Richard Dawkins_650x250

WHAT WOULD YOU ASK RICHARD DAWKINS?

Posted on by

This Monday April 16, questions from you, the audience, will be put to Richard Dawkins.

For your question to be considered, please leave a comment below by 10am Monday April 16.

Dawkins appears as part of Ideas at the House  - our year round series of stimulating conversation and provocative debate by the world’s greatest minds.

Also coming up is America’s greatest living composer Steve Reich on April 26 and bestselling author and journalist Michael Pollan on July 10.

COMMENTS
105

  1. Wade Fairclough on said:

    Do you believe that those who believe in a higher being have a lesser understanding of the universe and its workings. If not, then why are so many scientists athiests?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      I would say not necessarily a higher understanding of the universe, rather, a higher understanding of what constitutes an explanation in the scientific sense (as opposed to a just-so story sense).

      Reply ↓
    • zach on said:

      I have an understanding of energy and theories of the Universe ie big bang, multiverses, entropy etc.. but cannot discount the idea of ‘God.’ The problem with Dawkins is that he cannot make allowances for very complex understandings of ‘God’ simply stating Krauss and his theory that the universe came from a nothing that is actually a something. They have missed the point. They have missed the profound idea that hes bugged philosophers and theologians for a long time. The concept of nothing. Krauss refers to a universal soup where universes pop in and out of existence. I refer to absolutely nothing no energy nothing no darkness no nothing. Was there ever a moment in ‘time’ where there was nothing? What was the first thing? The first piece of energy and where did it come from? We almost know that before the big bang there was something. What about before that and before that? The concept of infinite time is another paradox. ‘God’ is the force that binds everything. The force that binds the universe and whatever was before it and will be after it; together.

      Reply ↓
  2. Blake Milton on said:

    Why is the truth better for people than a comforting lie?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      It depends on consequences. Belief in a comforting lie (“you don’t need to stop smoking because cigarettes don’t harm you”) can be fatal.

      Reply ↓
  3. Benjamin Dodds on said:

    Given the all-too-common breakdown of debate that occurs when somebody erroneously asks why there are still apes if we evolved from them, how can the true process of evolution be taught to people who assume they already know it?

    Reply ↓
  4. Tim Whiddon on said:

    I long for a scientifically-literate society that sets its social and financial priorities accordingly. What can be done to convince large numbers that reason and logic are the only viable paths to knowledge, when astonishingly many intelligent people don’t believe it to be so?

    Reply ↓
  5. Lisa Warnes on said:

    There seems to be an increasing amount of complaint from some sectors (including Atheists) that Atheists/Humanists movements are starting to become as obnoxious and self righteous as Religious groups. I believe that after over 2000 years of nonsense its about time Atheists had a voice. What is your perspective on on this – are we doing more harm than good?

    Reply ↓
  6. Jan on said:

    If given free reign, how would you “fix” the current state of religion?

    Reply ↓
  7. Franscois McHardy on said:

    Considering the prevalence of religious belief and superstition in humans, do you believe there is a genetic proclivity in our species toward gullibility that may render some individuals or groups congenitally impervious to reason?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      The prevalence of superstitution implies a tendency to seek explanations. This is adaptive because sometimes they’re right, and when they’re wrong it often doesn’t matter that much. A requirement that the explanations are scientific in some sense is less well developed, and maybe only arises from abstract reason.

      Reply ↓
  8. Brian Stratton on said:

    Why have homo-sapiens been so fixated with gods and religion, virtually from DAY 1? Just about every culture has partcipated in worshiping of some kind or another. Is it just basicly a flaw in our make up that we cannot trust ourselves to get through a day on our own ability and resourcefulness?

    Reply ↓
  9. Melody Lord on said:

    You have said, “Science is the poetry of reality”. Do you think the world would be a better place without poetry, music and art?

    Reply ↓
  10. MATTHEW SUMMERS on said:

    Professor Dawkins, do you still recieve hate mail, like the mail you read out on youtube? And have you ever replied? :D

    Reply ↓
  11. MATTHEW SUMMERS on said:

    Professor Dawkins, How does Australia’s Cardinal George Pell compare to other church figures you have had discussions / debate with?

    Reply ↓
  12. Sam on said:

    You suggest that we have a constant source of beauty and awe in science, and that this is more real and thus valuable than religion.That’s easy for a brilliant Oxonian Professor to say, but where does it leave people who find scientific thinking impossibly difficult?

    Reply ↓
  13. Mark Hall on said:

    What do you make of the American Christian group ‘Invisible Children’ and the Kony 2012 Fiasco?

    Reply ↓
  14. Geoff kelly on said:

    Some see the prevalence of homosexuality as a natural state of population management. Do you think this is an evolutionary response to over crowding on our planet?

    Reply ↓
  15. Brendan Doherty on said:

    How do you reconcile quantum mechanics with determinism/causality?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      Why would anyone need to reconcile quantum mechanics with determinism?
      If you believe in the first you’re unlikely to believe in the second in a strict sense. There is a looser sense: quantum mechanics determines the probabilities, and for statistical reasons that often determines the macro outcome so surely that exceptions are unlikely to have arisen in the age of the universe.
      Causality is a separate issue. How does Quantum mechanics conflict with that?

      Reply ↓
  16. Patricia Healy on said:

    What are the possible evolutionary advantages for humans in being religious? Do you think this will die out as a trait in the future?

    Reply ↓
  17. Jason Yip on said:

    What is your considered response to Neil Degrasse Tyson’s comment that your antagonistic approach makes you less effective as an educator?

    Reply ↓
  18. Richard Likht on said:

    Hearing your talk with Krauss the other day; Krauss said that by measuring the expansion of the universe we can determine the beginning. If a beginning must have an end, Considering the idea that there will be no abrupt “the end” but a gradual ending spanning a process of maybe thousands or millions of years; With you theory of evolution very simplified as ‘a gradual adaptation to environments over generations’, is it possible that we may adapt with this process, maybe even beyond the ending of our universe?

    Reply ↓
  19. Mike Ward on said:

    Should we consider direct human manipulation of an organism’s genome – for example the creation ‘designer babies’ – to be a rational and entirely natural consequence of the Darwinian evolution of human achievement. If so, does this make it ethically acceptable.

    Reply ↓
  20. Anthony killeen on said:

    What are your views on Sam Harris’ recent book, Free Will?

    Reply ↓
  21. Rosemary King on said:

    Professor Dawkins,
    I was enchanted by your book The Greatest Show on Earth and am a firm believer in the Magic of Reality . I loved the example of elephants’ tusks shrinking in response to poaching of the larger tusked variety and the fact the shrinkage was evident over such a short period of time. What is your favourite example of evolutionary change in animals? Which one do you find the most fascinating? Is it a Darwin special?

    Reply ↓
  22. Kelly Peterson on said:

    Following what Francois says above, given the high percentage of people who believe (in something) today, is there a genetic benefit that lead to this majority of our species wanting to have faith? If so…. what is the benefit?

    Reply ↓
  23. Luke Cartner on said:

    In your opinion how significant is the role of radical mutation in the development and divergence of various species? Or to put it another way; do species evolve by the certain members of the species having traits that increase their survivalibility or breedability incrementally improving over time (that is generations)? or by the leveraging of random positive (and possibly radical) mutations by key members of the species?
    And where do you believe endogenous retroviruses fit into all this?
    This is an argument I have had with a friend since high school as he believes radical mutation is the primary source of evolutionary variation, while I feel it may be more complicated.

    Reply ↓
  24. Russell Warrick on said:

    QUESTION ON INFLATION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF OUR UNIVERSE BEING A STATISTICAL COSMIC FLUKE:
    I’m reading both of your latest books at the moment (Lawrence and Richard)and one thing I’m interested in is the theory of inflation proposed by Alan Guth that addresses anomalies in the Big Bang Model. As we know with inflation it proposes the idea that the universe expanded by a huge factor of the order of 10^50 in a split second, but for conditions to have been favourable to trigger
    the onset of inflation it would be statisically highly unlikely.

    Based on this, do you think that the origin of the universe is one huge statistical cosmic fluke?
    Or perhaps actually it was not a huge fluke as such (although still unlikely) and maybe other
    inflations happened spawning other universes as well as ours?

    Reply ↓

  25. Professor Dawkins,
    What are your views on the limits on freedom of speech ? I’m conflicted on this question, on one hand we have the rise of anti-science “experts” ( ranging from anti-vax to climate change denial ) of the world making stuff up on the fly confusing as many people as possible. On the other hand the vast majority would dearly love the atheists/freethinkers/agnostics/others to just go away and stop wrecking their story.

    Reply ↓
  26. Al Hockey on said:

    Do you believe that organized religious entities are part of a natural course of the development of human organisms? If so, might they eventually be replaced by more efficient, more beneficial systems of human interaction?

    Reply ↓
  27. dave on said:

    Social conditioning has proved to be nearly impossible to change, believers will continue to have faith through result of abusive irresponsible education. Do you see an age of reason in the near future? Or will we continue to see passed down child abuse from generation to generation subsequently never ridding the world of irrational thinking. Is there a place for government to regulate lies as child abuse?

    Reply ↓
  28. John Kolotas on said:

    Despite many trying, and with science and rationality on our side, atheists and agnostics have a huge job ahead of us even convincing some religious folk that dinosaurs and humans did not in fact live at the same time. The very nature of blind faith is often so deeply held, that rational arguments are useless. How do we better break through this barrier where rational scientific thought comes up against such blind faith?

    Reply ↓
  29. Graeme on said:

    Given that most religious people aren’t about to quit their beliefs in a hurry, and that religion tends to evolve rather than dramatically change – what would be your top three recommendations to religious people that would move them in what you would consider a positive direction for our planet and the wellbeing of the world community?

    Reply ↓
  30. Graeme on said:

    There are benefits and payoffs for just about everything. Religion has a very spotted history, but I wonder what do you consider are the beneficial (or semi-beneficial) reasons that underlie religious belief and practice? How can atheism (and agnosticism) meet the needs these benefits address?

    If things aren’t useful they tend to fade away. How can society find new ways to meet the needs in a better way so religion loses its usefulness in favour of better alternatives? How do you see this taking place?

    Reply ↓
  31. Dian Henson-Shields on said:

    Can you “simply” explain the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist please? I believe there is a profound difference but I’m constantly faced with – “they are the same” – which I don’t believe to be true. Thank you!!! :-)

    Reply ↓
    • DRJONES on said:

      For me it goes like this: “a-theist” translates as “no god”, “anti-theist” translates as “against god”.

      When it comes to the Christian and Islamic gods in particular I am an anti-theist; that is, if these gods did exist in the form described in their scripture then I would be against them, because I find their principles obnoxious and horrible (demanding children be sacrificed, “Iam a jealous God”, etc).

      When it comes to Buddhistm, Hinduism, Greek gods, etc, I’m more of an atheist- in the main
      I find these gods less offensive to humanist principles (and some are even downright likeable), but alas, the evidence suggests that they are highly unlikely to exist.

      Reply ↓
  32. Graeme on said:

    If there was a God and if s/he was listening and would answer, what questions would you ask? What responses do you think might be given?

    Reply ↓
  33. Graeme on said:

    In an ideal world in the future, how do you see religion and spirituality unfolding/evolving? What aspects would you keep and why? What would you see change – how and why?

    Reply ↓
  34. Graeme on said:

    What do you consider to be the five most ridiculous major things about religions?

    Reply ↓
  35. Graeme on said:

    What do you see as the factors that will bring about the extinction of religion? As you gaze into the future, what evolving journey do you see for religion on the way to extinction?

    Reply ↓
  36. Graham fairbairn on said:

    You’ve now been actively campaigning as an atheist spokesman for many years now, yet you still come up against the same arguments from the religious who misunderstand natural selection and misunderstand your arguments against God. Do you ever get frustrated? Will you ever retire?

    Reply ↓
  37. Varsha on said:

    What are your thoughts on Buddhism which is essentially an atheistic philosophy?
    Why is there less controversy in being a Buddhist vs an atheist ?

    Reply ↓
  38. rizkibizniz on said:

    What do you say to people who are nonbelievers but care less about how religion is spreading inaccurate picture of reality, thereby affecting public policy making, and prefer to sit and embrace religion and decide to make an atheist tower to gaze at instead?

    Reply ↓
  39. anonymous on said:

    What is going to be our best method of getting rid of Religion?

    Reply ↓
  40. Jess Barry on said:

    Professor Dawkins, what do you see as probable evolutionary changes to our species in the future?

    Reply ↓
  41. Aaron on said:

    Are you in agreement with your “colleague” Sam Harris where free will is concerned? Does it exist?

    Reply ↓
  42. S Kumar on said:

    Some critics have labelled you as a “militant” atheist. What is your comment on this label and what do you say to critics to justify aggressively promoting atheism.

    Reply ↓
  43. Troy Chapman on said:

    Given that your confrontation approach to religion and the religious isn’t changing minds, do you believe a more scientific approach is required?

    Reply ↓
  44. Dian Henson-Shields on said:

    Please explain the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist I feel they are profoundly different but others say they are the same – I wonder if you would please set things straight – thank you!

    Reply ↓
  45. mike wilson on said:

    If the empirical evidence proved that taking a less antagonistic stance was more likely to yield positive results in the battle with religion, would you adapt your style?

    Reply ↓
  46. Nic on said:

    Do you think that since the majority of mainstream religion came into being, mainly between 2500 and 1000 years ago our brain has evolved as well as our understaning to question the illogical basis of these organisations. Could it be that religion was used as almost as a safety blanket to help with their own understanding for the evolving brain?

    Reply ↓
  47. Nic on said:

    Did you think Cardinal Pell is a dinosaur?

    Reply ↓
  48. John Crawford on said:

    What are the evolutionary implications of the increasing global birth rate and most churches’ ban on birth control? Is apocalypse inevitable?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      Is the global birth rate increasing? The latest data I can find says it’s still decreasing – just not fast enough.

      Reply ↓
  49. Tom Sheer on said:

    Do you think religion is doing as much harm now as it was say 3 or 4 centuries ago?

    Reply ↓
  50. Sue on said:

    Professor Dawkins,
    Do you agree with Karl Popper that nothing is ever proven and that we proceed at present with the information we have to date and must be ready to change our minds when
    new data appears? If so, you cannot be an atheist, only an agnostic. what are your thoughts on this?

    Reply ↓
    • Derek Bolton on said:

      A related question arose in the Q&A with Pell. The answer, in effect, is that there is no evidence that could possibly be strong enough to justify a belief in a deity. There will always be simpler (in a scientific sense) explanations, such as delirium.

      Reply ↓
  51. Sam Frazer on said:

    Do you think atheism and reason can eventually become the overwhelmingly dominant philosophy of humanity? Or is the atheist movement destined to be a balancing antithesis to religious dogma?

    Reply ↓
  52. Greg Madsen on said:

    You have said that you despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live. Likewise, you reject religion as a source of guidance for our morality and values. Do you think there is a universal set of moral principles that we should follow? If so, where do those principles come from?

    Reply ↓
    • Philip Au on said:

      Religious people often ridicule atheists for believing that ‘life comes from non life’ and ‘something comes from nothing’. My question is, are these logical oppositions simply labels used for human understanding like naming and distinguishing species (evolution is a continuous and gradual process) and that such dichotomy does not actually exist in reality?

      Reply ↓
  53. Nina on said:

     
    What is your opinion on Alain de Botton’s notion that atheist’s need to erect monuments, form groups or have meetings to celebrate their atheism? Do you think this religious like behaviour may eventually lead to the process of non-thinking that atheism should oppose?

    Reply ↓
  54. Alexander Whitfield on said:

    In order to make atheism more widely understood and to combat ‘un-reason’ you have suggested implementing a form of conciousness raising, similar to that used in promoting gender equality, while Sam Harris has suggestes ‘conversational intolerance’. How can this be done politely, given our needs to keep friends and function in the workplace?

    Reply ↓
  55. Andrew Hodge on said:

    Professor Dawkins, I think that we are approaching a critical juncture in our development as a society where we must throw off the security blanket of religion and move on? Antagonism between religious beliefs and scientific quest for knowledge seem to be escalating. How best do you think we can manage this in our quest to develop and evolve as a society?

    Reply ↓
  56. Benjamin Fairley on said:

    Could you spend a few minutes talking about Christopher Hitchens?

    Reply ↓
  57. Roseanne on said:

    Is there anything you would like to say to the next generation of biologists?

    Reply ↓
  58. Philip Au on said:

    Religious people often ridicule atheists for believing that ‘life comes from non life’ and ‘something comes from nothing’. My question is, are these logical oppositions invented for our convenience like naming and distinguishing species (evolution is a continuous and gradual process – not as depicted in pokemon) and that such dichotomy does not actually exist in reality?

    Reply ↓
  59. Matthew on said:

    Hi Richard,
    What are your thoughts that humans evolved in other galaxies and the humanoid form is older than the records found on earth?

    Reply ↓
  60. Dian Henson-Shields on said:

    Prof Dawkins you know yourself better than anyone else on the planet – knowing your feelings & opinions toward everythink, knowing “all about you” as you do —- what would you ask yourself? Or would you rather pass on that particular question? Thank you

    Reply ↓
  61. Derek Bolton on said:

    Prof Dawkins, you have written that evolution would be falsifiable by an example of genuine irreducibility. But how could a feature ever be proven to be genuinely irreducible? Would it not always be possible to argue that we simply haven’t figured out the reduction yet?

    Reply ↓
  62. Cathy on said:

    Professor Dawkins you advocate reason and scientific method as a basis of rejection of theism. Another prominent atheist Sam Harris argues that science is not enough and humans need a form of “rational spirituality” or “mysticism” to be complete

    Reply ↓
  63. Cathy on said:

    Professor Dawkins you advocate reason and scientific method as a basis of rejection of theism. Another prominent atheist Sam Harris argues that science is not enough and humans need a form of “rational spirituality” or “mysticism” to be complete. Please comment

    Reply ↓
  64. Paul Atkin on said:

    Professor Dawkins: I’d be interested to hear your comments on the view that the real conflict underlying that between religious belief and atheism is a conflict between two different ways of using the mind – on the one hand, processing experience through the filters of unquestioned received ‘wisdom’, and on the other, processing it through the filters of open-minded enquiry and evidence-based reasoning; and that disputes over the truth or falsehood of religious beliefs distract attention from this underlying conflict.

    I’d also like to hear your comments on the idea that spiritual practices such as meditation can provide benefits that improve the quality of our subjective experience and our awareness, and so it’s important not to throw out the spiritual baby with the religious bathwater.

    Reply ↓
  65. Ben on said:

    The wider community now knows you as an atheist first and evolutionary biologist second. It appears that you now spend a great deal of time discussing religion and less time discussing the science that makes you one of the greatest recent contributors to biology. How do you maintain your research interests outside religion and were you aware when you wrote The God Delusion that your career would eventually be hijacked by it?

    Reply ↓
  66. Ben on said:

    Next month it will be 10 years since the renowned evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould passed away. In your opinion, who has filled the void created by Gould’s death, and, as a supplementary question, do you miss him?

    Reply ↓
  67. Cristina herris on said:

    If you were a horse, what colour would you be?

    Reply ↓
  68. Alyson Hewett on said:

    How can children who have been brought up in a religious family question their ideologies when religion is still deeply entrenched in our education system? And how can these children fight those who are actively trying to discredit scientists in contemporary society?

    Reply ↓
  69. Jeff Atkins on said:

    The Greeks started ‘it’ by saying “god is within you” meaning your nous! This is neat and logical…..until the first world marketing people said it would not be a money making proposition.
    My question is….do you think there would be more people put out of work in the world religions if this Greek truth / observation is revealed? or do you think many people will be employed going around saying god is within them????

    Reply ↓
  70. Vasantha Rengaswamy on said:

    Professor Dawkins,
    What are your views on the possibiliy that “God” may not be apart from creation but part of it?
    Thank-you

    Reply ↓
  71. Rhys Acker on said:

    Professor Dawkins,

    How do you manage to stay sane in the face of such overwhelming ignorance?

    Reply ↓
  72. Clive Cooper on said:

    Religious communities give their congregation a sense of belonging, friendship, structure, purpose, social activities and comfort.
    Apart from a perceived truth, what does atheism give a community?

    Reply ↓
  73. Laurie Meintjes on said:

    Dear Professor Dawkins

    I suspect that a great many more Christians are praying for you than for Cardinal Pell. Is this an exquisite irony, or a pure waste of time?

    Reply ↓
  74. Andrew Harrison on said:

    Professor Dawkins, what is your view on the IQ system that ranks intelligence?

    Reply ↓
  75. Ben Faunce on said:

    Do you feel that advances in medical science & technology will have an impact on human evolution? In other words, are we in control now?

    Reply ↓
  76. Libby Hunn on said:

    With so many questions about the universe, the earth, and science unanswered as yet, does it frustrate or upset you to know that the majority of your questions about these will go unanswered in your life time?

    Reply ↓
    • Libby Hunn on said:

      Cause it frustrates me!

      Reply ↓
  77. Gina on said:

    If a child asks you about god, what would be an appropriate response?

    Reply ↓
  78. Chris on said:

    A question for Richard Dawkins:

    Evolution is predicated upon the idea of natural selection giving rise to organisms that are better adapted to their environments and in that sense evolution means improvement.

    Putting aside the ethical implications for a moment, given that modern society has used medical advances and the social safety net to protect people who might otherwise perish, including people with serious disabilities, allowing them to reproduce in some cases, are we interfering with the process of evolution in a negative way? How are we influencing evolution through our actions?

    Reply ↓
  79. Chris on said:

    You have proposed the meme as a unit of information analogous to the gene that propagates information across people, societies and generations. This idea seems to be descriptive rather than explanatory. Could you make this concept more concrete by outlining some of the underlying psychological mechanisms?

    What does the concept of the meme say about the human mind?

    What determines how pervasive and persistent a meme will be?

    When an online video goes viral (i.e. spreads over the Internet and becomes widely popular) is this an example of a meme?

    Reply ↓
  80. Troy Chapman on said:

    Richard, you say looking before the big bang would be like “looking North of north” don’t we have a duty as sciencists to discover how time and the explosion was created, like we are looking for the formula for how life was created.

    Reply ↓
  81. Michelle Dance on said:

    One thing I struggle with, but rarely verbalise for fear of offending people, is my inability to reconcile intelligence with a belief in an interventionist God. It seems to be equally plausible for an intelligent person to believe in Santa Clause as to believe in God. How do you reconcile the contradiction between those who otherwise appear intelligent, with a capacity for critical thought and reason, with those same people believing in an imaginary omnimptent and omnipresent man in the sky?

    Reply ↓
  82. Magnus Bjørnshave-Hansen on said:

    Would you say we can call atheists a minority, as in: living a is less favorable life – less rights, being put aside/outside society, being treated diffirently than the majority -> (the believers and the ones who hasn’t taken a stand yet, agnostics and so on…)

    Reply ↓
  83. Elina on said:

    Professor Dawkins, we believe that natural selection has shaped our senses and intellectual capacities (the way we think). How do we know that science (that relies on senses and rules of deduction) produces true knowledge about the world instead of just being a adaptive survival strategy? Can’t it be that we believe( and science confirms) a scientific truth X to be true just because it’s adaptive to believe that X is true?

    Reply ↓
    • Chris on said:

      Science is able to be publically verified through facts whereas religion must be taken on faith. So even if having a scientific belief is adaptive it can be empirically verified. Therefore, science and religion cannot be equated on the grounds that they both provide people with adaptive beliefs.

      Reply ↓
  84. Russell Warrick on said:

    EVOLUTION IN A BILLION YEARS TIME:
    Hypothetically if the human race survived another one billion years would we be as differently evolved then as what we were form the organisms we originally evolved from?!

    Reply ↓
    • Russell Warrick on said:

      actually maybe a few hundred thousand years would suffice!

      Reply ↓

  85. If there is no god, how do you explain love, passion, kindness, imagination, inspiration….?

    Reply ↓
  86. Greg Skelton on said:

    One great quote (unsourced) is “religion thrives on ignorance and dissipates through knowledge”. Despite massive scientific advancement over the years, as was evidenced by your recent appearance on Australian TV with Cardinal George Pell, here we have the head of the Catholic Church in Australia clearly unfamiliar with Neanderthal man in an evolutuionary context and also stating that Adam & Eve was mythological – which would be of massive significance to millions of catholics around the world whom believe that the story is literal.

    These simple examples show the ignorance still evident throughout this country and the world yet we are doing almost nothing to teach our children to think these issues through. How and when (if at all) do you see us overcoming this “diseducation” in terms of adults and also particularly during our children’s formative years?

    Reply ↓
  87. Colin Shone on said:

    Were you raised in a religious household or a free thinking, questioning family.If the latter,do you understand the trauma of the individual with regards to abandoning a belief with the Churches “give me the child and I will give you the man”method of lifetime indoctrination?

    Reply ↓
  88. Brett Acton on said:

    How would you define a Religion?
    (Football is a Religion and has a deity – Lionel Messi is a God :) )
    Is atheism a Religion ?
    Is Buddhism atheistic?

    Reply ↓
  89. Jacquie Biggs on said:

    Do you think the USA will ever elect an atheist president?

    Reply ↓
  90. Ian Matthews on said:

    Have do you answer religion’s claim that the apparent fine tuning of the universe is proof of a designer?

    Reply ↓
  91. Ian Matthews on said:

    If you had the ability to either travel forward in time as far as you wanted to watch evolution unfold, or to travel back in time to the very beginning to watch it happen, which would you choose?

    Reply ↓
  92. Ian Matthews on said:

    It was explained to me by a woman on a Christian forum last week that evolution can’t be true because she was told in the 60’s that due to an increase in intelligence, our heads would be three times as large now as they were then. I promised her that I would ask you if your hat size has increased over the last 50 years.

    Reply ↓
  93. blake on said:

    what do you say to those whose defense on the small-town, common religious believer is “they aren’t hurting anyone, let them do what they want to do.”

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>