believers v. non-believers; a mis-representation of atheism.  It is interesting that the seemingly permanent target of atheism is Christianity, not Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Mormonism, or any other ‘faith’ system.  I’ve yet to understand why atheism is so militant against one particular faith system and not others.  Maybe a series on that topic would be good.

Darwin was wrong on many counts - however I think he was sincere in trying to explain the natural world to the best of his ability fitting with his own philosphy of society.

Natural Selection fails. If NS was true, then when a child is born with a birth defect, we would immediately end the life of that child or let it die.  For some reason we don’t do that - in fact we try our best to make the life of that child as normal as possible.  If we really let NS rule us, then we would be no better than what the Nazis attempted during WW2.

I find it interesting that even Dawkins admits that he must have some faith in Darwinian Evolution, yet he balks at anyone that is a Christian for their step of faith.  According to Dawkins’ thinking, we are nothing more than chance arrangements of DNA without any purpose in life.  Carl Sagan thought the same way.  And he was wrong too.
“The Universe is all there is, all there was, and all there will be.” Really? Carl just negated the Big Bang.

Darwinian Evolution is the pernicious lie.  It does not have an explanation for why we are here, nor does it provide an air-tight explanation for how we got here (if it did, then Dawkins would have no need for having ‘faith’ in it).  Despite these two failings of Evolution (NS), it is amazing to me how many people accept it as truth without question and yet there is no ‘real’ proof for NS.

Finally, I think the dialogue in this segment is self-serving for the two atheists in the video - which is fine, just not balanced.

This was a very provocative interview. I admire and respect Dawkins’ integrity as a man of science, and I have often pondered, and been personally stumped by, the argument that our sense of wonderment at the universe is an unwilling testament to our innate (if denied, or neglected) religiosity. I find Dawkins’ explanation to be acceptable, although admittedly I have a hard time using the same argument to answer the much larger and more fundamental question: “Why is it all here in the first place? What (or who) is the First Mover?” I’m still grappling with this question, and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future and beyond. But so far I continue to cleave to the increasingly-gauche “God” explanation, although perhaps in this respect Dawkins would care to argue that I am not, in fact, religious at all.

Commenting on Tom’s assertion that there is no absolute truth, I suggest mathematics as the closest approximation, complemented by logical rules. Mathematics applies across time and space, and it may be the nearest thing to an enduring entity that controls our lives that we might ever have even the possibility of fully discovering.

Lastly, I’d like to comment that I wish discussions of theism in general, and religion more particularly, were characterized by a greater willingness to exchange rather than espouse. The “comment” form on a website is difficult because exchange is time-delayed and not even linear in most cases. But beyond that, to not engage in honest exchanges concerning theology and spirituality reduces us all to name- calling - one side “dunce” and the other side “demon.”

Michele, what you don’t understand is that your reports of your “personal experiences with god” become nothing more than hearsay when you pass them along to others, or they then pass them along further.

All you can honestly say is that no one has yet presented evidence that has obviated your experience of what you have interpreted as “god.”

All I can honestly say of your claims about god is you present no evidence.

What you call evidence is the authority of your claims, which you expect others to accept AGAINST the evidence of their own experience.

This isn’t god. It’s you trying to impose your views and interpretation of them on others. You admit as much in sentencewhere you note “just because someone claims something and say they have evidence does not mean their evidence is correct.” That is exactly how I feel about your assertions of your experience, which you frame as some uber-deity/superhero that controls the cosmos and talks to you.