Oh, I think it is his opinion. The handle is a derivative of the full name. It's the weakness of the criticism that marks William as a cretin.

It's good to be back and find people who still believe in God. It means that Dawkins has failed to convince them. I am not surprised since neither hard believers or hard unbelievers would be swayed by his arguments: Maybe a few agnostics, but not me. Actually, the part that I really share 100% in his philosophy is the relentless fight against clericalism and the interference of Religion in the affairs of State, be it a Christian or a Moslem one. We are all well acquainted with Islamism (mainly Shiite) involvement in the running of States, the interference of Christian fundamentalists is perhaps less evident, although theocons' role in influencing US Federal and/or State laws is rather apparent and obnoxious. This, however, is peanuts compared with Vatican's influence in Catholic Nations governance. In Italy, in particular, Pope Ratzinger has recently blocked any attempt by the Italian Parliament to pass laws in favor or euthanasia, giving civil rights to de facto couples, particularly homosexual ones, research with Stem Cells and many more. The reason why Italy is still a 19th Century Nation in many social and cultural ways is all due to Catholic Religion and its fanatic followers. But Richard Dawkins is an optimist: He thinks that by using Reason he can erase Faith; it's rather the other way around.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist, except in the sense that any reasonable person would admit that there might, or might not, be something out there. And Unimportant. A jury can discard the possibility that a supernatural being and not the accused, to whom the evidence pointed, actually committed the crime. A standard of proof which requires that non-evidence be given the same weight as evidence would prevent justice being done or any decision ever being reached. Agnostics are wimps who won't accept their intellectual responsibilities.

> Atheism is the rejection of what is offered as evidence for the existence of supernatural beings. There are a number of definitions of atheism. This one falls into the problems outlined in my previous post.

What's the problem? You are saying that if atheists believe anything, they might as well believe everything, including a belief in any of the millions of supernatural beings whose existence has seemed credible to some at some time. In other words, our feelings validate any belief that takes our fancy. Tony Blair tells us he believed in his bones that it was right to invade Iraq. I don't think you'd prescribe medical treament for yourself, supposing you had no medical training or expertise. Yet, you are advocating the 'choice' of a religious stance on the basis of caprice. Of course, this is not what happens. Adhering to a religion is the result of a process akin to brainwashing. Rejecting the results of this process comes from a rational consideration of the arguments, such as they are.

I am afraid to say we are in general agreement on this topic. In my mock letter to RD I objected not his views on Religion, which I share entirely, but his efforts to debate the existence of God, which is ludicrous although, admittedly, very entertaining. Surprisingly, the attitude of scientists towards Religion is not uniformly negative, as reported by Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine in an article entitled "Evolution, Religion and Free Will" published by the American Scientist. And here is their conclusion: In other words, although they reject the hocus-pocus inherent in all religions, they magnanimously concede that Religiosity is an integral part of human evolution (just like language and morality; my addition).

I think there is a little misunderstanding on your part: God is a delusion, Religion, or better, Religiosity without any artificial, abusive and interested superposition, is an inherent part of the human brain, imprinted in its circuitry like language and morality by evolution. That's why it is so difficult to eradicate, and, besides, it is innocuous, contrary to the deleterious effects of structured, superimposed beliefs and false idols. That is also why even evolutionary scientists can cope whith it. Has religiosity played any role in human evolution? It is possible that the belief in something transcendental has given a survival advantage to believing tribes as compared to non-believing ones. Something of the order: "God, or Thor, or the Spirit in the forest is with us, we are invincible; lets go and fight."

It has been reported by many experts in the field (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennetts) that the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists, believe in something unstructured. To quote Einstein "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever". Evolutionary religiosity is like evolutionary biology or physics: When and how does it start is unknown. However, if you believe in it you may ask what the evolutionary advantagemay be. Well, one day, a milion years ago, a bright member of a primitive tribe may have said to the other members: The spirit of the forest has told me not to drink foul water, or something to that effect, or: If we offer one chicken to the spirit he will help us find many more.

> You are saying that if atheists believe anything, they might as well believe everything, including a belief in any of the millions of supernatural beings whose existence has seemed credible to some at some time. Where did I say that? Quote me.

> Dawkins didn't write his book to convince hardcore Christians to give up their beliefs. He says he did.

To follow up my previous comments: Empirical evidence/science can't prove or disprove the God hypothesis. Therefore the only rational approach to the question of God's existence is agnosticism: you don't know one way or the other. Under the bombast, this is in fact the position which Dawkins takes. The argument that moves him to impersonate an atheist is the "burden of proof" argument: you assume a thing doesn't exist (such as God) until you can prove it does. Or at least furnish evidence to the effect. I concede there is some force to this argument, but it isn't infallible. It doesn't describe reality: it tentatively sets up a rule for a particular method of inquiry. Some of reality is amenable to it: some isn't. For example: 1) SOLIPSISM. Strictly speaking, the "burden of proof" argument requires me to assume that others aren't conscious, until they can prove they are. Others can testify to their own sentience, but they can never furnish me with communicable proof or evidence of it. They might always be hallucinations or clever software designed to mimic conscious beings in a Matrix-like virtual universe. Nevertheless, like most people, I'm not a solipsist, and I assume that others really are conscious. I make an act of faith in the sentience of others. The "solipsist's dilemma" is central to Chalmer's philosophy of mind (especially his comments on the Zombie Twin) and it also crops up (with better special effects) in Blade Runner and the revamped Battlestar Galactica. It also features (I think) in Gray's arguments about animal rights, and in a previous age it came into debates about whether non-Europeans were really human. (Such debates were naturally confined to Europe and the European diaspora.) 2) NIHILISM. The "burden of proof" argument requires me to assume that nothing has any meaning or value, until I encounter proof or evidence that some things do. No such proof or evidence can ever be offered, because assertions of meaning and value are always syllogistically dependent on prior assertions of meaning and value, and all the proof and evidence in the world is completely beside the point. Nevertheless, I make an act of faith that some things have meaning and value. Update: There's a better way of putting this. A nihilist believes nothing has any meaning. So, presumably, if you showed the nihilists evidence that something had meaning, it wouldn't convince them, because they wouldn't accept that the evidence itself had any meaning. As RD is no more a solipsist nor a nihilist than I am, it is plain that, like me, he has already made at least two major leaps of faith in violation of the strict rules of proof and evidence. Once he's made these leaps of faith, then in purely logical terms he might as well believe in God as well, if he feels there's any extraneous reason to. The rules of evidence and reason are already lying in ruins. Believing in God can't demolish them any further. It follows that the only reason for RD not to believe in God is because his intuition happens to tell him that God isn't there. Amusingly, intuition seems to lie at the core of Christopher Hitchen's argument for atheism. Early in "God is Not Great" CH describes a quasi-mystical moment of insight in which it was revealed to him that there was no God because he just knew there wasn't. As a believer, I recognise this sort of talk, and I know that it's his intuition against mine. Which is OK - neither of us is omniscient - but there's no need to muddy the waters by pretending to drag reason and evidence into it either way.

The objection of atheists to religionists is not a matter of intuition. It is simply the rubbishy arguments which are presented. Can a billion non-religionists be wrong?

Bluejay, The numbers come from http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html Just as religious groups have different denominations, so have the non-religious. Catholics and Protestants have many differences and the non-religious all reject religion but it doesn't make their viewpoints all exactly the same. The number of religionists would be about 5 billion. Since the population of the world is increasing rapidly, the numbers both of religionists and non-religionists have to be updated, but the world population has not yet reached 7 billion. I suggest that non-belief is a more recent stage in evolution since, historically, non-believers have been suppressed by religious tyranny and are only now coming to the fore.

Actually, it requires us to accept that the consciousness of others is uncertain (maybe unprovable), but likely (walks like a duck, etc.). If I said that I was absolutely certain that you were conscious, then I'd be making a leap of faith. As it is, I only believe that it's quite likely that you're conscious. (No offence.) In order for something to have meaning it simply has to mean something to you. In order for something to have value it only has to be valuable to you. They're relationships, not external properties. If this debate means something to you then what further proof could you have that it's meaningful? While intuition may often lie at the core of our beliefs, reason and evidence are vital aspects of our interaction with each other. If I intuitively believed that you wanted to be called Gerald, insisted that others should do the same but never bothered to offer any explanation or evidence for my belief I'd be considered a bit strange, to put it politely. We're all entitled to believe what we want - but if we want to influence other people, which we do on a daily basis, then we have to justify our beliefs as best we can. If you say that you have an intuitive knowledge of a God, then that's fine. Aside from pointing out that our intuitions can be wrong, there's nothing I can really say. If, on the other hand, you suggest that the cosmological argument is valid and that I should therefore believe in your God too, then we're into the realm of reason and evidence.

[QUOTE] Eric, July 19: A jury can discard the possibility that a supernatural being and not the accused, to whom the evidence pointed, actually committed the crime. A standard of proof which requires that non-evidence be given the same weight as evidence would prevent justice being done or any decision ever being reached.[/QUOTE] Irrational. Discussions of God are not criminal trials and the rules of evidence as (supposedly) practiced in criminal courts are not the same as whatever rules or methods we use to discuss religion. [QUOTE] Eric, July 19: Agnostics are wimps who won't accept their intellectual responsibilities.[/QUOTE] Intolerant as well as arbitrary. No one has any responsabilty to adhere to what belief system Eric advocates. To believe as agnostics do God is no more unprovable than provable is not weakness or cowardness. Agnostics believe it is a coherent application of the rules of evidence to religious subjects. [QUOTE] Eric, July 19: Atheism is the rejection of what is offered as evidence for the existence of supernatural beings[/QUOTE] When atheists categorically assert there is no GOD and no afterlife, atheists do more than just reject the other side's arguments: they make assertions they cannot prove. [QUOTE]It's not as if religionists got their religion from a process of investigation.[/QUOTE] In point of fact many intelligent people have reasoned their way to one form of religion or the other. [QUOTE] An atheist arrives at his conclusions by a rational process and leaves them open to revision.[/QUOTE] How can one arrive rationally at such fundamentally unprovable proposations as "there is no GOD" or "there is no afterlife?' [QUOTE] I don't think you'd prescribe medical treament for yourself, supposing you had no medical training or expertise. Yet, you are advocating the 'choice' of a religious stance on the basis of caprice[/QUOTE] Again, you persist in making absurd parallels. Just as religious discussion is not the same thing as criminal trials so it is not the same as medical practice and the methods and knowledge than help a physician diagnose and treat an illness do not apply to religious matters. [QUOTE]Adhering to a religion is the result of a process akin to brainwashing. Rejecting the results of this process comes from a rational consideration of the arguments, such as they are.[/QUOTE] Not true. Plenty of intelligent people have writen plenty of intelligent books to convince intelligent people to get into religion or to stay in it. And to fall from religion for such reason as that one has lost a child is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to tragedy, not a thoughtful consideration of the problem. [QUOTE] Eric, 21 July: I would contest the notion that only an élite is capable of discarding religion.[/QUOTE] I would contest the notion that scientific popularizers (ie Richard Dawkins and Steven Jay Gould) qualify as "elite" or that irreligion is a necessary attribute of elites. [QUOTE] eric, 21 July: Do you really consider genocide the unimportant product of an innocuous impulse to believe?[/QUOTE] A truly meaningless sentence as the nazis were not a religious group and indeed an anti-christian as well as anti-jewish party. Plenty might want to consider communist mass murder as the essential product of an inclination to atheism, however. [QUOTE] Eric, 22 July: Religion, as a rallying point, no doubt, was useful in promoting tribal solidarity. This is exactly what we don't want in the era of globalization and weapons of mass destruction.[/QUOTE] No doubt?!!! As a matter of fact, your identification of religion with tribalism is open to much doubt as several of the makor religions - Christianism, Islam and Muslim - claim universal significance and applicability. It would seem eric is being blinded by his a priori belief relegion is backward, thus his unthinking association of religion with tribal solidarities (themselves arbitrarily assumed to be retrograde.) [QUOTE] Eric, 7 August: I suggest that non-belief is a more recent stage in evolution since, historically, non-believers have been suppressed by religious tyranny and are only now coming to the fore. There was atheism in antiquity (Epicure) and in the middle ages (as evidenced in the writings of theologians who denounced it). Atheism is not more recent than religion, therefore. WHat more, by the standards presented by you in this quote, one may suggest that belief is a more recent stage in evolution since, historically, believers have been suppressed by atheistico-marxist tyranny and are not yet coming to the fore in China. [QUOTE] Matt Murrell, 7 August: the most important factor has likely been the rise of science - providing atheistic explanations of the world we inhabit and removing the "need" for religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] This sentence is most truly ignorant of the history of science! Science is the study of nature. It does not prove or disprove religious beliefs or the lack of them. [QUOTE] Matt Murrell: We're all entitled to believe what we want - but if we want to influence other people, which we do on a daily basis, then we have to justify our beliefs as best we can.[/QUOTE] Not true. Force of conviction (or force of cynicism and manipulation) is all we need to influence people. Do left and right parties ever justify their beliefs on such matters as taxes and war. No. But they can influence people into voting for them. Parents do not need to justify their beliefs to influence their children, ditto professors with their students. [QUOTE] Eric, 7 August: http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html[/QUOTE] You really need to be more specific than this, Eric. I have neither time nor inclination to go through this evidently rubish site. Please give me the specific page number where these people claim there are 1 billion atheists, so I can double check their methodology and see for myself if there is any merit to that assertion. Until you do so, I will have to stand by my claim the figue is fabricated.

Bluejay, As you correctly say, atheism is nothing new. What is (comparatively) new, is the advance of physical and biological science which is displacing religion in the lives of the citizens of developed countries. As you also say, in former communist countries atheist regimes suppressed religion which is making a comeback in the former Soviet Union and in China. We could also say that New Age fads and other superstitions are thriving as religion declines. Nevertheless, I wonder which of the thousands of religions do you maintain is true or useful?

The Dawkins theory is that credulity gives an evolutionary advantage. Children believe what their parents and older people tell them. This has the advantage that a child learns that fire burns and walking over a cliff edge is a bad idea, without actually having to make the experiment. Unfortunately, this credulity extends to believing religious nonsense because it comes from authority figures, although religious belief, in itself, has no evolutionary advantage.

Matt, Evolution hasn't stopped, I hope. What current evolutionary advantage do you see to religion? I see none.

There is a great deal of focus on the horribleness of Islam. Christianity is many times worse because it has the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In the UK, charity may as well be secular as religous. Have we secular people no heart? But the real work is done , in medical matters for example, by BUPA and the NHS. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

The gods are hypothetical persons, invented in primitive times to provide what we now consider bogus explanations for natural events. They are preserved, those that are not extinct, by religious organizations whose postion of influence depends on obsolete ideology

Discuss it.

Why do you have faith in your particular god? Isn't it because it's what were taught as a child?

Can you describe this god? What's wrong with the Jewish god, the Christian god, the milions of Hindu gods? As you say, some people convert from other religions to Islam. Also, Muslims decide that Islam is a fraud and reject religion or join other religions.

1- God dont resembel us to describe him, but all evidences exists and especially scientists know that, as iam a lay person, also we trust God and beleif in him, once i wrote about the oness of God in my previous posts, so no need now to repeat. 2- The God of jewish is the same God of christans and also for muslims and also for even unbelievers and hindu and all sorts of people eventhough they dont beleive in him. He is the one creates all of us. Believe it or not, this is the truth. i mean only people try to manipulate things and for me as a lay person, God is who creates all of us and one time all of us will see our good or bad deeds. 3- For me and plenty of people, their would be no sense or logic of living without God, u already knows how many people are dying injustly and do u think their would be no other life for those to be treated again justly and to take revenge for them from the just God. i dont think i can bare life without God, and thanks God that u are existing and it is only one God who creates all of us from flesh and bones. 4- if u will say why their is fight between 3 relegions if our God is the same, so u know that the war is not becasue of difference in God, it is becasue of power and authority and only materialistic things, we like or not like , our God is the same and only becasue we dont have boradminded mentality , we want to fight for fake execuses. do u like to die and no body will reward u for u good deeds in u temporarily life ?