digg

Join DiggAbout

Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe (TEDTalks) 2005 watch!

video.google.com — Richard Dawkins is Oxford University's "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science." Author of the landmark 1976 book, The Selfish ... all » Gene, he's a brilliant (and trenchant) evangelist for Darwin's ideas. In this talk, titled, "Queerer Than We Suppose: The strangeness of science," he suggests that the true nature of the universe elud

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -28/+36If I was forced to believe in a diety, I'd choose Dawkins.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -29/+9big surprise.
    • ShuttleDisaster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17*deity.
    • lansuggs, on 10/11/2007, -8/+34haha, the Dawkins diet: cut down on dogma, and get plenty of mental excercise.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -24/+6fxmcleod
      Agreed, and you are exactly right that dawkins says nothing about religion that we couldn't have figured out already. That's what makes him so popular, he reinforces people's opinions. He adds nothing new, he just helps make people feel like they are right.

      As far as calling people stupid goes, I have seen many atheists imply if not straight up call religion and religious people, stupid, while hypocritically ( and unknowingly) deifying Dick Dawkins. All people need something to look up to, and hypolcrsiy happens to make me laugh.
    • hamandcheese, on 10/11/2007, -5/+37Myself as a believer, then atheist, was tempted to look down at my peers and say 'It's so obvious: God doesn't exist.' and constantly wondered why my friends hadn't felt the same enlightenment, but I quickly learned that though I believe religion to be untrue, for many it works. So now I treat my friends that are religious with equal respect, perhaps because I better understand why they choose to believe in a God, and also because insulting someone is never a good method of persuasion. Besides; I know a lot of atheists who are absolute idiots.
    • InvertedDonkey, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1dawkins vs. norris: a battle of the titans.
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18""now I treat my friends that are religious with equal respect, perhaps because I better understand why they choose to believe in a God, and also because insulting someone is never a good method of persuasion. Besides; I know a lot of atheists who are absolute idiots.""
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Your friends are free to believe whatever they want, but when those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, They've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.

      I also have no respect for anyone's opinion that is not based on evidence nor fact.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6@stonewaljacksn

      Nothing new? An ignorant person like you would say that indeed, but he is a scientist in the first place. And science has made religions look stupid for some time now.
    • insomniacal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2That's TED genius? Nothing in there I haven't thought about before.
    • hamandcheese, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dildo

      I'm like you. I have every respect for a persons beliefs, so long as they don't effect me or others. I'm even with dawkins when he says they should be treated with an equal respect to political beliefs. That doesn't mean that I'd ever call them stupid. Naive maybe; Indoctrinated of course, but never stupid. At a young age even the greatest mind known to man is susceptible to indoctrination.
    • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2When I was about 12 years old I was helping a friend of mine's dad, James D., while he was moving a pallet of Pepsi off of a truck. The lift broke, and the pallet fell on his hand crushing it. He drove himself to the hospital and the nurse in the emergency room immediately went to get the doctor. While she was gone, he prayed for it and it was healed, instantly. The doctor thought the nurse was had lost her mind.

      There's my proof. But faith is about believing something without needing proof for it. I believed before that happened so I was able to be audience to such a thing (and many more like it since). You guys will never see these things. Sucks to be you.
    • Scarfy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ stonewaljacksn

      As a scientist, Dawkins contributes to the world constantly. He's not reinforcing people's opinions, he's asking questions, proving and disproving, refining our knowledge of the world around us. Now tell me, what was the last new anything that religion has contributed? Oh, that's right, an easy explanation of life that allows us to use up our short time on earth without contributing anything ourselves. Then, of course, you also have all the wars, hatred, and fear... Wait, why am I trying to explain this to someone who's username is "stonewaljacksn?"
    • Scarfy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ grinndaddy

      proof |proōf| noun 1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

      How does that prove anything other than how simpleminded you are?
    • dbug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1For anyone who actually has read his book "the god delusion" there's nothing new at all in this speech :(
  • lukychmz, on 10/11/2007, -140/+6hope he has fun in hell when he dies....feel free to bury muhahahahhahaaa
    • AntBing, on 10/11/2007, -10/+91If there really is a hell, I'll hang out with him and be glad douches like you are somewhere else.
    • shep72685, on 10/11/2007, -8/+52Wow, what an awful thing to say. True Christ followers do not support such a comment.
    • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -9/+35Why is he going to hell? For using a Mac? Count me in!
    • fxmcleod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23There's a difference between Christians, and people who simply believe what they were raised to believe. The latter tend to comfort themselves by laughing at those who do not believe it.
    • skinjester, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2what's hell? never heard of it
    • Oxygen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15@fxmcleod

      I'd say that's characteristic of all belief systems.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -35/+6No, Im not a christian and I find myself laughing at you Dick Dawkins fanatics all the time. Why worship him and not the million other scientists?
      oh yea, because he spends more of his time being a divisive media whore than any other scientists.
      People are such suckers, and you get your panties in a bunch when you get laughed at...
      I respect his scientific work, I think he's a ***** loser for trying to be so divisive, and I think you're all ***** fools for being so easily sucked in by his stupid anti-religion rants.
      All he has done for me is prove the narrowmindedness of the self proclaimed "scientists"
    • fxmcleod, on 10/11/2007, -16/+7@stonewaljacksn

      Thank god someone said it.
      He hasn't said anything jaw dropping at all. He's just playing with perception, and prescription. Anyone with the faculties to understand any of this could have figured it out themselves, but his particular way of saying it is sensationalist.

      On the other hand, if this is truly amazing, we should stop criticizing others as being unintelligent, stonewal, and simply celebrate our own middle-sized intuition.

      @oxygen, yes but I can't speak for them.
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20"hope he has fun in hell when he dies....feel free to bury muhahahahhahaaa:
      ------------------------------------------------------------------

      This of course coming from someone who actually believes in a self-paranoid, ego-maniac mythical anthropomorphic "Bible-God" who impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to himself in order to be sacrificed to himself in order to sit beside himself in order to save the world from himself as some kinda sadistic experiment in self-glorifed redemption and then fills the heads of precious innocent impressionable children with disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering.

      Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?

      Seek help
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8""On the other hand, if this is truly amazing, we should stop criticizing others as being unintelligent, stonewal, and simply celebrate our own middle-sized intuition.""
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      100+ years of scientific research with literally millions of hours of research time dedicated to the study

      OR

      A book that says, "just trust me on this one." A book that says, "God created everything in 6 days."

      Come on...
  • jeebusnation, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37if dawkins goes to hell, I want to go as well!
    • gafasiesornivek, on 10/11/2007, -25/+3please do. And you will.
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Spending eternity w/ evangelicals= Hell

      I think I'll just start doing the opposite of everything they tell me.

      Some Christians to spend eternity with:

      Tim McVeigh - (Oklahoma City Bomber)
      Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City Bomber)
      Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber)
      Randy Weaver - (Ruby Ridge)
      David Koresh - (Cult Leader)
      Dennis Rader - (BTK)
      Eric Rudolph - (Olympic/Abortion Clinic Bomber)
      Ted Bundy - (Serial Killer)
      Paul Hill - (Abortion Doc Killer)
      David Duke - (White Supremacist)
    • tiffany98121, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ Dildo:

      McVeigh was an agnostic. Or at least that what he claimed to be.
    • dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@tiffany

      Read Terror in the Mind of God by Juergensmyer
  • p0und, on 10/11/2007, -9/+29noodley appendages ftw!
  • TeatimeGrommit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16The discussion of walking through walls reminded me of the old physics teaching comparison between electromagnetism and gravity.

    Jump off of a tall building, and the force of gravity will accelerate your body at roughly 10 meters per second per second... Meet the ground and the forces of electromagnetism will stop you rather more quickly!
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Gravity is just a THEORY! We need to teach our kids an alternative theory that things fall down because Bible-God wants them to!
    • Revovisionary, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8The noodley appendages keeps us on earth. The fact that we as a people are getting taller proves it!
    • dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dildooreilly

      Intelligent Pulling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-5zWw3eeY0
    • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@dildo: You need some therapy, dude. You really have some serious hate issues.
  • fastfood15, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19dawkins is sweet. he needs to do more speaches around the US.
    • gafasiesornivek, on 10/11/2007, -22/+3Here is a fellow who can't spell 'speeches' and yet espouses Dawkins. Quite the quality following.
    • DildoOreilly, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12""Here is a fellow who can't spell 'speeches' and yet espouses Dawkins. Quite the quality following.""
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      This of course coming from someone who still thinks the Earth is flat.

      Christians = most stupid ***** sheep in the world.
  • kestrel127, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10Mankind is God
    • cybermort, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20no but we did created him in our own image.
    • IRoaChI, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9the universe in its entirety is god.

      Not man as such.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -23/+2kestrel127
      how dare you attempt to inspire deep critical thought on an atheist ridden board.
      shame on you!
      IRoachI
      you too! stop. NO RELIGION RELATED THOUGHT ALLOWED!
    • tenretni, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3as I understand it, the universe is divine.
      everything in the universe is composed of the same base substance.
      since the universe gave birth to mankind, we too are divine.
    • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3I am god
      you too are god
      all is god
      do you grok?
    • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1boo...

      nobody gets the Heinlein reference? I though yall were supposed to be geeks
  • crs6785, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Direct video/mp3 versions for download...

    http://ted.streamguys.net/ted_dawkins_r_2005.zip (mp4 video)

    http://ted.streamguys.net/ted_dawkins_r_2005.mp3
  • xabstract, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I tried that wall thing...yeah same result...
  • ideasware, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9Good talk.. I watched all 22+ minutes and enjoyed it... and it's better than almost anything you'd see on TV. But still, the fanboys here over-rate him. He's very engaging and smart, and his insight in physics is profound, but his ethical and social analysis is internally inconsistent, and rather nerdy and immature.
    • fxmcleod, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Another good observation ideasware.
      I would argue that his physical intuition (as presented here) is as inconsistent through. For instance the argument of the earth moving around the sun as in intuitive error. Coordinate systems don't really care who is spinning and who isn't. He just uses examples like this to "Blow our minds."
  • danbuscaglia, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0great talk, it is always very humbling to remember how limited our range of sensory data is, and how much it is processed before it makes its way into our conscience. perhaps some barriers are not meant to be crossed :(
  • javip, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9-stonewaljacksn

    You should try thinking before saying anything..
    Here you are saying people are blindly getting sucked in by Dawkins 'rants', which in the 1st place is completely untrue.
    But the funny part is the hypocrisy given 90% of religious people blindly get sucked in by a figure that doesn't even exist and a mystical book written by man thousands of years ago!
    In fact, I'm currently laughing uncontrollably at the irony.. I'm sure you thought you were saying something intelligent for a second there though.

    gafasiesornivek, don't get jealous, you're equally as funny/stupid =)
    • endyminion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It's not completely untrue, I've seen plenty of people who are blinded by his star quality and blindly praise him.
      It's just mostly untrue. Athiests are humans and just as susceptible to the allure of popularity and peer pressure as everyone else.

      I wish I could say the same was true about most people in this country when it comes to Christianity, though. Most are what I'd call "Cookie Cutter Christians". Their believe is about as empty as a cookie cutter. They've only the very basic outline.

      They are about as in tune with why they believe what they do as a goldfish is aware of...anything.
  • memoid, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4whats the big deal here! He's just saying pretty obvious stuff!! (in this particular case)
  • tyywebb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm sorry stonewaljacksn I don't usually block people but I am just tired of digging down your comments.
  • Benrussell, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Richard Dawkins is a much better scientist than he is an atheist.

    Second only to Stephan J Gould as a man able to combine science, a broad range of general knowledge, and an interesting and engaging writing style.

    I think that unfortunately, however, his popularity and status have made him a target for a lot of creationists, and instead of simply ignoring them he's decided to try and debunk their views and attack them with science, which I can't really see ever working.

    Still, his early books are definitely worth reading for anyone with an interest in science but without the time to devote to studying it in depth.
    • Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@Benrussell (#6947661)
      I didn't realise there was a level of atheism.

      The label of ahteist annoys me. We are all born not believing anything, and if we weren't raised in a society that does, we would probably continue not believing. So why are those who don't labelled? I'm not labelled an afootballer, or an aactor, or an amusician or an astamp collector because I don't play football, act, sing or collect stamps. I'm a software engineer. and male etc, I get labelled for what I am, not for what I am not.
    • Benrussell, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0@Gizza

      Yeah ok, perhaps I should have said "promoter of atheism".

      Regarding atheism, I suppose it depends on how you want to define "belief". If we were raised in a society that didn't have any sort of affiliation or belief in a higher power or "God", then I'd be fairly confident that such a belief would develop.

      Whether you agree with it or not, atheism has definitely evolved (hah this is almost definitely another poor choice of word by me) into more than just an absence of belief. It's a label proudly taken up by anyone with a beef against religion or who wants to make their lack of belief (and in most cases passionate disagreement) abundantly clear. Personally it doesn't really bother me too much, but I think Richard Dawkins does have a tendancy to hurt the image that people who take up the label have more than he does help them.

      It is a good point though, and I do think that in an ideal world the term wouldn't exist. But as I'm sure you're aware this world is far from ideal!
    • Scynet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Aye, unfortunately....

      I agree that religions would develop. However, how would we believe in the new God(s)? There are no ancient writings on how to pray properly or how to live your life. There are no teachings or stories, and no miracles. A new God(s) would be an abstract and strictly personal concept, and people could belive in it in whatever way they wished. It wouldn't really be a religion at all first, just an idea of God(s) we know absolutely nothing about, not even if it is still alive, or if it's possible to "contact" him (pray) or if it's good or bad. Not very rewarding.

      So now you have couple billion people believing in *something*. What likely happens next is that people who happen to have similiar ideas of this unkown God unite, causing the original "religion" to actually shatter into several smaller ones with much more concentrated views of their specific God. People born into a community of certain view of this God are taught the way of their faith. If the views are very different between these "different" religions, they could easily become hostile towards each others due to human nature. Wars and all. Not much different from today's world. People would make their God to be what they want it to be, since nothing shows what exactly it is...

      The only way to make people believe in a common God is through clear miracles and divine intervention, and practically force them to believe. Without miracles and clear guidelines a religion easily becomes something bad and vague (in general, not amidst the religion itself, necessarily). And I haven't seen too many miracles lately.

      /agnostic-atheist-something
    • Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@Scynet (#6951602)
      Well obviously at some point in the past there was a society that didn't believe in a higher power of some sort. But lets say hypothetically that we were raised in a society today that didn't have religion or a belief in a higher power. Do you think that with today's knowledge and technology that a belief would emerge? I would say it would, but it would be nearly as accepted as religion is in our society. People who believed would be the minority and probably non-believers would see them as weird for believing.
  • rmeddy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4haha he said queer, im a child
  • PureHeretic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Dawkins uses Mac, I'm so disappointed
  • beneathbrooklyn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You can watch all of the "talks" from TED this past year on their website: http://www.ted.com/index.php/

    They're all around 20 minutes in length and most are really fascinating. Both Al Gore and Bill Clinton had presentations there...

    Aside from Dawkins another favorite presentation was from author James Kunslter where he discussed the "Tragedy of Suburbia: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3057280178909051497&hl=en
  • sillykalcifer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2i love how after the 1st joke about the water molecules everybody laughed, but after the 2nd one about the right lung of something the audience was completely silent
    • ninzoris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I once read that the main ingredient in comedy is surprise. You can't tell the same joke twice and expect people to laugh the second time.

      Ohh well, I guess Dawkins is going to have to quit stand up comedy and fall back on the brilliant scientist/speaker thing.
    • canyonblue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3oh come on guys... the water molecule joke was about it passing through someone's bladder but then he moved on to the non-joke but more profound thought of other parts of us passing through lungs of an dinosaur for the "big" picture. he went from joke to profound and the audience reaction was appropriate and exactly what Richard was looking for.
  • datagod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4I love it when faith-bashers use terms like "evangelist for Darwin". Another favorite of mine is "Evolution designed us to blah blah blah" and "humans were designed (by evolution) to blah blah blah".

    Stop mixing your metaphors.
  • opusaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3There's nothing remarkably new in this talk, but sometimes hearing what's already known but spoken with grace and elegance, is very much worth the trouble.
  • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Dawkins is an excellent lecturer (although a tad awkward interviewee...)

    I do sometimes wonder, though, if Dawkins is a bit *too* extreme at times, to the extent of excluding or alienating people who may have an Einsteinian sense of "god" or even an iota of non-scientific thought. Is there not some level of "rational mysticism" that one can practice, not in conflict with the scientific method? Certainly our mind is not purely a machine of logic and rationality, and so *some* things might be better understood by a departure from strict, scientific logical reasoning. In particular, some of those "big questions" that are somehow more inherently "human" in character; questions which are would be meaningless to ask in the face of cut-and-dry logic; questions like "why are we here?" "what is the meaning of it all?" "what is the 'good' vs what is 'evil'?" "who/what am I in relation to my experiences?". Science and reason is far better suited than "mysticism" or "religion" for many (and perhaps most) things in life, particularly aspects like medicine and law; but perhaps there is a grain of truth when Dawkins's opponents ask "but is there not *some* use for it?".

    I would consider myself, and identify myself as a "Dawkins atheist" (*technically* agnostic, but...); although at the same time, aspects of my worldview borrow heavily from very non-scientific aspects of animism, Taoism, and Chinese "folk philosophy". I also have a few (small) idiosyncratic ritualistic superstitions which I *know* are not "rational" but yet I feel that they still have their use perhaps as a placebo; why go through the trouble of erasing harmless, but yet deeply ingrained habits, that help calm or prep the mind in certain instances?
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Funny you should say that because Dawkins doesn't have a problem with Einstein's beliefs:

      Dawkins:
      "Einstein, for example, frequently used the word 'God' in very clearly what was not a 'Sunday School' way. It was somewhere between deism, the belief that some sort of intelligence started the universe going and then stepped back and did nothing else, which actually I don't think Einstein believed in, and a sort of pantheism, where he was using the word 'God' as just a name for the laws of nature, the laws of physics, for which he had a deep reverence, as do I."

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml
    • rootneg2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1true, true; but I don't think that most people would pick up on that unless you read his books. He tends to get seem a bit more extreme in interviews or public appearances; I know that it's probably just because it's something that he feels passionate about, which is generally good, but it does annoy/dissapoint me at times. I was really only using the Einstienian god as an example; perhaps a better example would be the more holistic, animistic worldview of a "traditional" taoist/shinto/buddhist Japan; still atheistic, still primarily rational, but also very mystical with elements of the supernatural.
  • itslifeasusual, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1you can tell he has come a long way since this ted talk. His pauses were awkward and his delivery was just a bit weird. He is definitely a better public speaker today than he was just a few years ago
  • ariez84, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Just like digg...video has nothing to do with religion.....yet the comments is almost 100% religious.

    Feel free to digg down, because we all know the one with the least diggs makes the most sense.
  • TheLsh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Damn middle world sucks :(
  • devosion, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I'm stuck in such a paradoxical interpretation of Mr. Dawkins.

    On one hand I love this kind of thought he puts forth, its vibrant and encourages scientific and philosophical thought. I've seen him be interviewed, conduct lectures, and just generally show himself to be an incredibly intelligent micro-biologist who is capable of leading humanity into the future.

    On the other he produces some of the most fanatical anti-theist remarks I have ever heard, the title of his book 'The God Delusion' itself speaks miles of this. Even in his speech he is quick to point out the delusion of those who think of the 'universe as a whole', honestly I dint know what that means and clearly he didn't do much to elucidate on this personal remark. His personal vendetta against religion and his atheistic remarks color his incredible thought processes as merely the vulnerability of a stellar mind. If he could free himself from his anti-religion truly he would be a better man than he is.

    Dawkins truly knows what he speaks about when it comes to science but when it comes to religion I feel he hasn't done enough but to rally only the most ardent of realists.
    • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Judging by how they buried you, I think you've offended their god! :)
      I agree though. It's a shame he has to use this stuff to push his own religion.
  • bobsinki, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2What is so jaw-dropping about this? Has no one ever thought on this level before? It's relativity.
    • InfoFreedom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4i think his explanation is great.Who hasn't had these thoughts he just puts them together so well. If i tried to explain these ideas to someone they would
      think i was a feckin nut case. so i respect his well thought out explanation.
  • InfoFreedom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Bravo.I wish i was there such a great speech.I hope it opened some minds.
  • fiver22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1http://www.ted.com/index.php is a wonderful(l) site -it offers entertainment, enlightenment, and education. These "Talks" often discuss what we'll be "digging" a year from now. For example see http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/65 that was filmed in Feb. 2006. -Look at that and then look at the recent Front Page story http://www.digg.com/microsoft/BREAKING_ANNOUNCEMENT_The_new_Microsoft_Surface
  • bebopredux, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32 Thessalonians 2:3- "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,...."

    1 Timothy 4 -

    "1-But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

    2-by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

    3-men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

    I would think rebuttals are welcome but, this will be dugg down since most here don't really want to know the Truth and would rather their ears be tickled. Whatever, God's Word will be fulfilled and I pray that some here seek Him when they see the things that will occur very soon come to pass. A nano-second after you die it's too late to change where you'll spend eternity. As for the comments above that Christians are murderers, thieves, adulterers.....well yeah! We are ALL guilty of sin. In God's eyes one sin is not bigger than the other, if you've broken one law you are guilty of all! Period. The thief on the cross recognized Jesus as "Lord" and Jesus promised him that he'd be in Paradise that day with Him. It's a shame to see people of Faith mocked and slandered. Those that wish to mimic Dawkins with his "intellect" would be wise to at least be like him and avoid the juvenile name calling. I disagree with atheism, yes but, I won't resort to 2nd grade ridicule.

    I thought that perhaps the Digg Community would be respectful and make this site a gleaming example of web decorum. It's sad to see a few ruin it IMO.
    • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What's this about "advocate abstaining from foods which God has created"?
  • jeebus16, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2This is an excerpt from his book "The God Delusion". It's a fantastic read, if you liked this then you may enjoy plenty other things in the book. Otherwise, if you don't like reading, somebody posted a digg article recently where you can get the Audio Book for free (wasn't me, honest). Wonderful stuff and much more inspiring and uplifting than reading the Bible.
  • MrPlug, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2interesting but thank you poster, it put me to sleep in 15 min last night, great sleep!
  • blessedone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1"...he's a brilliant (and trenchant) evangelist for Darwin's ideas."

    One of Darwin's ideas was that the black race was less evolved than all other races. Does Dawkins share the same views?
  • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I wanna have a beer/scratch that...I wanna take some acid with that guy....
  • Jusstin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sweet! Dawkins uses a Mac!
  • grinndaddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What did he say that was anti-"Bible-God"? Even that last statement seemed to be more against people who worship the universe and think it guides them and stuff... Whatever that's called.
  • phantomsnow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dawkins pisses me off.. He's like a stand up comedian, and reminds me of my condescending roommate in college that I couldn't get along with. He would assume that he was always correct and normally end up hurting himself or breaking all of our *****. ***** that dude, and Richard Dawkins. The world could use less of these cliche pricks.
  • omgyafi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0While I think that there are a number of you commenting on this subject with thoughtful, intelligent ideas/theories, I must ask myself -- and pose to you all -- this one simple question: Why do you feel so strongly about what other people believe? Simply because a scientist says something does NOT make it true. To wit: in the 1800's scientists believed that all life originated from the oceanic abyss, a statement we know today to be completely false. Along the same lines, there is no reason that the Pope knows more about the universe or God's existence than you or I. Is there not even an iota of comfort in the thought that there are things in this universe that we have no explanation for? Are you all so egocentric that you truly believe that you know, definitively, the "right" answer? As intellectual as you atheists claim to be you seem to be incredibly adept at ignoring. You ignore everything in your life that doesn't support your views and beliefs. Same to all you Christians: can you not accept that there are more than ONE possible explanations for life and order in the universe? Who is Richard Dawkins to tell anybody what is true? Have you done these experiments yourselves? Have you studied his "proof"? Live your life, be a good, honest person. Discover truth on your own and share it with those who are receptive. Perhaps the "truth" is that there is no God, perhaps the "truth" is that there is. For my part, I don't really care what any of you ***** self-centered, ego-driven atheist assholes think. You're no better than any church that has ever been: you are righteous, angry and obsessed with your own correctness at the expense of another human's feelings or life. The same is true of you Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. : I don't care what you believe. It has no bearing on my life. Believe what you will. Be true to your flocks. Preach, discuss and share fellowship amongst yourselves. But stop ***** telling me I am wrong if I disagree. What you do works for you, what I do works for me. Leave it the ***** alone. All of you.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.