What contraindication , life itself has no purpose, nothing preordained beyond the ultimate extinction. That I give myself some small purpose, some goals to achieve to pass away my time on this earth is not a contradiction in anyway shape of form, merely a possible perk of being an aware human rather than a great ape , or a sheep. I have thanks to evolution some chance to modify my behaviour, to modify my environment without it being purely survival based. If you have to be threatened by some eternal damnation to ensure you live a reasonably moral life, I pity you. I think Hitchens put it best, I should live my life praising a God so that I can spend eternity glorifying him...No Thank you.

Dickie Dawkins is a fake and bluffer. He's been exposed. Recently when invited to debate with the world's leading theistic advocate, Dawkins chickened out. What a loser. And like all atheists, he'll carry lying and living his delusion. Fact.

"Analysing the chemical compounds in Picasso's paintbox doth virtually nothing for the experience of his creations."

that is just not true Stephen. Picasso was at times extremely fussy about the materials he used, and critically affected the painting he would create.

"I think you may be missing the point to life dear friend."

which is?

"true. but, appreciating the scientific factors involved (i.e. oil paint components, physics of light etc) means the aesthetics effects can be honed and targeted. the artist gains even more control over the emotive response. in a similar vein you'll find that musicians will experiment with the science of their craft, like Hendrix or Kraftwerk."

I think so too. But scientific method (evidence) is limited to the repeated patterns of the natural world as it can only deal with matter and energy.

Life, art and human affairs can only be understood through artful re-representation. Hence the stories we share, via text, become the only access to the aesthetic world.

Your 'air of goodness' and your 'passion for life' are beyond capture as a repeated pattern open to analysis.

Ian, to be or not to be, that is the...

Jankaas, Picasso would be miserable to discover we discussed his paintbox...

"Picasso would be miserable to discover we discussed his paintbox..."

why? like all great artists, like any self respecting genius; you have to know your materials, you have to be able to make your own materials, to appreciate the way it's put together, and how it reacts under specific conditions.

after this you can free your mind and the rest will follow. there's no way round this, not even for Picasso or Rembrandt, Da Vinci etc etc.

now if this was all we ever talked about, you'd have a point. i can do both though.

@Flashbuck, you're trying to prove that your god exists by appealing to the highly disputed fact that Einstein believed in it too. Can't you see the gaping flaw in this argument? I doubt it. You are actually trying to argue for the existence of god by making a classic appeal to authority. Judging by your laughably aggressive use of language I'm going to assume you're about 13 so I won't be too hard on you for that - there's time to learn, sonny.

I think it's possible to focus too much on what we call "life". The key is self-replication, probably with some intermediate stage (think of a set plaster shape being impressed into a clay mould, which is filled with liquid plaster, allowed to set, and so on). As soon as two molecules can make "copies" of themselves, the process of natural selection will start.

Maybe a million years after this copying starts, a random event makes the copying happen in a more efficient way (say a faster intermediate stage is encountered). Suddenly this means of copying will outpace and supersede the first.

Until these happy accidents occur, the molecules will meet countless times with non-advantageous intermediates, and will sometimes react, but they will not end up copying themselves.

There is no intelligence involved, but once the path to improving the way the molecule reproduces itself is set in motion, it will go on improving and diversifying into niches, which is evolution by natural selection in a nutshell. Complexity only happens because of the cumulative effect of tiny random errors.

Ian, you are skipping over a whole lot. Yes there are 4 basic "bits". It's not the amount of letters but the ability to put them into meaningful sentences and words. Plus, they have to interact with proteins, etc.

Evolution is small steps. But if you notice a problem that requires a rocket ship (i.e. you need a bunch of stuff working all at the same time in the right way), that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation.

@swatantra nandanwar - Could not agree more.

'God', like 'luck' and the rest are purely a psychological manifestation of mankind's own immaturity and fear of responsibility. It is an opt-out. An easy option for a species that doesn't quite know what to do with itself, or where to place itself in the universe.

Arturo - this is not the place to talk about George Osborne.

What is "God" but another space-filling trope -- like "Mother Nature"? The daft bit is imagining this figure of speech has some sense of purpose and cares about humanity!

@Buckskins

"Could one of you Godless geniuses tell me how something was made from absolutely nothing?"

great question. will give you the correct answer when you've explained who made God.

btw which God version do you believe in?

and in general to this article;
also have no idea why abiogenesis is seen as a weakness in evolution. it's the exact same as demanding an explanation of where the Universe came from before you'll accept Gravitational Theory.

perhaps just evidence of how bad some schools are, or, how dumb some people are.....

swantantra: The possibility of life coming from outside is equal to it starting here,the concept just gets more press. The point is it started somewhere and the mechanism will need to be the same. considering just the time spans involved, I think it started here. Then again I believe things have been going on yoyoing backwards and forwards singularity big bang singularity for time scales beyond human imagination. Us, we are just the product of incalculable transcription errors and we wont last.

@Kershan

Stop wriggling...

Einstein certainly believed in God and he said so on many occasions:

"...there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (Einstein)

"I'm not an atheist..." (Einstein)

"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." (Einstein)

Etc etc etc etc

The reality is you wriggling atheists hate the fact that the world's greatest scientist believed the universe had a Creator, and author, who we call God.

And of course it's not just Einstein, because Godel, the greatest logician since Aristotle also believed in god. Likewise, Planck, Heisenberg, Kelvin, etc etc etc...

So you stick to stick to reading your deluded Dickie Dorkins, sonny, because you're way out of your depth when it comes to the big boys.

Heisenberg

Ian,

Most religious people I know are quite nice and would give you the shirt off of their backs if you needed it. They are not plotting mass murder or trying to control other peoples lives. Where do you get all of this nonsense from?

In fact, sociological studies indicate that religious conservatives are the most charitable group in the United States both with their time and their money (and yes this even includes being the most charitable group in non-religious charities). If you google Arthur C. Brooks and read his work you can read all of these findings.

It seems to me that we need more sincere religious people in the world, not less.

If atheists are so much smarter than Christians are and all the evidence is on their side, then why did Richard Dawkins run away from debating William Lane Craig like a scared little girl when he had a prime opportunity to do so recently in the United Kingdom?

William only a miopic would give that answer, lets see, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition will those 2 do for a starter? Sincerely religious oh so as a sincere athesist I'm incapable of charity and good deeds.... Why do you presume a monopoly on good deeds or do you mean without God you would be a vile creature. Sorry not impressed by this great vocal religious mass in the US, not nearly enough churches for all you church goers.

I won't decry good works on a personal basis, but if you consider gifts to churches as charity forget it...I'm not into seeding....if I need a good laugh I watch the US based Christian networks on TV drumming up their funds...

Oh as for Craig Lane I'm not so sure he's the great supporter of YOUR type of God, he's trying like Hawkings to create a theory of everything basically, I'm actually with him on TIME, to me its the only true infinite, everything else must by its nature be finite. Much of his work is readable, but Dawkins has already stated why he would not appear on the same stage as this man because of his views on genocide, oh and its okay to kill kids as they go straight to heaven...yep. thats his views.