1. Watched this on Monday, was a great watch. Can't wait for the 2nd part next Monday!

Fluohug at 8:50PM on Aug 14th 2007

2. Well, it looks like teh religion that is called science has a new pope. LOL I do understand that
a lot of hokus pocus adds and helps people get thru the day. Mr. Dawkins can and will prove to a lot of people that
but the one thing, he can never prove, which he stanands on top of the mountain
calling out to anyone and everyone, that if it cannot be measured, graphed or proven, that such things are not true.
The one thing, ha and everyone else cannot prove, is that there is no God. Yes, a lot of mumbo jumbo is out there, screwing with people
taking their money, which, I'm sorry to say, belief in God does the same thing. But hope that life does have meaning and that we do have a creator
is enough to get me thru the day, much less my life.

Stephen at 2:50AM on Aug 15th 2007

3. Stephen, I'm not going to get into a 5000 word essay in how many wrong things in that one comment there is but here is some.

1: Argument from final Consequences
Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

You saying that it gets alot of people through the day does not show that God exists aswell as have no data, as countries in Europe are doing just fine, like the one I'm living in right at this moment.
Along with that the comment about science having a new pope is wrong on so many levels. Science in it's self does not go "ok today we are going to say that the world is round" as the pope at the time and the church teaching it was flat.
Noone can prove there is no God, yet you can't prove there is agod (without using man made books like the bible with no real facts you can class as prove). It's like the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://www.venganza.org/ ). Aswell you just saying about him saying that if it can't be measured, graphed or proven which in it's self is kind of odd using measured, graphed OR proven, as there is quite alot more if you read into science. Anyway so you're saying that if I can't prove that there isn't ghosts it means that ghosts are still real? In some way that's falls into the other logical fallacy.

2:Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gapsâ" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

Fluohug at 4:16AM on Aug 15th 2007

4. Fluohug says you can't prove the existance of God without using the Bible. I say you can.

C. S. Lewis did it. He was an atheist. He was a great thinker. He reasoned it out from nature it's self. If you have an open mine and really desire knowledge read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. If you just don't want to believe in God because if there is one you would be answerable to him then don't read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.

john e. murdock at 11:00AM on Aug 15th 2007

5. "Well, it looks like teh religion that is called science has a new pope"

Although scientists make mistakes and even lie, science, in direct opposition to religion, is self-correcting. A falsehood in science will ultimatley be exposed, whereas the whole work of religion is to protect cherished falsehoods, even if torture, murder and genocide are needed to do it.

The argument "you can't prove that god doesn't exist" cuts both ways. Christians cannot prove that Shiva doesn't exist, although their religion insists that he cannot. This reduces to mere solipsism. All of creation becomes nothing but a fantasyland of the individual's making; the entire universe is but a projection of your bloated ego. This is precisely what the bible warned against as "vanity."

You may contiunue to defend this argument on what you imagine are logical grounds, but it's childish and, frankly, revolting.

Finally, while I cannot prove that god does not exist, I can prove that there's no need for him to exist. And that's all I need.

raindogx at 11:07AM on Aug 15th 2007

6. CS Lewis wasn't an atheist, and he didn't show that there is a god. His arguments are childish and pedestrian.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:19PM on Aug 15th 2007

7. Enemies of reason use "holy place" to mean a geographical site where a prophet was buried, or ascend to heaven, or where a prophet and his group of followers built a temple. Not so with Mount Zion. Read the following:

Where is Mount Zion? “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews)

Alan Klaus at 2:05PM on Aug 15th 2007

8. Religious jibberish, no matter what the literary value is still jibberish. It can mean anything one wants. It has no objective reality and even slight variations in interpretation have led to lengthy and deadly conflicts. For anyone to argue that religion makes the world better is prima facie evidence of a shocking lack of historical knowledge. The prevailing modus operandi of most religions is that they are mutually exclusive and each claims a monopoly on the nature of the god or gods being advocated. The punishment for those who don't accept the orthodoxy in the past was usually torture and death and theological damnation in the next life. Here we are in the 21st century and there is still torture and death and eternal damnation. George Santayana was right.

eric at 2:39PM on Aug 15th 2007

9. I hope this program is broadcast in the United States soon - we live in the most religious nation in the Western world, but I have a sense that the number of questioning and rational-minded agnostics, atheists and non-affiliated spiritually minded people is slowly growing here

roger at 3:50PM on Aug 15th 2007

10. C.S. Lewis was in his early days an atheist. He thought through it and came to the only logical conclusion, that there must be a God. When he met God face to face, as we all will, he met him as a born again Christian and was welcomed into heaven.

Those who choose, and I emphasize the word choose, to deny that God exists will meet God face to face as an atheist and will not be welcomed into heaven. God has created another, less inviting, home for atheists.

john e. murdock at 4:48PM on Aug 15th 2007

11. Jeff, Thank you for your blog. As always, you bring interesting subjects to our attention. I will not, nor can any of us debate the existance of God. You either have faith or you don't. We call it faith because it is not evidenced based.
I will, however, comment on the prevailing anti-science movement in this country.
Tonight I will look at the stars. I will see galaxies whose light it has taken billions of years to travel to my backyard. I am insulted by those who claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, who state that Darwin's theories are based upon bad science and who claim that the billions of tons of carbon that we put in our atmosphere each day has no effect upon our earth. Right or wrong, I am encouraged by Dawkins ability to make us put our cards on the table.

Steve Seivers at 6:17PM on Aug 15th 2007

12. CS Lewis wasn't an atheist. I always find it hilarious when some christian didn't go to church for 3 weeks and says "that was my atheist period".

And don't think you can threaten people with some mythical boogeyman, john. That's childish.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:45PM on Aug 15th 2007