Root of all Evil. The Virus of Faith part 5 end

[unixmatrix]

the best part of the documentary.... the world would be far more better without this mental virus. We have enough reasons to be nice folks without any special official dogma. look at the cimps. They have it in their DNA. And we have it too

[willbond]

Thanks for posting (and I'll skip the Celebrity Big Brother...).

[lordlacolith]

"Channel 4 next: Celebrity Big Brother"

Classy.

[wretchedyo]

Haha this kind of radical atheism is just like communism. The idea was supposedly good and/or atleast wouldnt hurt anyone, but what came out of it? Oppression.

Fact is that evolutionism is a religion in itself, so preaching it over anything else in such a direct manner makes you just as bad as a conservative christian trying to force shit down your throat.

[LipanConjuring8519]

@wretchedyo Well, evolution deals with FACT. Therefore it can't possibly be a religion. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is in principle, a theory. Are you going to deny that???

[gamper33]

Damn, after watching this whole documentary I'm so relieved and grateful that I'm non brainwashed free thinker.

[CitizenICREDIBLE]

My Fellow atheists. U rock.

[Nnayram37]

Dear "Brutus Cass". Thank you so much for placing the series on You Tube. Dawkins is explaining exactly the things I was confused about ,since I am raised as a catholic, but I experience that the absolute morality of the Bible doesn't fit in the way I live my life. Richard made me realise that the confusion is actually very ligimate . I am a huge fan. Again thank you.

[nadoeloiskat]

where's all the bones and fossiles from half-elephant/half mammoth animal? Or did elephant just turned up into mammoth in one generation? P.S. just answer the question and dont give any religious BS.

[Wiilovewii]

but that very privilege that makes us yearn for an eternal life, a pain free life that is beyond the limitations of a material body etc. I want to be eternal, for I deeply feel eternal...or I am just a hopeless romantic :D

[meshyis]

Beautiful, thank you.

[Schwarzkald]

What a dilemma! Humans are more evolved than Chimps, and the majority of Humans do believe in a power greater than themselves in this case G-d, which Chimps do not believe in G-d, doing this comparison I came to the conclusion that Chimps are Atheist and most Humans are not, therefore Atheist are Chimps. Haha.

[BrutusCass]

@Schwarzkald Well if you study then you will see just how ironicallly correct you are, but it is fact all humans who are Pan Narrians, but only the truly foolish belive that they are wise wise men!!! (look it all up before answering in a foolish manner!) BTW I take from your responce that you are some kind of believer? if so are you a follower of one of the bible schools, and if so please take the time to understand the story of Job rather than acting as him!

[janfrompolde]

@Schwarzkald /facepalm 

[MegaBukaki]

@Schwarzkald Humans are not more evolved than chimps humans evolved diffrently from chimps, we are all equally evolved.

[hardstreetbambi]

@Schwarzkald we evolved from chimps, we developed a consciousness and with it a fear of death and need for religion. we are not actually chimps. you completely missed the point.

[scabiecooper]

@Schwarzkald That would be a false syllogism.

[scabiecooper]

@Schwarzkald That would be a false syllogism.

[scabiecooper]

@Schwarzkald this is a false syllogism

[Feroal2]

@Schwarzkald not sure i'm seeing the logic there. but... [ insert one of a myriad of absurd quotations from the old testament ]

[YoriATTACKS]

@Schwarzkald You're a dumbass.

[MrSpqr84]

@Schwarzkald What a childish conclusion, understand that the common man is a fool.

[MrSir98]

@Schwarzkald But since you say we evolved from chimps, that means at one point in time, everyone was an Athiest. Now, many study chimps and see that they are calm, rather inteligent creatures. This was before religion, so just imagine how much better it was without religion.

[XxEvE1986xX]

ok ok wait....so what he saying is that after we die thats it?? i liked the wole documentary uiuntilo that part, and if that tru whats the point in trying anything i mean i dont get it

[BrutusCass]

@XxEvE1986xX Well to be honest, it all depends on what you consider it, lets say that for certain forms change so it wont be the you that is alive that is left after death, it will be something else. As for a point of it all now it you want to think purely subjectively then it does seem pointless, but if you think that the point is for humanity as a whole then there is a point, i.e. those who come after us.

[rkeck91]

@XxEvE1986xX I'd turn your point against you. If there is a next life, then what's the point of this one? Why not just believe in god and then coast until you die? After all, the seeming minute you spend on earth is insignificant next to the eternity you'll be spending in the sky.

[XxEvE1986xX]

what happends when we die?

[BrutusCass]

@XxEvE1986xX Well if I die before you and I can send you a message here I will let you know, if you don't get that message it because it is impossible. ;-)

[cr4yv3n]

@XxEvE1986xX you rot. End of story.

[Kage6060]

@XxEvE1986xX You cease to exist. There's nothing afterwards.

[avilameon]

GREAT VID!

[Drinapropriatetouch]

To me the idea that we are her pureley by chance is so beutifull and so spontaneous, I wouldnt have it any other way.

But I dont know if life itelf is only by chance, my idea is that where the ingrediants for life exist, life is not the exeption but rather the rule. Where it can happen it will all on its own.

[jhof989620]

thanks............keep this video alive.......

[stillstandin4you]

thanks for the upload watched the whole think - quite brilliant

[BrutusCass]

@stillstandin4you My pleasure ;-)

[CBSINDAHOUSE]

It would be funny if in the last part of this documentary he transforms into a monkey and starts climbing a tree

[yureeka]

That last line that he said was one of the wisest things I've ever heard.

[BrutusCass]

@yureeka It is certainly food for thought ;-)

[TrueRedBaron]

Woot! Awesome ending.

[WasMilkABadChoice]

Gotta love that ending.

"You and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here" - So true.

[BrutusCass]

@WasMilkABadChoice yeap

[Punkforbrains]

Im frightend

[BrutusCass]

@Punkforbrains If this scares you try watching 'With God on our side'

watch?v=daBySU9VHD8

[DeusExDraconian]

No fear of denial for an afterlife is not shirking responsibility nor consequence. It does indeed come down to the, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" philosophy. In the most extreme, I will not sneak into your house at night, kill you, have my way with your wife, children and your belongings because I hope you will not do the same. Instead we recognize each other as human beings with mutual desires who can achieve them easier by working together rather then killing each other.

[BrutusCass]

@DeusExDraconian Yes our early ancesters were intelligent enough to understand that cooperation is more efficient than competition this is the natural state of humanity it takes other extranal effects to make humans behave in Anti-social ways.

[Itsnattatooma]

"We are the owners of a brief spark of consciousness".....premise

conclusion: "we therefore have to take responsibility for it"

Is that an argument? I fail to see the reasoning....

[BrutusCass]

It seems to be a simple statement though one could argue about it if one wishes, for example it could well be said that often people use religion to hide from responciblity.

[zaphr89]

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. >>>>>

[zaphr89]

>>> The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. Makes you think about the important stuff, no?

[TheNikkonish]

gave me goosebumps when I thought about that.

[BrutusCass]

@TheNikkonish Sensation is a fair sign of living. I say.. We arrived yesterday, and We will be gone tomorrow! The power we have exists in the here and now!

Would you really waste such a gift living a life as a slave to someone else dogma awaiting a gift after you havev served that dogma and you life has ended?

[zaphr89]

Never..

[Carlsarv]

Wow the ending was awesome!!!

[BrutusCass]

@Carlsarv Yes certain a nice plate of food for thought ;-)

[klard]

Moral conscience and mutual empathy in society? A lot of us do not agree with locking people in concrete boxes for using a perception altering plant of their own choosing. How is that just and moral? It is certainly acceptable to society.

[steelcaress]

@klard: You're confusing morality with law. The laws against cannabis and acid were paid for by the alcohol and tobacco lobbyists, so there would be less competition. Certain of my friends and family, when I protest the morality of such a thing, respond with "They broke the law." Most people, without such a law in place, would not feel that way at all.

[klard]

steelcaress: You illustrate the inherent problem of divorcing law from morality. Law without a moral foundation descends into tyranny and barbarism. The arbitrary view most people take to the law is exactly what was prohibited by the Founding Documents of the Republic of the USA. Government is not free to act on people's lives arbitrarily. Locking someone up in a concrete box without sufficient justification is immoral. Government is only to protect Liberty.

[klard]

Don't we have to use discernment in any body of writing? Would you accept as literally true the entirety of writings by any individual or the collection of writings in a particular scientific field?

[BrutusCass]

@klard That a rather sticky word that "True" what is ulimate truth and should we really be fools enough to claim to know ;-)

[klard]

BrutusCass : Tha t is what we aspire to and should be moving closer to, not further from.

[BrutusCass]

Yes, but if one does not and can not know what is the ulitame truth how does one know which path to take?

[klard]

BrutusCass: I do not accept the proposition that on cannot know Truth. The pursuit of Truth is what the journey of life is about.

[BrutusCass]

Klard: What you accept or don't accept will never change the simple fact that there is a big ditterence between subjective truth and objective truth and by denying that ONE is far too subjective to know all truth is a step backwards in your journey is it not?

[klard]

BrutusCass: No. The arrogance of believing you know something when you don't would be. There is a difference between arrogance and hope. The enemies are ignorance stupidity and arrogance.

[BrutusCass]

I will agree with you list of restricting factors as to moving towards truth, but fail to see what you are getting at when you refer to hope and arrogance. Why is it that I get a feeling that you are aproaching this disgusion as an antagonistic rather than a proagonist in the journey towards truth, being given that truth is not that of only one mind.

[klard]

BrutusCass: SImply addressing you concern that the view that attainment of Truth is possible is a step backward. My position is it is a step backward only if one has the arrogance to believe they know Truth when they don't. This is different from the Hope or optimism that it is attainable. I am an antagonist to the view that truth is not attainable and therefore everyone has their own Truth, or Truth is whatever one believes it to be.

[BrutusCass]

Now your thoughts are a little clearer, but just to play with thoughts and expressions and meaning, which play are large part in truth, newspeak, spindotoring or party line even diference in conception of concept concerning inforamtion. Belief is a sticky one, is it not the area between admitting to not knowing and the area of knowing, though even the concept of Gnosit thoght is grey and it's counter balance. Ayn Rand's logic falls apart in complex systems where all varible are not counted.

[BrutusCass]

I am not thrying to say you are wrong I am trying to expand the concept of the word truth in the Definite article form. Personal truth is depends on many things, memory plays a large part and that can't always be trusted, what we have been told from a young age effects our perception of reality, so all personal truths are subjective to the information gain. Now if we are talking about The ulimate (after all the video here was concerning that, well there is a lot to all that is)

[BrutusCass]

So if one is claiming that one person could ever know all that ever is then I will agree that the person will have access to The truth. If one is claiming to know the truth concerning the presten human social system I would hope they knew a great deal on the subject not just spots here and there and a general idea on the matter, now that would be arrogant.

[OzDeist]

God, Dawkins is an optimist. Very easy for him to tell others that this is the only life for enjoyment when he lives a privileged lifestyle in a developed country.

Perhaps his outlook would be completely different if he lived in some poor African village under persecution, or in Josef Fritzl's basement.

[hoboboxerjoe]

@OzDeist, as an atheist who agrees with Dawkins and has lived a very under-pirviliged existence I must say I agree with him. As difficult as it may initially feel. He is right, to be alive is a gift. I won't give out personal facts about myself to affirm this point, but I will say I live with severe physical pain each and every day. If it was a choice between this and being able to think freely, or being healthy and ignorant, I choose this.

[BrutusCass]

@OzDeist Yes this may be so, but then that does little to prove the existance of God if in fact seems to suggest that the belief in such is tied strongly to the condition in which one lives, and believe therefore is a sense of hope for more. Maybe that is something that humans could resolve if they freed up some of that thinking space devoted to religion?

[griploc1981]

better than or worse than are the same. when one can see the truth that all is not good bad or balanced but "IS", that being will understand all things are eternal

[Limeyankangler]

Are smarter than what? Smart enough to discover and utilize evidence of our creation through scientific method. To believe in a god because you are told to just seems petty minded and scared. RAMEN!

[Darkmage1293]

Well I'm smart enough to realize the Bible is one huge innacurately written piece of garbage, God is a jerk, Satan is far far far LESS of a jerk, and Jesus is an unrequired bit of paradox if God is omnipotent.

Do I really have to write millions of comments anymore? You people are lost to a book because you're either too scared to face mortality and death, or you're too arrogant and HATE the concept that we're an astronomically longshot accident.

And yet it still measures up to God in odds.

[ChristianVault]

ooo, he was being sneaky in that last part. Do you really think you are just lucky and you just out of nowhere your parents came together?

It takes mroe faith to believe in no God then it does to accept the Truth.

Is there a God? Look in the mirror. You really think you came from nothing. Come on, your smarter than that

[moe69girls]

@ChristianVault

YOUR AN IDIOT DONT EVEN BOTHER JUST KEEP BELIVING IN YOUR FAIRYTALE

[safewords]

I adore the closing monologue. But the music they chose really almost ruins it. So disjointed, so... otherly. It really fails in making atheism seem less foreign and devastating or lonely or whatever. Such a shame.

[ammusi]

"you can think of chimps as MSdos and humans as Windows2000" - something to consider...

[ebaum1000]

Thats right baby. I think of it like this, "I can be good and suck up to god in this life and "HOPE" for a better afterlife OR I can take my life that I have now and live it to the fullest". I think ill live my life now to the fullest. Im not going to waist this one in hope of another one. Why the hell would I throw a perfectly good life away? The chance is too risky for me. Im not much of a gambler. Ill take what I got and fold my cards.

[thedict8or]

i like that. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

[B4IRUTUARU16]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR UPLOADING THIS. i am very privilaged to be healthy and have a loving home in a 1st world country.

[mit871chell]

Developed country and developing country are the politically correct terms as of the 21st century please use these terms to show respect.

[B4IRUTUARU16]

its all good

[dave4248]

I can't think of a more narcissistic statement than..."There's GOT to be more to life than just this....there's GOT to be an afterlife" Why? What makes you, or any of us, so special? The answer is...nothing. Unless you want to use circular reasoning.

[DarthEinstein]

I see some people are saying that his explanation doesn't work. I understand why, but here's why it does work. Originally, it was altruistic genes that created this "proto-morality", which exists in chimpanzees and other apes. Furthur evolution of morals was not genetic, at least not predominantly. The furthur evolution of morals was memetic, to use Dawkins' word. That is to say, it is cultural. Ideas, or memes, are selected for to create our advanced morality. Genes only provide the hardware.

[BrutusCass]

Yes I agree, however the greater problem here is that we (humans) tend to try to see things in the most simple sense, our history is rather long (going back before the time of writing) and it is that part which is missed, the make a human being kit as TP puts it, is both social and cultural, the birth of civilization (neolithic revolution) is the starting point for most peoples understanding but this is a mere 1% of our history.

[BrutusCass]

P2) Yes genes are the hardware and the memeplex are perceived reality but we tend misunderstand the core programming. The old discourse played out in Eddie Murphy' 'Trading placing' which is it genes or cultural up bringing, of course it is both, but if we fail to fully understand either then we will base our argumentation on our perceived understanding of our morality, which of course has been imprinted upon ourselves by generations on human ordered structure, if that make any sense here;-)

[DarthEinstein]

If I understand what you're saying, it's that we should try to understand both parts of us, the nature and the nurture. The history of our species as a being that creates ideas does likely go long before the advent of writing, as is evidenced by cave paintings and tools. So both parts are fairly important, and we should do what we can to understand them. And that is what Dawkins is trying to do, I think.

[standinstann]

This is where Dawkins goes a bit outside of his element.

Evolutionary theory is DEscriptive not PERscriptive. And to the extent that we possess the altruistic genes of our genetic ancestors, that describes how we DO behave, not how we AUGHT to.

[Stringprodigy]

PERscriptive? I am assuming you mean PREscriptive. Where in the video does Dawkins infer or say that evolutionary theory is prescriptive? That would contradict natural selection, so Dawkins obviously does not hold to a prescriptive view of evolution.

[standinstann]

His entire argument for the origin of human morality is based on the fact that we possess the same altruistic genes as our genetic ancestors. You're right that Dawkins does not hold to a prescriptive view of evolution (yes prescriptive not perscriptive. lol) and this is exactly why his argument falls apart. (con't)

[standinstann]

If our genes were the origin of human morality, Dawkins wouldn't have any way at all of stating (as he rightly does) that threatening a child with eternal damnation is abusive; he could only point out that people do threaten their children with it, not that they aught not to. (con't)

[standinstann]

To say that human morality is a more sophisticated version of the altruism seen in our genetic ancestors; is to say that we aught not to kill people because we have genes that make us not want to kill people. Or that we aught to help the poor because we have genes that make us want to be nice to people.

[Stringprodigy]

So how does Dawkins' argument fall apart exactly? The altruistic genes do not offer a specific moral code in and of themselves.

[gracer99]

exactly, because those genes determine and make up our nature. a much better explanation than we should not kill people because someone says so.

[standinstann]

Weather or not those genes make up our nature, that describes how we do behave, not how we aught to.

It also has nothing to do with "someone saying something"

We have to examine the ideas of freedom, justice, equality, in order to even discuss weather or not killing is moral or immoral. That falls outside of the purely descriptive.

[jennyamelie]

I love Dawkins' comment about how religion can seriously blunt one's sense of mystery and wonder.

I wonder how much more Newton would have discovered and developed in physics and mathematics if he had not devoted the last decades of his life to writing biblical expositions and instead had pursued further his sense of wonder surrounding the mysteries of gravity and light.

Might he have developed general relativity centuries before Einstein had he done so?

[KillerUgly]

he's kind of obnoxious in his views. i'm a christian but i'm not crazy like a lot of the people he portrayed. you need to take the bible into context the time and way it was written to get the whole story. and also, a lot of atheists are just as ignorant and hateful as religious people.

[pwismyname]

it doesn't matter if religious people consider themselves sane;sanity has little to do with the fact that there is no proof that god exists.

[KillerUgly]

that's why it's called faith. no one knows how the universe came into existence. both sides need to stop acting like they know exactly how everything works, cause they don't.

[Nails077]

Actually Science does not claim they know exactly how with absolute certainty. Their claim is more of the nature that they have the best guess and their explanation makes more sense.

Religion teaches with absolute certainty that God did it and we must never ask how or why, but just be satisfied with knowing that he did it.

[MrImrizwan]

read "The atheist universe" by David Mills..

and you will never say that both sides don't know how the universe came into existence.....

at least i assure you that we, as an atheist,know 1000%. Think about yourself where you stand..

have you ever heard of "The atheist universe"

it deals with only well established facts

[KillerUgly]

no matter what ANY book says, NO ONE was hanging out when the universe came into existence. therefore, NO ONE knows how it came into existence. there is no proof either way that God does or does not exist.

[MrImrizwan]

i am not talking about books,i am talking about FACTS in them which can be tested again and again in labs.thats the beauty of science any one can test it.

NO ONE was either hanging around when the dinosours died but we can prove that they existed with the help of trashes they leave...science works this way..by tracing the signs of existence...

hope NOW you will at least read "The Atheist Universe" with an open mind

[jlke45]

No scientist claims to know exactly how everything works--just the opposite, in fact. The acme of sciences is that we're constantly reevaluating our explanations in light of new data. Contrast this with religion, which does claim quite strongly to have the answers to everything without producing evidence. The asymmetry here should be obvious.

[GuitarnPiano]

The Anglican bishop isn't crazy

[niroy65]

Ok, I'm an atheist (just to make things clear)

I agree that he's taken the extreme cases, but that's how anyone is going to make a good argument. I think if a Dawkins equivalent made a similar documentary, he would also use extreme cases of atheists with a warped sense of morality.

His point was to show that religion is not the basis of morality.

[QuestionMarc]

about 7:30 I thought Richard was channeling Dr. Manhattan! Actually, he explains it better than Dr. Manhattan did!

[hypershadow250]

that is it.

im buying this documentary.

[emancoy]

I am surprised that the creationists christians did not try to make any videos trying to refute this Dawkins movie.

Ben steins expelled had a lot of videos made to refute it. To the point that the movie got famous because of the video rebuttals that were made.

Or maybe, they are out there still working at it

[densomtarhanhar]

If there's a god, I'm sure he/she/it is not like portraited in our Religions. It's only fantasy. Well, that's what I belive anyway.

[defect530]

Richard Dawkins = My Hero

[specialKismyname]

You = Gay

[defect530]

specialKismyname who the fuck are you?  piece of shit TROLL!

[MrCouturier]

This guy just rocks. lol

[dobste]

i miss climbing there up to be free. instead i have to go to my 90 hr a week job 7/7 fucking shit. is was beautiful to see all this. i want my life back.

[CriticalThought09]

Oh I do so know what you mean. Red rock canyon to...a few hills.

[rudenoodle]

Quit your job and spend your one life doing something that you enjoy.

[dobste]

easy to say hard to do. i wait a baby, i have a wife, i i have to pay rent. before this, i could live in a tent for the whole summer easy. gaining some money just to climb. now bye bye.

[gir908922]

I agree with Dawkings. Animals have better morals than us because they don't have religion to warp their minds and their abilities to think rationaly. Religion is indeed a virus that has been doing damage to generations of humanity for aeons.

[selfhelpguy]

Richard's right. Let's have an orgy!

[jreamer1]

The root of all evil is power (authority). Worst drug in human history.

[BrutusCass]

Agreed. If one takes a sideways look at the Garden of Eden story if is interesting to see the parallel with the birth of civilisation, the neolithic revolution brought the concept of Man the Lord and master and those who claimed to be the earthly representatives had the power and so called god given authority.

[bluehoneycomb]

Right, unfortunately religion is a powerful too to gain power. What better way to control sheep. Even Napoleon Bonaparte recognized religion's power to keep the poor from murdering the rich.

[intecrisis]

Hey remember that time before religion? Before jesus?

Yeah that really sucked when we all killed each other and died out as a species because nobody told us what was good and bad.

That's why adam and eve killed each other too. They didn't know any morals at all.

[BrutusCass]

LOL ;-) That time b4 Religion! Now that is in fact a little hard to define, however if we take the word religion as meaning organised and controlled belief then we could say that that time would be pre-neolithic revolution. (or Agriculture) I find it very interesting that the Hebrew talk of the Fig as the fruit of the forbidden tree! A good reference as to religious behaviour would be the San people (present day hunter gathers)

[BrutusCass]

I take it that you are being sarcastic in your last sentence. I suppose eating the apple (fig) (or what ever story one wishes to follow) could be a form of suicide ;-) BTW recent discoveries now suggest that the Fig was cultivated some 11,500 years ago, now that in my mind indicates that the garden story has some truth, though not the type that the blind believer will accept easily

[intecrisis]

It's interesting that the religious think that atheists have no morals, when even if atheists were reverted to their basic animalistic tendancies when they reject the belief in a god, they would still have morals as all the animals on earth still existing is proof of.

Unless of course the animals have some hidden religion we haven't figured out yet, then us atheists would be truly fucked.

[Telepresent]

Intecrisis: I think the reason that religious persons think atheists have no morals is that they have never actually had to think about and reason through a moral code for themselves. A personal moral code is actually a very sophisticated thing, more sophisticated than most people realise, and it comes from years of experience, particularly of situations resulting in empathy and, crucially, guilt.

(Continued in next post...)

[Telepresent]

(...continued) Now, if your religion presents you with a moral code to follow, you never have to go through this process of introspection. You may encounter situations which confirm some of them (say, someone stole from you, it was not nice, therefore stealing is bad: confirmed!), but the code has been given to you. If someone does not believe, they do not have to follow said code. So they see only a lack of morals, as they do not have the experience of developing a personal code.

I guess...

[LUKEJAMESBARRETT]

Very good explanation!

[seany505]

Good point, but you see, there are actually moral codes atheists CAN follow.

Actually, Richard Dawkins himself adheres to one of the main ones (the one I also CHOSE to agree with from many), called Secular Humanism. Wikipedia/Google it, its fascinating and inspiring.

[hypershadow250]

theyre also his "commandments" in "The God Delusion"

[bluehoneycomb]

Oh yeah, you forgot after religion too. Like we are now killing each other, believers vs. believers in the name of GOD, YAWEH, ALLAH...ETC. We live in idiocracy AFTER religion.

[AtheistChase]

Beautiful speech at the end.

[soadfan1224]

I'm truly in love with his final words.

[AtheistChase]

Did he die?!

[soadfan1224]

No.

[BrutusCass]

We arrived yesterday, and We will be gone tomorrow! The power we have exists in the here and now!

Would you really waste such a gift?

[BrutusCass]

Ah, The Irony here is that without the knowledge of good and evil (tree and snake story) It would never have been possible to write a book with the rules concerning Good and Bad ;-)) lol!! Religion is of the head faith is of the heart ;-))

[burnthewitch]

That's so true. Never thought of that before.

[mtheoryrules]

I am pretty sure even apologetics would agree with Dawkins point here.

After all it says in the bible that the "law is written in mans heart"