Safran's argument is based on the curious idea that in order to claim to be an atheist, you must understand "The Big Bang" theory and be able to defend your understanding versus the competing theory of Genesis.

This is, of course, not true. Every thinking person should, by default, assume that a thing does not exist until they have evidence it does. Everyone should be an atheist, by default, until someone can show you that god exists.

Back to Safran's Liberal Arts Major. She may not understand the physics behind the Big Bang theory, but until someone can prove to her of the existance of God, she should assume the neutral position of atheism.

This is pretty much straight out of the bible. The Old Testament God is pretty awful. Of course, when you point that out, apologists tend to say that you are taking it out of context and that His heinous acts are somehow justified in some way that we mere mortals are just to stupid to comprehend.

I'm 6'4" and I have no problems with my 2005 prius. I like the way it looks and really like paying $20 for a tankful which lasts a week and a few days. Another thing I like...Waiting at a stop or in stop and go traffic without the engine running. Clarkson has very different priorities than I do. It may take me a while to break even on the purchase price differential, but at least I'm doing something about out dependence on oil in the meantime. And yes, I would prefer an EV1 or a hydrogen fuel cell car but I don't see any for sale at a price anyone would pay. As for diesel, you may burn less, but it's far more polluting than burning gasoline.

What a sleazy technique. Ask a question that requires thought, film respondent thinking about the answer for 10 seconds (cut before respondent can answer), repeat clip to stretch to 20.

deathcow, you will have to excuse the giddy schadenfreude all of us "God haters" are going through. Give us our moment. They don't come around very often. We aren't whining. We are gloating. Big difference.

As for Dr. Dawkins appearing to come off as "arrogant", he isn't. This is a scientific debate. It's not for the squimish or the ill-informed. Mr. Haggard opened it up to scientific debate by saying that "American Evangelicals fully embrace the scientific method".

Mr. Haggard (I'm assuming that since he stepped down, he is no longer "Pastor Ted"), made a classic mistake in saying that evolution is accidental. Should Dr. Dawkins have spent the interview tutoring Mr. Haggard in basic evolution theory? No, Mr. Haggard has been "debunking" evolution for decades. If he hasn't learned the basics yet, he is either intellectually lazy or deliberately misleading.

Either is unforgiveable in someone that has a weekly audience with the POTUS. If Dr. Dawkins (or any scientist) had a weekly audience with the POTUS, I'd feel a lot better.