[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Son, don't be an atheist!
They get no holidays.

BENNY HILL

[TaraP]

I am amazed how much atheism is growing around the world..
Many say they are fed up with organized religion, but denying GOD out of exsistence is pure travesty for the human race...

[muawiyah]

Dawkins is funny.

Southpark definitely nailed him to the wall in "Cartman In The 23rd Century".

[Varda]

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

LOL!

[Alouette]

"It's not enough to not believe in G-D. You also have to be a d**k to everyone who doesn't think like you.

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel/Russian Jewry ping list.

Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.

[westmichman]

Apparently, God also created atheists, agnostics, and idiots.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[bray]

Fundamentalist Atheists are perhaps the most obnoxious yet defensive group on the planet.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[RussP]

Like many evolutionists, Dawkins can twist any behavior or phenomenon to conform with Darwinian evolution.

You might be interested in a review I wrote of Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker at http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm

[Rembrandt_fan]

According to the article, evolutionary theory "...flounders on widespread altruistic impulses that have always characterized humans in all places and times. Nor can it explain why some men act as heroes even though by doing so they risk their own lives and therefore their capacity to reproduce, or why societies should idealize altruism and heroism...The traditional Darwinian answer is that altruism is but an illusion, or a veneer of civilization imposed upon our real natures."

While no longer a devout atheist, I do subscribe to evolutionary theory and don't think, based on Darwin's own foreword to the first edition of 'Origin of Species', that his theory was ever meant as a counterargument to the existence of God. That cranks like Dawkins do so neither supports nor detracts from the validity of Darwin's ideas.

And about the 'altruism' argument; that is, that altruism and selfless sacrifice argue against evolution. That particular argument against Darwinian theory is a feeble weapon with which do discredit it, the intellectual equivalent of a rubber knife or a toy gun. While no one can (currently) determine with absolute certainty the evolutionary benefits of altruistic behavior or selfless sacrifice, it is also true--particularly among herd and pack mammals--that young males protect members of the herd, particularly females and the young, from predators regardless if those young males have sired any of the young. The evolutionary rationale driving such behavior is evident, at least to me. Community--the pack, the herd, the tribe--is genetically advantageous.

It might turn out Darwin was wrong, but if so, let his ideas be disproven based on traditional means of empirical reasoning and observation, not emotive, either/or appeals to one's religious sensibilities.

[50sDad]

If someone is "apolitical", they have no politics...they don't scream and whine about politics, or try to prevent others from having political opinions.

By definition of the language, this guy is not an "a-theist", that is, having no real desire to have theism. What he should be called correctly is an "anti-theist". As I have said before, an anti-theist would be the kind of person who, having decided volentarily to have no breakfast of his own, would come over and whizz in your Wheaties.

[Cicero]

Evolution depends on the existence of pre-existing genetic material - DNA - of incredible complexity, the existence of which cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.

Nagel succinctly makes the point I have tried to make on numerous evolutionary threads. There is really no satisfactory way of explaining how something so incredibly complex and interlinked could have evolved, even over billions of years of time.

It was possible to imagine lower forms of life developing from inanimate matter and gradually evolving into higher forms until cell biology came along and the true complexity of even simple life forms was understood. Now, if you look at the facts, such a simplistic view is simply impossible.

That's why Darwinists tend not to work in these innovative scientific fields, but rather to spend their time pontificating or going into the teaching profession so they can brainwash young students by maintaining their monopoly in the educational field with the help of corrupt judges and the ACLU.

I find Darwinism impossible to credit not because of my religious beliefs, but because it offends mortally against my scientific and mathematical training. The ONLY way you can justify evolutionary theory is by introducing God into the equation, or, if you prefer to put revealed religion aside for the moment, by introducing an unknown Intelligent Designer, and arguing that He chose to create life through a guided evolutionary process. Mere chance cannot explain the supposed process.

[metmom]

"We are... robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes," writes Dawkins. Like God, Dawkins's genes are purposeful agents, far smarter than man.

And no doubt, far smarter than Dawkins. But after reading some of the things he's been credited with saying, that isn't too much of a stretch.

[My2Cents]

a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world."

We're all figments of God's imagination, in some sense.

[betty boop]

Here is a supposedly scientific theory bearing no relationship to any empirical reality ever observed.

LOLOL!!! Exactly how I feel!

If just loved this: "If Hamilton's theory were true, we should expect to find incest widespread. In fact, it is taboo." Evidently, Steven Pinker is particularly incensed to find a taboo here. It puzzles him.... That is, he can't explain it.

But here is the piece de resistance:

"Because their theory of man is badly wrong, they say that man is badly wrong; that he incorporates many and grievous biological errors." But the one thing a scientific theory may never do, Stove observes, is "reprehend the facts."

Great post, SJackson! Thank you so much!

[Wings-n-Wind]

.... why are atheists dim-witted?

They operate ONLY on self-centered emotion-based "rationale"

They refuse to ask ALL the right questions, therefore only find the answers to the questions that seem to suit their [intentionally] fractured worldview.

[Stone Mountain]

Calling all atheists dimwitted because of Dawkins makes about as much sense as calling all evangelical leaders gay drug addicts because of Haggard.

[fish hawk]

I'm always astounded at how people can not believe in God but believe in "magic". Not only do they believe in magic but it's magic without a magician.

[xzins]

Not fair....this title.

I'm a conservative, evangelical pastor and retired Army chaplain, and I guarantee you that the atheists I've run across have all been on the intelligent side.

I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're "dim-witted" by any means.

That's one reason I'm interested in talking to them and discovering those on whom God has written the word "Christian," and they just don't know it yet.

Dawkins, I think, is into his "shtick." I think he goes overboard for attention and money. Apparently, he succeeds.

[Gritty]

Not all atheists are dimwits. Some lecture at renowned Universities...

Lavrentii Beria

"By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil.... With it you can erase our enemies as insects... Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends.... create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace Man has ever known." ... Lavrentii Beria, Lenin University, in a 1933 address to a group of American/Marxist Psychology Students