This is a sub-clip of the entire video which can be found here , but it's still good.

damn. that guy's going to hell.

This is so important. If God himself came down and said, "Yes, it's all true, heaven and hell and Jesus, Moses, Adam and Eve etc. All dead on, well done Christians" (or the equivalent for any of the other religions) the atheists would still have been right. The facts would support the theists' position only by coincidence; in the absence of evidence for the existence of a god the correct position is atheism. This will always remain true and on this issue Dawkins literally cannot be wrong.

^yah.... not really following you there. you are saying that atheists have defined the truth in such a way that they cannot be wrong, and therefore they are right about everything?
what if their definition of truth is wrong?
notice how dawkins doesn't actually answer the question, he just ridicules it. He should say "if I am wrong, then maybe i am going to be punished somehow by a nonscientific entity, but based on my belief in science I am willing to take that risk".

it's this kind of dawkinsism that reveals he is just as zealous and faith based as anyone else. He can't answer questions without ridicule, pomposity and arrogance.

He might be right, but he's still an ass, and being an ass on stage and selling a lot of books is not proof of anything.

"in the absence of evidence for the existence of a god the correct position is atheism."

True enough as a statement, but that's as far as it goes. Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that evidence for God does exist, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion.

The poster opened with the statement "If God himself came down," which is exactly what happened in the person of Jesus Christ. Refusing to acknowledge this does not make it any less true, it simply puts them in a sad and precarious position.

"punished somehow by a nonscientific entity, but based on my belief in science I am willing to take that risk"

If that entity existed and thus was a part of reality, it would also be subject to scientific study. A nonscientific entity would have to be something that doesn't exist.

"belief in science" wtf does that mean? It's not like there's the option that science doesn't exist. And science is not about never changing infinite truth like the bible. If some scientist has published a result and it is later proven wrong it doesn't mean that science was wrong. It means that this scientist made an error and some other scientist corrected it. Science is about learning how our universe works and not about who's right and who's wrong.

"if I am wrong, then maybe i am going to be punished somehow by a nonscientific entity, but based on my belief in science I am willing to take that risk".

No, you completely misunderstood what he said, he acknowledged that he may be wrong about the existance of Yahweh(the Christian god), but to Dawkins, thats just one, out of an infinite number of gods you could be wrong about. Lets say there are a hundred gods in total(there are more, but bear with me..), now as a Christian, you may have picked the right one, IF there are ANY gods(again, evidence?), you have a 1% chance of being right. Now, since there is no evidence for any of these gods, atheism is the only sensible position.

I could dream up a billion "non-scientific" entities, why dont you believe in any of them? are you too narrow-minded and science-centered to accept the possibility of the Invisible flying unicorn? why do you have to apply your microscope-fundamentalism and call me ridiculous? the IPU exists OUTSIDE of your narrow, rationalist, evidence-obsessive science-nazi worldview. And He WILL punish you for being such a boring unicorn-skeptic.

Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that evidence for God does exist, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion.

Uh, no. We only acknowledge the lack of evidence. Present your evidence, and I will NOT refuse to acknowledge it. Its just that no theist, ever, in human history, has ever submitted anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence in common sense standards. God is simply an assumption based in ignorance. ie "We exist, so God must have created us.." etc.

The God Delusion is an awesome book. He has such a great perspective on theism and atheism. If you ever wanted to boost your atheism knowledge when in conversation, then this is the one to read. Wish you had a response to "America was founded as a Christian country. Just look at our money, it says IN GOD WE TRUST." Well, you will now.

Once there was a man who's father was God and was sent down to earth to confirm God's contract with man. He was born of a virgin through immaculate conception. Born in a stable on December 25th. Visited by wise men bearing gifts. He had 12 disciples and was called the Messiah. He died to wash away the sins of man, and held a last supper with his disciples before his death. But morn not for he was resurrected on a Sunday and ascended into heaven to join his father God. On judgment day he will return, the dead shall rise, and he shall judge them. Sinners will go to hell and the faithful to heaven. Also on this judgment day there will be a great battle between good and evil but the son of God will win. This messiah is part of a Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Followers of this messiah, who is adorned with glowing halo, drink wine and eat bread that represent his blood and flesh. And his name is Mithra. He was worshiped long before Christianity. The official explanation from the Catholic church is that Mithra was created by Satan himself in ancient times to confuse us all when Jesus showed up and did the exact same stuff.

Christianity is just a ripped off Mithra story with some plot hole filled, anti-Jewish parts thrown in.

Every Christian must remember that no matter how much you believe in your heart that Jesus existed and was the messiah, there's even more people on earth today that believe just as much in different gods. Notice how much your faith depends on what religion your parents and your country have? If there's one true God then why does it look so much like people believe whatever they were raised to believe?

ah, good ol' Dawkins, poor fool, I'm reminded as always of this little ditty:

"You carry a big sign, saying God is dead, but you're the first at the tombstone, bowing your head"

hmmm dawkins always is so pissed when he is asked legitimate questions. relax! not everyone is offending you. or is it just because i'm not a native speaker? didn't i get it? for me the question was in no way offensive, yet dawkins reaction was so aggressive.

brilliant man with mostly brilliant arguments, but i think he probably is very vain.

Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that evidence for God does exist, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion.

Uh, no. We only acknowledge the lack of evidence. Present your evidence, and I will NOT refuse to acknowledge it. Its just that no theist, ever, in human history, has ever submitted anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence in common sense standards. God is simply an assumption based in ignorance. ie "We exist, so God must have created us.." etc.

Dawkins is being intellectually dishonest here. He didn't answer the question. It was just a bunch of hyperbole and he was even a bit insulting. He acted as if the question were a personal attack. Clearly the man has no humility. He cannot step outside his own bullshit for a second and honestly answer a perfectly reasonable question.

Think about it.

Here is someone who has become enormously popular and has profited handsomely from telling practically anyone who will listen that religious belief is nonsense and that there is no God. He has said this to millions of people. Someone who makes a living off of his opinion, an opinion which is offensive to the deeply held beliefs of billions, cannot answer a simple question about his own beliefs?

The reason for this I think is that he couldn't bear to have his beliefs questioned, and immediately went on the attack. Why? Because if he was honest he would have to admit he really doesn't know and that any certainty he has is the equivilent of blind faith, which is exactly what he rails against religion for, and thus making him a complete hypocrite. That wouldn't sell any books though, so..

He answered the question in two steps:

-He reminded the questioner that her religion (the reason she BELIEVES there is a Christian God in Heaven and Christian Devil in Hell) is 100% a product of her upbringing in specifically the Christian faith, and her personal experiences related to these embedded Christian beliefs.

-With this in mind his answer to "what if you're wrong (and there is a God)?" is that such a question is no different from asking "what if you're wrong (and there is a Zeus)?".

Is Dawkins prepared to spend eternity in Hell if he's wrong? This is obviously what the girl is implying, because this is the mythology she believes in. And Dawkins is responding that he's no more afraid of a Christian Hell than an Ancient Greek Hades or Tartaros. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell ).


He's a Professor. They're supposed to answer with leading questions so you do the last bit on your own.

... I feel like I should mention I'm not a fan of Prof. Dawkins. He did answer the question, though.

Oh, and towards your last paragraph, Payle, you're saying his lack of any belief in the supernatural is itself a belief requiring faith. This is where Dawkins would ask you how NOT believing in whatever mythology (Christian, Muslim, Taoist,...) could itself be a belief; it doesn't require faith to NOT believe in Easter bunnies. His whole point is that untestable beliefs are the roots of religion, and that ANY steadfast belief in something not provable or disprovable is the same in his eyes. Believing in Norse creation mythology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_narrative#Norse ) is therefor the same as believing in Adam and Eve, or if you want to get obscure again, the Harrowing of Hell story ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell )... I love citing wikipedia...

Invalidating the question with a convuluted argument is not an answer. The question is valid, since Dawkins cannot say for sure whether God exists. I will highlight the ridiculousness of his response by sharing with you my very first sift.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Dawkins-Delusion

saying that god is only real if scientifically provable is pretty arrogant. god invented science, moron!
god is everything, everything exists, therefore god exists.

Dawkins handled the question well. It wasn't literally an answer, because everyone already knew the answer, of course. If the KJV bible is correct and Dawkins is wrong, then Dawkins is going to hell. But of course there are hordes of other religons that say everybody but the true believers are going to suffer, and the question asker has no proof that those other religions are incorrect. That's the point, and that's why the burden of proof is on the believer. The inane question is sort of an invitation to make Pascal's wager.

saying that god is only real if scientifically provable is pretty arrogant. god invented science, moron!
god is everything, everything exists, therefore god exists.

Is that you posting on Videosift, God?
No? , Then STFU.





Ok, I'm just joking, you're fully entitled to your opinion MINK..


But this is simply YOUR assumption, why should I believe you are right about this, why should anyone think that this circular argument has any merit?

HOW in the WORLD do you distinguish that argument from another? What do you base this assumption on??

At any rate, this argument, if I choose to accept it despite its fallacious nature, would, at best, justify some kind of deism, That still doesnt explain how you get from there, to knowing books God wrote, or what iron age mythology was right about his thoughts.

The only people who criticise Dawkins are those who do not understand what he is saying, and they only ever respond with ad hominem arguments, again because they don't understand what he is saying.

He put the question to rest utterly, if you don't understand the answer, go back to the big man in the sky and see if he can do any better.

If you find him arrogant, GOOD, it's about time the ignorance and arrogance of religion was met with arrogance based in rationality, common sense and truth.

Of course his response sounded arrogant...he was illustrating the arrogance of the question itself. Most believers are just unable to accept the fact that for most people the religion they believe in is based on 3 main things. When they were born, where they were born, and what religion is practiced and taught by the people that raised them...which is also influenced by the same 3 things.

If Dawkins does not beleive in gOD but fears hell (which probably isn't possible)then what is he supposed to do? Lie about it? Wouldn't gOD know that he's lying?

Yes Ryjkyj, thats another fallacy of Pascals Wager (That its safer to believe in the Christian god, "just in case") You cant choose to believe, you either do or you dont. If God is omniscient, and as obsessed with thought-crime as the bible describes, then he will certainly not be impressed with a person who pretends to believe in something he or she doesnt really believe in.. So thats another thing Dawkins could have answered to this rather ignorant question, and he does address it satisfyingly in "The God Delusion"

OK OK I admit! I'm Jesus! Are you all happy now??! There, my secret for the world to see! I was just going to chill out this time around, maybe try and get a record deal, but nooooo! All you guys want is for me to wash away sins! Ugh! Forget it! I'm late for my 5 o'clock facial with Buddha.

saying that god is only real if scientifically provable is pretty arrogant. god invented science, moron!
god is everything, everything exists, therefore god exists.

xxovercastxx, science can't prove a negative (basically, what you said). Science can't disprove the existence of the Christian god any more than it can disprove the existence of, let's all face it, the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Here is Religion and Science, contrasted to illustrate what we're talking about:


Religions require faith in supernatural explanations for the big questions (where we're from, what this is, where we go). Faith in the truthfulness of these explanations unites those who believe them, and separates groups with different faiths.

Science is any systematic analysis of anything, used to understand that thing. These understandings and how they were arrived at are then shared with others, who critically and systematically review and test the understanding. Over time, bright people "standing on the shoulder's of giants" are able to explain more and more things, on and on and on. There is only one group, and Sciene will never give ALL of the answers.


'here are some answers; belief in them defines who we are, so they don't change very often'
VS.
'we think these are the answers, but if you see problems please help us out by finding better answers'

This was on VS ages ago. Does the original still exist?

so scientists don't know if god exists or not, but people like dawkins are 99.9999999% sure he doesn't, is that what you are saying?

i am neither religious nor atheist, i think god is the universe, and most days i think the universe exists. other days i think it's all a dream, woven by God.

People like Dawkins define God, and then show how ridiculous it is to believe in the God he just defined.

Fine, Dawky! That's just fine by me!

But you're not talking about my God, you're dissing some other guy.

He didn't answer the question, maybe the questioner was just interested to know his answer, maybe he could have been human about it instead of spitting back "that's a stupid question". I would like to know his answer, however stupid it seems to him. I didn't see the question as so challenging... he doth protest too much.

Pascal's wager is obviously stupid, because if you pretend to believe in the wrong god then you'll get nowhere. But if you believe in a universal supernatural force, sooner or later the science guys will catch up, work out how to measure and define the supernatural, and THEN i want a video of you eating your hat, posted on videosift. (but don't self link).

It's like i am having faith that science will go in a certain direction due to new discoveries. i am just guessing ahead of people like Dawkins, and I am not restricted by someone else's dogmatic definition of "science" and "god". And if you ask me "what if i am wrong?" then i say "i might have the consciousness to be pissed off about it, or i might be just plain dead, or i might be in hell, but at least i thought about it and made up my own mind."

Oh and don't forget, I have evidence, I feel God, i just can't show that evidence to you. So, it's proven to myself, and all I can do is tell you that if you look for him, you'll find him. Sounds a bit Christian? Well they're not far off.

But if you believe in a universal supernatural force, sooner or later the science guys will catch up, work out how to measure and define the supernatural, and THEN i want a video of you eating your hat, posted on videosift. (but don't self link).

I'm taking the bet, and will keep the hat ready.

Oh and don't forget, I have evidence, I feel God, i just can't show that evidence to you. So, it's proven to myself, and all I can do is tell you that if you look for him, you'll find him. Sounds a bit Christian? Well they're not far off.

This doesnt fall under the criteria of "evidence", because its not evident to anyone but presumably you. Evidence is universal, demonstrative to everyone, and there is a reason we keep insisting on it, its because personal conviction doesnt hold water. just google "I was abducted by aliens", or visit one of the David Icke sites to hear testimonies from people who have seen our shape-shifting reptile illuminati overlords. Those people will tell you the same things, "look inside" or "look beyond the narrow worldview they pull over your head" and youll see space aliens too.. You might not like the idea of being compared to these loons, but the theistic arguments are all the same, personal revelation, wishful thinking, pick your description.

Observable, common, universal evidence, where I can see and hear the same thing you can, where repeatable experiments can be performed and a consistent explanation can be found, is the only thing that works. its the only reason we are having this discussion on a website instead of clubbing it into eachothers head. Science has helped us cured diseases, explore space and understand our origins. Its the only method that has ever worked. Muddling around in personal revelations gets you as far as Islam when its practised enthusiastically . It degrades and insults the human mind, and drives our species into misery

"This doesnt fall under the criteria of "evidence""

says who?

you realise you are using words, not pure expressions of truth?
i don't just BELIEVE god exists, i have felt him. this experiment is totally repeatable, just open your mind and look at the stars, you will think "wow".... and that's it. That's your evidence. Have another go at the definition of evidence, because nobody gave you or anyone else the authority to define it. Just consider other possibilities, that's all.

So go ahead and take down the gods of "muddling in personal revelations" because i agree. I think bible bashers and suicide bombers are tragically delusional. But the god i am talking about exists, we have all felt him/her/it, and you persist in supressing that fact because you support the scientific method which cannot accommodate these "feelings"...

just give in, (submit, islam) and support both, the spiritual and the scientific. Recognise that they are not yet fused, but both are threads of the same discovery. Realise that science can't define love, and acknowledge the possibility that love is beyond definition. That's all you have to do.

you realise you are using words, not pure expressions of truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Wikipedias definition is the kind of definition I mean, evidence is testable, mutually true.. evidence.

i don't just BELIEVE god exists, i have felt him. this experiment is totally repeatable, just open your mind and look at the stars, you will think "wow".... and that's it.

No, I dont believe one bit more in " a greater force" no matter how much I look at the stars or sunsets,
am I humbled? yes,
do I feel small? yes,
do I think there is grandeur to the universe? yes.
Am I in awe? Yes.
Do I think, or feel that in some way this is "evidence" of a divine presence of any kind? No.

So in other words this evidence of yours might work for you, but not for me, hence it is not "evidence" in the traditional meaning of the word.

It is insulting an arrogant to claim that this is due to a lack of an open mind on my part. My mind is perfectly open as it is, thank you very much, and what you "feel" is the truth or not is your business, not mine.

As I previously stated, this feeling that you get is to me no different from the revelations of countless religions, UFO sects and other superstition, unless you can present actual evidence, instead of repeating what all these other superstitious folks say "Just open your mind and you'll feel it too!" Not evidence, sorry, not even close.

and all I can do is tell you that if you look for him, you'll find him.

This is very close to Ray Comfort's "testable, repeatable, scientific proof" that God exists, and according to the bible, it's the words of God himself. I don't have the exact text available, but it goes something like "If you seek God with all your heart, he will reveal himself to you."

I'm not so sure that qualifies as a valid test, but for the sake of argument I accept it as one. The thing about scientific testing is it only takes one experiment to disprove something. I spent my early days praying, seeking, asking for help and guidance. Please help my mother deal with her stresses. Please protect me from the bullies at school. Give me a sign that everything will work out ok; anything, just a small sign that you hear me.

Obviously there was never an answer or a sign. This is one of those places where the aforementioned built-in excuses come into play. "God works in mysterious ways." That means, "Wait for a positive coincidence and attribute it to God. All the stress/suffering/etc you've endured are part of God's plan." I didn't ask for super powers or a million dollars; I was just a kid who wanted some reassurance and guidance. That I received neither means to me that the experiment failed -- the expected results were not realized.

Does this prove God does not exist? No. As I said above, that's not possible. God has been defined so as to be unpredictable in an attempt to keep his followers from rejecting him. All this proves is that Ray Comfort's proposal is false. I suppose you could make the argument that since he was quoting the bible, the word of God, that proving an element of the bible false disproves God, because God is defined as unable to make an error. I don't particularly feel like hashing that one out right now, though.

Atheism answers no questions, offers no solutions and is ill-conceived to deal with rituals, faith and emotion, which are integral to peoples all over the world.

Two of the most infamous atheists are also two of the greatest mass murderers in history: Stalin and Mao.

Faith and imagination are more powerful than reason. I prefer a world filled with flawed, human-designed pathways for honoring The Source to making The State the only true god.

@ MINK; "...so scientists don't know if god exists or not, but people like dawkins are 99.9999999% sure he doesn't, is that what you are saying?"


... FAITH in a supernatural deity and related mythology IS religion. Do you agree with this? If not please say so.

So religion is by definition FAITH in something without proof. I'm not judging here; this is what faith is. Belief in angels and devils is not driven by engineers and scientists finding them and taking blood samples for testing, its part of the mythology which people are to BELIEVE.

So forget about the scientific method testing and proving/disproving religion... science is critical analysis of given information, which requires something testable... religion is believing.

Dawkins is 100% sure there is no God, because he doesn't believe in the mythologies. Thats all it takes; belief means supernatural beings exist to you personally, non-belief means they don't exist to you personally.

@ QM; "Faith and imagination are more powerful than reason. I prefer a world filled with flawed, human-designed pathways for honoring The Source to making The State the only true god."


You act like this hasn't been done before, thousands of times. There are and have been many cultures who's primary motivations were appeasement of deities in imaginative ways (albeit usually to earn their good tidings). To each his own, but "flawed" traditions are boring to me.

Atheism answers no questions, offers no solutions...

Two of the most infamous atheists are also two of the greatest mass murderers in history: Stalin and Mao.

... you kind of straw-man'ed him with the hitler and darwin stuff, overcast. first part and baldness quote were fun.

Yes, that was the point. His argument about Mao and Stalin is a straw man. I thought it was clear that my intent was to point out how it was meaningless and demonstrate that I could play the same meaningless game. I don't know any reasonable Christian who would be ok with Hitler's interpretation of the faith, so to imply that Mao and Stalin were somehow model atheists is a fallacy.

semantics guys. under your definition of evidence, i have no evidence. fair enough. i guess if wikipedia says so, and it's "tradtional" to define evidence that way, then there's no need to think further.

the NEED for evidence can be perceived as a strength or a weakness.

haven't read the thread so maybe this has been brought up already, but I would have invoked Pascal's Wager, which basically says there is no downside to believing and a potentially great upside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager

Pascal actually sounds kind of cold and calculating the way his Wager is described -- almost like "OK, I hereby decide to believe in God for the purposes of insuring myself against the possibility of fiery damnation" -- dunno if that was how he meant to be perceived.

I believe in God and my own spin on Pascal is this: belief and faith in God grants me a certain extra measure of strength and peace of mind, and that is a good thing no matter what. So even if there is no God, not only do I "lose nothing" as Pascal put it, but I gain something in that instance too.

See a dialog between Dawkins and Christian skeptic Alistar McGrath

This interview, as well as all the other interviews done for "Root of all evil?" has been released in uncut versions on DVD, available at http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=6

And speaking of Alister McGrath, one thing to his credit is that he seems to be in the outnumbered category of apologists who doesnt lie about, misunderstand and misconstrue every argument Dawkins makes, but at the heart of all of his arguments its just all wishful thinking, he feels "God" gives life meaning and purpose, therefore it must be true in some sense.. A clear betrayal of reason. You can see it in nearly every question from dawkins "I think you raise an extremely interesting point" , "thats definitely something that should be discussed" etc, and then he evades answering the question and simply repeats how he feels better about life because of the christian perspective.

Dawkins tries for a full hour to get him to answer WHY his(Dawkins) descriptions of the God hypothesis is wrong or misunderstood, and McGrath bounces around the questions with his faith-based wishes.

I would have invoked Pascal's Wager, which basically says there is no downside to believing and a potentially great upside:

Pascals wager has got to be the worst argument of them all, and yea, we touched on it
1. You (or atleast I) cannot "choose" to believe in God anymore than you can choose to believe in santa, If believing in Santa was the only way to get presents, could you believe? No. You either think there is something to this old jewish mythology, or you dont.
2.There is still an infinite number of hells, purgatories, nowherelands and other places you could be sent to suffer for being such a heretic, lets hope you happened to be born in the right place and time, eh?

belief and faith in God grants me a certain extra measure of strength and peace of mind, and that is a good thing no matter what. So even if there is no God, not only do I "lose nothing" as Pascal put it, but I gain something in that instance too.

Whatever gets you through the night, I guess, I only ever care about whats true, and as Gotthold Lessing put it;

If God held all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand the persistent striving for the truth and should say, 'Choose!' I should humbly bow before his left hand and say, 'Father, give me striving

God, the threads for religous posts are amazing.

He asked a mathematician to tell him what the chances were that a horse could be produced by the random chance of evolutionary process.

Recommended reading: Climbing Mount Improbable

Evolution is:
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS
NOT A RANDOM CHANCE PROCESS

That was 11 times, tell it to every theist you know.

Evolution works because of NATURAL SELECTION

Natural selection is the NONRANDOM selection of randomly varying specimen

It works precisely BECAUSE it removes the need for large, random accidents to produce complex things such as horses, you, me, or even a cell of our bodies. it is close to impossible that things like that appears by random, thats why we need an explanation, and that explanation is natural selection.

@ jdlongmire: "Common descent driven by natural selection is a ..." model, which fits to the vast amount of data collected, and is predictive of new data as they are being acquired.

These data are in the genetic similarities between related species, in the fossil record showing diverging species, in the whale's vestigial legs and pelvis (and 5 finger bones), etc.,etc.,... to ignore these curious relationships and the predictive value of the theory of evolution by natural selection without providing evidence for a more accurate and useful model is... well, ridiculous.

It only takes one aberrant data set to shake evolution by natural selection down. Any scientist or layman who can get this data set and explain how it defies evolution by natural selection will be famous.

The horse is almost certainly the worst choice for such a debunking since it's the most thoroughly documented lineage in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Let me put it another way, ever heard the story of the man who invented Chess? well its probably just a myth and a legend, but it goes like this: Guy invents chess, some emperor or king thinks its the best game he's ever seen, so he asks the inventor to name a price, anything, and the king will pay it. So the inventor says "I want one grain of rice for square A1 on the board, two grains for A2, and 4 for A3, and so on, each one double the last, 1,2,4,8,16 and so on." and the king breaks out in a roaring laugh, "you fool" he exclaims, "Have you no idea how great my empire is, -Guards, give this man 10 bags full of rice, and let him keep the change!"

The lesson of the story is this: if you do the actual calculation of doubling 64 times, the true number of grains far exceed the number ever grown on earth, and the kings empire would crumble under the debt...

A replicator the chemical reactions that preceded life, able to produce hereditary copies of itself, works the same way. 1 makes a copy of itself, that makes a copy and you get 2, 4, 8, 16 etc.

In a short while, this copying could fill the entire universe with replicators, but thats not what happens, because the limitations kick in much, much earlier, lack of space, lack of resources etc FORCES the start of the most important mechanism on earth: Natural selection. Only the elite survive, those who CAN survive, survive.those who are "born" with an ever so slight advantage in some way, will become the dominant group. its all imperfect copies of the original, some worse, some better. The more imperfect the copying is, the more chance there is that a mutation will be a disaster but real mutations are very, very small which makes the disasters rarer, and occationally, mutations are good, and then they are naturally selected.

I have not read the entire thread (though it looks really good). That said, I have but two words - emergent properties.

Ok, more than two, but only as examples:

A handful of molecules combine and have the emergent property of attracting and binding a complementary set of molecules.

A cell membrane has the emergent property of maintaining a voltage differential.

(... many, many steps later ...)

A very large group of cells has the emergent property of representing a completely arbitrary group of other cells (memory).

A humongously large number of cells have the emergent property of representing arbitrary states of another large group of cells (prediction).

An absurdly large group of cells have the emergent property of representing themselves (awareness).

It goes on from there, but that's pretty much how I see it.

@BicycleRepairMan: a reasoned response on your part and I see what you are saying. Note that I myself didn't say I *chose* to believe in God; I simply do. Tip of the hat to you for this dialogue.

*promote

for the good of all humanity and for our own entertainment

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, September 17th, 2007 10:12pm PDT - promote requested by jwray.

Thanks for the promote jwray!

Short bus kittehs sez "No Ceiling Cat!"
Theyz bad.

2 Ceiling Cat watches you masturbate,
and iz like, do u getz it?

3 Theyz still bad

4 Dont thoze bad guyz
who eat teh kittehs like cheezburgers
reeulize that Ceiling Cat TOTALY RULEZ?!!

5 Ceiling Cat likez us better

6 We hidez under Ceiling Cat,
cuz hes like, really big.

7 When Ceiling Cat bring back teh kittehs,
that Jacob dood will be preety happi,
and Izrael is all liek, "Way cool!"
Psalm 14:1-7 LOLcat Version which by the way, is tits, and recommended reading for all atheists.....but, most atheists have never read the bible anyhow, Ceilingcat damn you all to floor!!!!

I like the cut of basement cat's jib.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/04/07/funny-pictures-the-final-battle-for-our-souls-begins/

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 9:39am PDT - promote requested by jwray.

hmmm dawkins always is so pissed when he is asked legitimate questions. relax!

It's not a legitimate question by any means. It's thoughtless and inane, and could almost be considered rhetorical.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that evidence for God does exist, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion.
Uh, no. We only acknowledge the lack of evidence. Present your evidence, and I will NOT refuse to acknowledge it. Its just that no theist, ever, in human history, has ever submitted anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence in common sense standards. God is simply an assumption based in ignorance. ie "We exist, so God must have created us.." etc.


The evidence of God's existence hits any Atheist right between their eyes. The world is created in such a way that it shows and proves God's existence everyday(Psalms 19:1)(Mark 4:11)(Daniel 12:10). Also, just to rephrase the quote a bit, in a more logical way:
Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that they lack understanding, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion, other than what they fully comprehend.
I would personally say that this is a better definition of Atheism. Most of the time, it's a matter of pride. They reject things that are beyond their comprehension, simply because they refuse to accept the fact that they know less, because in their comprehension knowing less, equates to being a lesser being(because to them, knowing more makes you more, right?). You seeketh glory in Atheism only for your own gain.
I know the world is cruel. Such truth cannot be denied. But honestly, I'm asking every Atheist out there, don't you feel it within you? The immortality of your soul? The "you" that grows more and more vigorously everyday even if your body weakens through time? Would you really accept your death as the end of your existence? If your answer to the last question is "No", don't you think it's time to check your options? Atheism, does not offer life everlasting...but God does. It may seem hard to choose, because many false prophets appeared, as Jesus had prophesized. If it's because of those false prophets like Benny or the Pope, or anyone else, made you the way you are right now, don't lose hope. If they have led you to not believe anymore, then, they have fulfilled their purpose but you, on the other hand, have not fulfilled yours(Ecle 12:13).
I share unto all of you, the light that I have found. http://esoriano.wordpress.com please take time to visit. May the peace of God be with you all.

"Atheism, by choice, refuses to acknowledge that they lack understanding, and in doing so, cannot reach any other conclusion, other than what they fully comprehend."

This is a lie. Atheists are, unlike religious people, in fact OPEN MINDED, and if the evidence directs us to change our minds, we do it. Religions don't work that way - religious people have their conclusion before any evidence is presented, so in fact they refuse to acknowledge that they lack understanding.

You have flipped it on its head. The definition is perfect for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologist and other deluded people. Atheists specifically acknowledge that we lack understanding of things, and investigate to gain understanding of things.

God... no god... who knows..

One thing is certain: science, and the human desire to learn truths, continues. The bible does not.

Science can eventually disprove the existence of God, or the claim that some being created all living things. What will religion do at that point? If they don't change, they are obsolete. If they do change, then that just throws water on thousands of years of beliefs..

Professor Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

Richard Dawkins on Dinosaurs & Creationism has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

*length=1:23

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:23 - length declared by CrushBug.