The Testimony of Dr. Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.d.

[5tonyvvvv]

Sad atheists! The universe created its self from NOTHING!!!

[mitzuca8]

I see in people of faith the weekness of human kind , we need God or something like it , even he didn,t exist at all we need him , because we need it for our silance we feell better if we are regarding of a god either he exist or not. that made us who we are in some respects :humans

[Aleksamson]

So the reason was Fear of death fallowed with some assumptions on morality, finding some gaps ( to be filed with exactely prefed version ) then walk through a park....and Wua la.....you're born again........and the turning point when he could not resist any more, was a walk in a park

[Deadandlivin]

"These are the fundamental concepts with which Spinoza sets forth a vision of Being, illuminated by his awareness of God. They may seem strange at first sight. To the question "What is?" he replies: "Substance, its attributes, and modes".

— Karl Jaspers

Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal."

[thebackendofabus]

It is a massive leap of faith from believing that a divine entity may have started everything to believing in the doctrine and stories of the bible. Dawkins never seems to explain his belief in Christianity convincingly. He is not a deist, he's a theist but he fails to make a case for this.

[sandiegoevangelism]

Dr. Collins was the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He saw so much evidence for a Creator in his work that he became convinced that surely God is our Creator and he is now a committed Christian.

President Obama called him "one of the leading scientists in the world" and appointed him to head up the National Institute of Health.

Praise Jesus!

[99minerkc]

Hmm... Why did he choose the "christian god over say Islam, any idea?

[sandiegoevangelism]

TRUTH

[devoceans]

theory none the less.

[devoceans]

prove it dead and livin.

[devoceans]

max share your truth with us.

[Deadandlivin]

What started everything?

How about String-Theory.

[99minerkc]

GOD started everything!! Now can it be proven? OF COURSE NOT(so don't ask)thus FAITH BASED! Is there an interactive God? I don't believe it-the god I believe in is Einstien's god

[Deadandlivin]

All humans have a natural sense for right and wrong.

How good, too bad everyone don't have the same sense for right and wrong..

Animals don't share this sense for right and wrong? WRONG, populations of the same specie for instance know very well not to kill eachother. Even in a fashion more respectable than humans.

Colins seems to be a deist though, can I get any confirmation on this?

[max2right]

The truth is constitutional law prohibits teaching religion in public schools. Frightening is that there are people that want religion taught. I am not and never have claimed to be an intelligence man.

I am just smart enough to require evidence for the things i believe. Just because Collins believes does not make it true. He is way more intelligent but, he knows no more about the supernatural than i do i don't care who believes what. Some do some don't both ways Evidence is required

[99minerkc]

I believe God created the universe BUT the god I believe in is NOT adam and eve's god!! My god is Einstein's god! o.o

[Deadandlivin]

Spinozas god? The constrained harmony and understanding of all physical laws in this universe?

That's Einsteins god and it's no personal creator. Rather a complete understanding or goal to strive for.

[99minerkc]

exactly

[Deadandlivin]

You said you believe God created the unvierse. Now you're confusing me, Einstein did not say he believed in a creator. He believed in what he could see and what we could understand of the unvierse thus far.

If you ask Einstein what happened before the Big Bang he would answer: Nothing, time didn't exist as a condition yet prohibiting happening from occouring.

How could you possibly believe creation was possible before time even existed.

Your god sounds like a creator.

[99minerkc]

"Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe."

[Deadandlivin]

Where did you find your quote or source?

As far as I know Einstein maintained more of an agnostic view rather than a diestic as you imply.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." -Albert Einstein

Spinozahs god was by no mean a creator.

[99minerkc]

I had the source but by mistake deleted it, but I gogled it. I do believe that it was accurate.

be well and peace to you! : )

[Deadandlivin]

Well, as it looks the source was not very accurate. :-)

Einstein believed in the same god as spinoza, a philosophic god and no creator of the universe.

A creator of the universe is not a philosophic idea, in other words, the complete understanding for the operation of physical laws. As numerous quotes imply Albert Einstein held the views of an agnostic, he did not care for the existence of a material god. The idea of a god however...

[99minerkc]

Yeah, I read what you did somewhere else! It's frustrating at times to get "reliable" sources! Thanks for the correction, it gives me more to ponder!!

Be well and peace to you! :-)

[Deadandlivin]

Wikipedia is always a good way to atleast get a start. :-)

[sergiomarchelli]

yes, but still God as a reason, as the Answer, not personal, but like the answer.

[sergiomarchelli]

Also Einstein have and different quotes about God, some of them are like this, but he have and some more personal and different than spinoza's.

[Gnomefro]

@sergiomarchelli "Also Einstein have and different quotes about God, some of them are like this, but he have and some more personal and different than spinoza's."

Einstein issued a formal statement where he explicitly denied believing in a personal god and that he found the idea childish - as well as stating that he was sick of being quote mined by religious apologists. We don't have to guess what he believed by weighing quotes. He was a pantheist of some sort.

[sergiomarchelli]

@Gnomefro well, the problem is that you think that God is only connected with religion. In Einstein's quotes you can see clearly that God is not obligatory connected with religion. And the idea about Absolute. And even that Einstein at some point of his life says something about God, this make that he points his Personal understanding (believe ;-) ) about God. So in some way, it is also the Einstein's personal God. :-).

[max2right]

Again your argument is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, as is this entire video. There is no evidence offered here supporting the existance of gods. No such evidence exists.

Believe what you want just keep it out of schools and out of government so this insanity can be marginalized before you crazy cultists blow up the planet waring over which version of the imaginary god is correct.

[arleneanita]

So you do not want the truth taught ?

How frightening that you don't. Do you realize the level of intelligence of this man?

[max2right]

These arguments are logically just appeals to authority. Some scientists believe in gods others do not. What they think on the subject is not evidence that gods exist. Science does not address the supernatural.

There is no real world evidence that gods exist.

[whitenightf3]

Not true but then again the Materalistic paradigm you believe is real is just an illusion anyway.

Many Scientists including Einstein believed in God. That is why Einstein Said he believed in the God of Spinoza.

[max2right]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein

[whitenightf3]

Einstein had no time for the Theistic or Deistic God. Like I told you he was a Pantheist he still saw an Intelligence running the Universe.

[devoceans]

just cant get over an educated man repenting and being reconciled to GOD. This is such a poor act of behavior on your part . You do show that your spirit is dying with the bile you consume. Repent as well, we all know that is why your here. Your carnal mind may not know, but your spirit is crying out loud to be released. What is your vise? Are you a man loving a man. You know there is no fruit from that relationship.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

Now you can also read my mind?Hey disco devoceans,why don't you keep watching Hagee and Robertson and leave us sane people alone?

[fctchk]

Einstein on Collins' god:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this." Animistic interpretations of religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls, we can only attain a certain self-deception; they do not further our moral efforts. On the contrary.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

Yeah, about 3% more.WOW, just countless....

[devoceans]

there are countless more.

[devoceans]

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

You,if your open minded,should read Michael Shermer's book about bible numerology. Nothing but mindless,laughable bs.

[devoceans]

system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

[devoceans]

so is the "JUST SO" of the vague definition a Darwinist gives when asked about a foundation for this faith.

[Remagoen]

His last words were an argument from ignorance. Where, "I don't know exactly what did it, so I'll call it God". It's a logical fallacy.

[PneumaLogic]

After listening to Dawkings and Hitchens I was under the impression for a while that if you believe in God you were some kinda of ignoramous. But here we have a modern day scientist who not only beleives in God but believes in the Bible. LOL.

[blighty63]

What Collins & other theistic scientists do is realize that science cannot answer the question as to the origin of the universe. Rather than being able to live with this void of knowledge (which is what atheistic scientists do) they insert God into their universal viewpoint.

The word God here is simply a concept that people use to fill this knowledge gap. If this God does indeed exist it is most likely not like any of the Gods that mankind has created to fill their theistic knowledge gaps here.

[spark300c]

what happens when know all natural processes it it can not explain the origins. For us Theistic scientist we do not insert God to full the knowledge gap. but we insert god when all know natural processes have been tested and exhausted and when all test say natural can not be responsible for life than what is left is the super natural.

[JstNEarthling]

Did you actually say "For US theistic scientists" So do you think you're a scientist? Well, every scientist I know is an excellent writer with very good grammatical skills and after reading the drivel you just posted I'll assume you're a liar. Besides being rather stupid.

[spark300c]

I am Student at LeTourneu University. I am studying Mechanical technology. It is well known at my University that most people going into engineering field have poor writing skills. one does not have write well to be good at math or problem solving. In fact some one who is good at grammar can easy fail dynamics the first time around. Dynamics is one hardest classes at my University. I pass it the first time around. I have a question to ask you what is your profession?

[RogaJam]

Collins doesn't believe in God to fill this void. Collins believes the Bible strictly. He even believes in the talking snake in the Garden of Eden, which many fundamentalists see as a narrative.

[cre8ivmind]

Collins accepts evolution; and I'm reading one of his books.

[paxfiat]

me too

[KATAERO]

cre8ivmind, yes, Francis Collins accepts evolution as part of creation. Life was created first, then evolves.  Accepting the existence of God, by itself acknowledges creation and its Creator, God-Almighty.

[KATAERO]

@cre8ivmind, if Francis Collins accepts evolution, does evolution rule out the need for God? Does that also mean that God created the universe and the world first, but later, life began accidentally through evolution without His knowledge or involvement?

[Gnomefro]

@KATAERO "if Francis Collins accepts evolution, does evolution rule out the need for God?"

What Francis Collins, or anyone else, believes has no bearing on what's actually true. Evolutionary theory explains how life diversified though, so any definition of "God" that includes teleological intervention in the creation of life would be an entity that would fail the test of parsimony and be a useless element in a description of reality.

[KATAERO1]

@Gnomefro Evolution can't explain how inorganic became organic materials where all life forms are based upon, can it? It, however, made a huge assumption that the 1st life form created itself, then began to evolve. That's where I have the problem with, given how conditions on Earth are so fine-tuned precisely to support life, in terms of various constants & absolutes. & if one of those constants is slightly out of tune, life can't exist, can it?

[Gnomefro]

@KATAERO That said, I think Collins beliefs are so confused and contradictory that they're not worth trying to make sense of. At best we can hope that not too much of it spills over into his scientific work.

[KATAERO1]

@Gnom So far, Collins' belief in the Eternal Creator God motivated him to crack the genome & continue to reap huge benefits for mankind, didn't it? So, I don't think you can separate any person from his/her spiritual belief, as each of us, including you, believes in something. So, can you name me any persons with significant scientific discoveries who didn't/don't believe in the Creator God?

"A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him." (Louis Pasteur)

[baconeater]

Francis Collins still is an evolutionist. He knows the earth is billions of years old, and that evolution is fact. He just thinks God had a lot to do with it.

[mathew0321]

Science's domain is to explore nature. Religion's domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. Science is powerless to answer questions such as: "Why did the Universe come into being?","What is the meaning of human existence?","What happens after we die?", etc. Out of nothing into something, that is the real trick!

[rytallica898]

Collins is an idiot. Being great at biology doesn't always translate supreme skills in the realm of logic. I mean raw mathematical logic such as {p->q thus not_(p->q) = not_p and q}. It is at this realm were we can watch theistic arguments wither like a flower in a microwave. If you want to see a biologist skilled in logic, go read a dawkins book.

[merlock101]

It doesn't matter what you consider logic, you're full of crap if you think that the guy who LED the HGP is an idiot.

[6583987]

You will also not that he claims he is great in biology. I don't think rylallica doubts Collins' expertise in his field (please correct me if I am wrong), but that his logic is flawed. Dawkins on the other hand applies strong logic to his own field to reach his conclusions.

[YARTES2K8]

"Dawkins on the other hand applies strong logic to his own field to reach his conclusions"= Actually Collins breaks down piece by piece every single Dawkins' argument. Funny to see how each party supports each other...

[6583987]

"Actually Collins breaks down piece by piece every single Dawkins' argument."

Collins claims to have three objections to Dawkins' work:

1. Dawkins claims that evolution fully accounts for biological complexity so there is no need for god. Collins claims that this is irrelevant to the god that St. Augustine worshipped.

This is a straw man. All Dawkins is saying here is that god is not neccesary.

[6583987]

2.Dawkins misrepresents faith as something that cannot be known, or faith in the absence of evidence

Collins goes on to say that this is not the case for most serious believers. He then jumps to saying that god is plausable.

Again, Dawkins was saying that god is not neccesary, not that he is not plausable. Also, Collins needs a dictionary. Faith="belief that is not based on proof," which is more or less what Dawkins said.

[6583987]

3. Dawkins says that great harm has been done in the name of religion.

Collins comes back to say that while this is true, acts of great kindness and compassion have also been done.

This completely misses the point. The point Dawkins, and others, are making is that regardless of "in whose name" hurtful or helpful acts have been done, WHY those acts are done is far more important.

Religion has required harmful acts be committed, while the good acts may have been done for other reasons

[YARTES2K8]

Dawkins is a master of setting up a strawman, and then dismantling it with great relish.

1st.argument= "evolution does not need God"= It does not disprove the idea that God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. Dawkin's 1st argument is thus irrelevant.

[6583987]

This is true. The fact that evolution does not need a god does not dosprove god. The argument Dawkins is proposing is that since no god is required, we should not invent one when natural explanations suffice. Its Occams Razor.

[mathew0321]

"we should not invent one when natural explanations suffice"= God of the gaps. However creating soemethig out of nothing, creating life out of scratch, who was first RNA or DNA if we both are needed to coexist?. Natural explanations do not explain the Moral Law, The Anthropic Principles, etc. Science again cannot explain some basic and important questions in life. We should not be blinds by saying that if Science does not see it than it does not exist. Collins make an analogy with a fishing net.

[6583987]

Scientists, including Dawkins, are the first to admit that humankind does not know everything about everything. There are several theories about where the first RNA and DNA molecules came from: abiogenesis, panspermia, a superior intelligence, etc. We should not act like we KNOW which it was until there is enough evidence to support one.

[baconeater]

The fact that there is no evidence for God doesn't disprove God either.

[6583987]

"The fact that there is no evidence for God doesn't disprove God either. "

This is true, god cannot be logically disproven. I would then ask the Christian how they know that Allah is not god, and the Muslim how they know the Christian god is false. Nearly the whole world knows that Zeus is false, in fac there are thousands, if not millions of gods that humans no longer believe in. Is there evidence that they do not exist, or is it just really unlikely?

[YARTES2K8]

"I would then ask the Christian how they know that Allah is not god"= You must be kidding. That argument seems coming from a school boy. Obviously all religions, faiths, myths, etc, point to the same MAKER. You can give HIM any names and HE will be the same. I cannot conceive a mind that does not understand this simple concept that varies by cultures and regions, but it is the same.

[6583987]

Allow me to explain the point in a more clear manner. In the past, gods were created to explain floods, the movement of the sun and moon, etc. Surely you would not claim that these gods, also, are the one true god.

Secondly, every religion I am familiar with claims to be the One True Religion. Surely they all cannot. I understand that there is a difference between religions and god, but each religion makes specific claims about god that cannot all be true.

[YARTES2K8]

Just as Mahatma Gandhi said once: "God has no religion". Humans try to explain the unknown with the supernatural. god of tne gaps. However, all of this points to a single source: to a Maker. I believe all religions look at the same truth but from different points of view. The differences between each other do not disprove the existence of a Creator in this universe. The differences are based on culture, customs, what they did not know by then, etc. bu again all of them point to a single source.

[intsikiko]

That is a good observation among Christians and I would suggest that you will read the bible and pray to God that He will guide you. In Jeremiah 29: 13-14 says, You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your hearts. I will be found by you declares the Lord. God is a personal God, He will make Himself known to you personally, and that's what Christian experienced. Try it!

[filoIII]

allah is not Jehovah, the God of the Bible. allah was the moon god, the most powerful god, in muhammad's tribe.

[YARTES2K8]

"WHY those acts are done is far more important"= Collins answer that question very clearly in his book. Dawkins is judging the quality of the water based on SOME rusty containers that hold it. Now, if you still do not understand this basic criteria it will tell me much about yourself and now I understand why you blindly believe what Dawkins says. Learn that science does not have all the answers as it is not in its realm. Read Augustin, C.S.Lewis writings. They answered'em all years ago...

[6583987]

This "tainted water from rusty vessels" or however Collins worded it is a cop out. It allows the theist to take credit for the good, whil saying the bad is not gods fault. If you do not understand this, it will tell me much about you and I understand why you blindly follow the bible and apologists like Collins.

[YARTES2K8]

I can proclaim myself Christian and make a crime, Am I really a Cristian? Nope! Why? Because It goes against what Sprituality and Religion is about. I hope you at least understand this simple concept. If you believe you are self-made and we are the subproduct of a cosmic accident billion years ago I respect it but I will never share it with you as many others. The fine tuning of the natural laws of the universe is in theory impossible to set w/o intervention. Anthropic Principles.

[6583987]

Forgive me for the assumptionthat your are Christian.

When you mention that "The fine tuning of the natural laws of the universe is in theory impossible to set w/o intervention. Anthropic Principles..." It seems to me that you have it backward. While it is true that if the universal constants were different even slightly, life as we know it could not exist. Who is to say that some other form of life could not arise? That other culture, may argue about the exact same issues.

[YARTES2K8]

"Who is to say that some other form of life could not arise?". Read Stephen Hawkins. A slightly change in the nature laws as we know them, it will translate in NO life at all. The fine tuning of the nature laws is practcally imposible unless someone set them altogether. Throwing million of marbles on the floor, What are the odds they will align in perfectly simetric order???

[6583987]

Wasn't is also Hawking who suggested that there might be other combinations of different values of the universal constants that would allow different forms of life to exist?

Also, the "throwing marbles" example you suggested is a strawman. It suggests that there is a pre-planned placement for the marbles. I do not believe that is the way the universe is.

[YARTES2K8]

"throwing marbles" is a actually a good analogy to represent the incredible fine tuning of the physical laws. The existence of a universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability. Altogether there are 15 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict. They are just given. The chances all these constants would take the values necessary to result in a stable universe sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. Just as the marbles analogy is.

[6583987]

II'm sorry, I misunderstood how you were using the marble analogy, and I must admit that I have not done much reading in the area our discussion is heading. I would, however, reiterate a point I tried to make earlier. The unlikliness that a particular type of universe should arise neither proves nor disproves the existance of a god.

[YARTES2K8]

"The unlikliness that a particular type of universe should arise neither proves nor disproves the existance of a God"= Either you believe the constants of the physical laws were given and pre-set to set up the complexity of life by someone much higher and far beyond of our understanding, OR after billion and billion of random combinations only one universe (of billion) sparked to create by chance the complex forms of life. Again, both require a big leap of faith. You choose. Science is unable.

[YARTES2K8]

2. Another Dawkin's strawman: "Religion is antirational= blind trust". It does not describe the faith of most serious believers thru history. Serious thinkers from Augustine to Lewis have demonstrated that a belief in God is plausible. Dawkins' faith definition is easy to attack BUT it's not the real thing.

[YARTES2K8]

2. "Dawkins was saying that god is not neccesary"= Again, another statement based on no evidence. Another straw man.

[YARTES2K8]

3. Another Dawkin's strawman: "Great harm has been done in the name of religion". Undeniable great acts of compassion have also been fueled by faith. Evil acts committed in the name of religion in no way impugn the truth of the faith, contrary the impugn the nature of human beings. Don't judge the pure water because of some rusty containers that are holding it. ;-)

[6583987]

I hate to be mean friend, but did you copy that right out of the book, or did you think about it and digest it in order to give it meaning. You also ignored my comments and just restated your argument.

[YARTES2K8]

"All Dawkins is saying here is that god is not neccesary"= Which is an statement based on no evidence. If there is a God, for sure He could have created the universe in any way he would pleased.

[YARTES2K8]

ryallica is saying one of the greatest scientist is an idiot? haha! Dawkins is for sure. Collins has a brilliant mind! his book is amazing!

[AnthonyBlunt]

You have got to be kidding. Dawkins writes clearly and is articulate. That is a far cry from being skilled in logic. He has several leaps of logic, usually found in his desire to infer that atheism necessarily follows from science. It doesn't.

[6583987]

I my opinion, he is using his scientific background and credentials to promote his faith without providing any evidence. I read his book "The Language of God." In the book, he describes everything in scientific terms, in fact it was quite interesting, but then he comes back to the fuzzy "moral law" as proof of god, like he does in this video.

Perhaps this "moral law" is an evolutionary remnant form a point where it was beneficial to the survival of our species to have a form of morality.

[iwebber88]

Judging that he's the guy who worked on the Human Genome project and that he's probably studied this subject alot longer than you, I'll take his word for it and not a guy commenting on YouTube.

[6583987]

I wasn't trying to knock the guy, or his credentials, I was just saying that his "proof" had nothing to do with his science.

[YARTES2K8]

He clearly explain why moral law cannot come from evolution. If you read the book, read it again, it seems like you did not get a grasp of it at all. typical!

[6583987]

Forgive me, I read the book almost a year ago, and remember themes more than I remember details, because in my opinion, most of the details wern't worth remembering.

As a side note, Collins' "moral law" could also have a sociological/cultural explanation.

[YARTES2K8]

"moral law could also have a sociological/cultural explanation.= Not. He clearly explains why and he cites C.S.Lewis for that. Through the history of the humanity humans have been always aware of what is wrong and right regarless of sociological/cultural environments. C.S.Lewis explains it very clearly as well.

[666daedsidog]

He knows evolution is real

He knows the universe is over 14 billion yrs old

He knows earth is over 4 billion yrs old

Seems to me he is a real scientist who happens to believe in a god

Creation scientists should be silenced

Scientists who happen to believe in a god but actively support science should carry on doing their thing (if it doesnt impede their work which in this case it doesnt)

[charyus]

praise God

[tobigforyou]

Praise God. Great video brother Dave.

[lostn65]

In other words, an argument from personal incredulity, and an argument from ignorance. And this is the guy evolutionists promote to fundamentalists in trying to convince them that it's okay to accept evolution even though you're a christian. Pardon me if I am less than impressed.

[eamonncake]

You lunatics should leave the man alone. He's one of the few intelligent people to give your silly death cult any respectability

[vhernandez48]

I can empathize with Dr. Collins in his awe of the beauty of nature. However, I find it sad that one of the most brilliant minds of our age has turned to some deity for an explanation.

[BereanBeacon]

vhernandez48, For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1Corinthians 1:18,19 Dr. Collins discovered that his mind wasn't enough.

[ACLNOLES]

you're saying its sad to say theres a reason we are here... its sad that we're not evolved from chimps... lol what are you saying... so many people that have a deep hatred for Christianity... its a social problem everysince darwin was put into schools... dude look at the history of the greatest scientists in the world... einstein, gallieo, pasteur just to name a few... all said there is a higher power..

[ArcturusXIV]

Einstein did not believe in a higher power, it is clear from his writings he used the term "God" as a metaphor for the laws of physics, such as when he said God does not play dice.

[iwebber88]

Actually, Einstein did believe in a high power. He said: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

[AnthonyBlunt]

I'll take Dawkins' word on that I suppose. But man, is there any atheist that doesn't rely on Dawkins' arguments? It gets a bit tedious.

[grazon]

For extra fun remind them that Sam Harris admitted on the Colbert report that God could exist.

[6583987]

Pretty much everyone before 100 years ago was publicly a believer in some sort of diety because to publicly decree atheism meant death or at least ostracism. So saying that so and so was a believer really doesn't say much.