well when you arguing about things...
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Sure, I'd think it and you'd think it but we're not God.
  
  Of course that's what atheism is all about. Demanding that God submit to finite human rationality and declaring that he doesn't exist if he doesn't. Arrogance and stupidity all wrapped up in one fantastically ignorant and deeply narcissistic worldview.
- feelingkettle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@banderbe: "Sure, I'd think it and you'd think it but we're not God."
  
  Of course, you have no more knowledge about what "God" thinks more than I do. Or anyone else for that matter. But tell me this...if God really does exist, and people go to hell for not believing in him, why the heck didn't he make it more obvious to more people? Maybe he's just an *****?
  
  By the way, the atheism that Dawkins argues is that it's impossible to prove or disprove God or gods. But, as I said with your sun analogy, what evidence do we have that the present day's God is nothing more than a thought up Zeus from long ago? The only logical conclusion, it seems to me, is that God is nothing more than an old religion (ie the Roman gods, etc) that has happened to stick around. By survival of natural selection, if you will.
- gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"He doesnt get owned, he makes his point calmly and rattionally un like 90% of the peoepl in the audience. The thing abotu love between people was expleined well by him, there is no proof that god love you, with a person there is. A person will hug, kiss, take care of you, hell some people will die for you for the love they have of you. God simply doesnt and cant cause there is no proof of him, that was his point."
  
  None of those things are "love", those are merely expressions OF live.
  
  A HUGE difference.
  
  As for dying for someone as an act of love - ummm, hello, Jesus?
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A classic rhetorical tactic of the dogmatist is to spend all their time and energy defining that to which they object on their own terms, and then attempting to tangle everyone else up in defending that which the dogmatist incorrectly defined to begin with.
  
  Sadly, many here are getting suckered by banderbe's demagoguery, and trying to defend a type of atheism that exists only in banderbe's fevered, fearful mind.
  
  Read the entire sum of all his comments in this entire digg, and they can be encapsulated thusly:
  
  1) "YOU ARE IDIOTIC MORONIC STUPIDHEADS"
  2) "YOUR MOTHER SMELLS, TOO"
  3) "SINCE ATHEISM IS ABOUT WHO SMELLS BEST, YOU LOSE, QED"
  
  I, for one, refuse to waste any more time on an infantile argument presented in an infantile fashion by a dogmatist who is...well, draw your own conclusions from the type of argument and the fashion in which it is presented.
  
  Intellectual debate is not about who can shout the loudest or insult the hardest.
mattjumbo, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6Dawkins is just as much a dogmatic, preening ***** as even the most ardent religious fundamentalist. He is better than an Islamic (or any) extremist inasmuch as he doesn't slaughter people, but his arguments aren't any more logical or dispassionate that any spitting, screaming Baptist hell-and-brimstone preacher.

As usual, the South Park boys are the (albeit juvenile and crass) only source of real logic and reason in the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go%2C_God._Go%21_Part_II

Please don't kid yourself into believing orgainzed religion is the problem. *Humanity* is the problem. God, Religion, Politics are all just straw dogs to explain away the fact that humans are violent and nasty in general. We are getting better over time, but very slowly. If we didn't kill one another in the name of religion it would just be something else.

Seriously, go watch "Go, God. Go!" and educate yourself a bit.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If "Humanity" is the problem, and not "God" or "religion", then blind belief in a god and adhering to a religion don't work very well, do they? After all, religion and theism have had thousands of years to work their magic on the human race, and it wasn't until the development of the scientific method (aka critical thinking) and the Enlightenment that human society progressed to the point it has - and it is only the deathhold religion and blind faith still have on a majority of the world that have prevented us from progressing further.
  
  Religion and theism don't seem to do much good, so what reason is there to promote them or to hold on to them?
- mattjumbo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Organized religion has only been around for a *fraction* of the time that humanity has been around. To the best of my knowledge, humans have been killing, raping, and brutalizing other humans as long as humanity has existed.
  
  Blaming religion for humanity's problems is like looking at a wrecked jetliner and blaming the wreck on the squished fly on the windshield.
  
  Blaming religion for all the things that Dawkins blames on it is just plainly, clearly wrong. It is a complete an ironic contradiction of the rational thought he claims to espouse.
eluusive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2He states that "the majority of cases are harmless." Yet, he goes on to infer that somehow psychopaths, megalomaniacs, and sociopaths are caused by religion. There are plenty of documented causes that shows this idea to be incorrect. Abolishing religion won't fix terrorism or anything else.
lookitsbeige, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Anyways, there so much argument on this topic. If you're an atheist or theist, neither side is going to win this stupid argument. You're not going to change someone's belief because an online forum said so!!! Im probably gonna get dugg down for this, but im sure most, not all, of the people leaving comments are retarded and uneducated.

And, just a simple observation. Walking around the city i notice that most people i meet are indeed celebrating the holiday or winter. So im guessing these people have some kind of faith. But everywhere i go online its mostly atheist that make the comments on these forums. Is this where you go to hide? Hate me for it. Its just an observation.
- Speff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Over half the people I know are atheists and they still celebrate holidays. Just because you don't believe in the background of a holiday doesn't mean you cant just celebrate with everyone else. Believe it or not, atheists do like to have fun with others...
  
  EDIT: Shoot, got beat to the post
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Actually, the number of atheists is rising and the number of theists is declining, particularly in free nations. In many European countries, a minority of people belong to a religion, and in some, a minority even believe in a god or gods. Same is true in Japan and other developed free nations. The US is a marked anomaly among nations in the degree of theists and followers of organized religion - but, even here, the trend is in favor of atheism. Those who self-describe as having "no religion", now comprising nearly 15% of the population (two-thirds of those who describe themselves as having "no religion" also do not believe in any god or supernatural "spirit", so you can't explain it away as "new age spirituality" or some such), are growing as a category faster than any other; and the number of Christians (including all denominations) in the US is down dramatically ov