I'm not sure that the precepts of dialectical materialism have ever been tried.

'Mob rule' - democracy in action ?

The scientists at CERN will be just as happy to prove that there's no such thing as the Higgs Boson - that's the point.

Stalin had a good crack at dialectical materialism, and thank the god that doesn't exist that it failed so spectactularly. The kind of thinking which reduces people to their constituent atoms and considers morality a hangover of irrationality is capable of the worst kind of terrors imaginable.

"'Mob rule' - democracy in action ?"

Nope. Democracy by definition has to take into consideration the views of everyone, even those who fall into the lesser demographics, and impliment according to their relative say in society. Otherwise it is simply populist totalitarianism.

"The scientists at CERN will be just as happy to prove that there's no such thing as the Higgs Boson - that's the point."

Erm.. yes you really haven't been following this very carefully have you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?pagewanted=all

And excellent post, Lox.

I would add that Snow White, unicorns et al do very little in terms of providing us with a logically compelling theory of ethical obligation.

In this respect, they resemble the fruits of empirical science and much post-Enlightenment philosophy.

This is not necessarily an argument for the existence of God, merely for the concept's significance to intelligent moral life.

May I meanwhile recommend Rebecca Goldstein's superb novel "36 Arguments for the Existence of God".

Ms Goldstein is clearly an Atheist and a prodigiously learned one. But she clearly understands why the religious impulse remains of importance.

I think your super sensitivities and over anxiety to demonstrate your cleverness are showing. You need to try and calm down. Try a cold compress in a dark room. You add to the entertainment (unintended) on this site and I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to see you continue here.

"No, Stalin was a mass-murderer - nothing whatsoever to do with dialectical materialism."

Of course it was. Dialectical materialism is indeed at the heart of Marxism and Stalin was a proponent of it, using much of it to run his nation. That mass murders occured under it doesn't invalidate this, as much as your beliefs dictate this can't be so.

"Democracy (mob rule) dictates that a murderer is executed in Texas - and given 15 years in Tottenham ..."

As I pointed out, democracy isn't mob rule. The argument that because rules in different democracies are different that democracy translates to mob rule is full of logical flaws.

"I DO follow these scientific experiments (quite closely) - your link adds nothing, sorry."

Ahhh so you already knew that scientists, rather than simply admitting the experiment had yielded no results because the hypothesis was probably false, said the machine was destroying itself from the future? In so doing you were engaging in a bit of intellectual dishonesty there.

In any case, I think we've established that when it comes down to it an atheist is just as capable of any theist of completely ignoring facts because those facts threaten to unsettle the beliefs they cherish.

So as with most things in human life - pot say hi to kettle.

Stalin was no proponent of Marx - he appropriated Marxism to further his own feeble-minded agenda.

Returning to your original point about 'morals' - they are, of , relative - that's what I'm trying to say.

There are NO physicists at CERN who believe that the LHC was 'destroying itself from the future' - I can assure you ...

OK, if I can go through the responses to my earlier post....

James-I'm really not sure what your point is. I don't believe that there's any evidence for a God: a devout Jew, Muslim, Christian, whatever, might then say that the universe is proof of his/her existence (or alternatively, that belief without proof is the essence of faith) . To which an atheist might reply, but we can explain how the universe exists in the form that it does: and the counter response from a religious person would be...so what? In what sense does our ability to understand the universe imply the non-existence of God?

Lesley. Non-belief in God is a faith. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved: therefore a confirmed belief in either is a matter of personal inclination-faith either in the supernatural, or in one's ability to perceive that God cannot exist.

Fraziel-see my reply to Lesley above. Let me know if you need it explained more clearly to you: I have the impression that you're not the sharpest tool in the box.

... and finally (it's very late !):

Theists seek comfort; scientists rarely hold on to 'cherished beliefs' - we seek truth through proof.

... bed for me ... goodnight.

Just watching 'The Chaser' and one of the questions was 'Who
in Nordic mythology was the chief god' I was just wondering
in Christian mythology who is the chief god, god the father, god
the son or the mysteriously sounding god the holy ghost?

Maureen - "Theists seek comfort; scientists rarely hold on to 'cherished beliefs' - we seek truth through proof."

These two positions are logically incompatable. Therefore, no scientist could believe in god if this were true. As there obviously are scientists who believe god this statement is provably false.

You might rescind it, but somehow I doubt it.

@Lox

"How ironic that he [Dawkins] and his acolytes take such a dogmatic approach: a belief in the non-existence of God is as faith-based as a belief in the existence of God."

This is a flawed statement. You have failed to make the essential distinction between belief in the existence of a god, and whether or not there actually is one, the hard fact.

'Do you believe there is a god?' and 'Is there a god?' are two very different questions. I don't believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, just as I don't believe in the existence of any other god. I take no leap of faith in accepting that Zeus probably isn't real. I don't believe he exists, I do not accept him as the King of the Gods and ruler of Mount Olympus. Just as I don't believe that Kaang of African mythology created the moon from an old shoe. For me, these conclusions are not faith based, they are just common sense. If I genuinely believed the Kaang myth to be true, I'd be condemned as mentally ill. So why is any Christian mythology more likely to be true? Why should I accept the Bible over Ancient Greek or Norse mythology? Either one of them is correct, or they're all false.

By your logic, a belief in the non-existence of Apollo is as faith based as a belief in the existence of Apollo. Or Poseidon. Or the flying teapot. Throughout the history of our civilisation we have believed in thousands of gods and goddesses, it doesn't make your god, presumably the Judeo-Christian god, any more likely to exist.

If I were a firm believer in Norse mythology, I could say that it's extremely dogmatic of you not to believe that Thor exists; how do you know that he isn't up there right now, making thunder with his hammer?

When you (probably quite rightly) dismiss Norse mythology as an improbable and erroneous world view, hopefully you'll understand that this is exactly how atheists like myself view your god.

Sorry to break the news Keir, less and less people believe in the New Testaments, less and less actually go to churches. Thankfully and gradually we are moving on.

For God Almighty's sake belt up. I am sick of the pseudo intellectual prattling. If you have a faith its yours why the need to have to convince others their belief or lack of it is such an issue. The lack of respect shown on this issue is quite frankly appalling and perhaps you need to examine the motives of those who feel they have to behave and express themselves like this.

Thank you Mr. Dawkins for all you do. While I am a Christian, I believe in the separation of Church and State. I also believe in marriage equality. I am much more sympathetic to your viewpoints than those of rightwing Christianists.

"These two positions are logically incompatable. Therefore, no scientist could believe in god if this were true. As there obviously are scientists who believe god this statement is provably false."

Sir Michael- no those scientists usually continue their work without (probably wanting to) realise that incompatibility until they reach an impasse between belief and work, and they have the choice to reject their dogma or stop their work.

In fact I'm surprised a person that tries to come across as well read as you hasn't seen or heard examples of this in America.

Why are religious believers so rude and personal, why because they have no reasonable argument and it is easy to be rude as it is to believe in a god of any sort. At least atheists dont want to kill each other, rather different between christains, jews and mulims, whose books say it is alright to kill in the name of gods.

Jimbo - You know what Ockhams razor is? Do you know who came up with it? You might want to google, it might interest you.

What about the Big Bang theory? Was it postulated by an atheist or a Catholic priest?

What about Aristotle, Newton, Mendel, Dyson, Pasteur, Faraday, or Descartes?

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-03/us/collins.commentary_1_god-dna-revel...

The director of the human genome project converted from atheism to religion after he had become a scientist. So your assertion can be emprically proved false. Will you adjust your position on account of the evidence? Or will you retain it and dismiss the evidence?

priscillalane: They are not only rude and personal but demand far higher standards from atheists than they apply to themselves. At the moment they are attacking Richard Dawkins because a distant ancestor of his employed slaves. They search for minor flaws in atheists while readily overlooking much that is far worse as long as the perpetrators are christians. I have to admit, however, that Keir skewered me most adroitly when he spotted that I used a plural when I should have used a singular. On that I plead guilty. I have no defence.

I only want to say that the existence of a religious impulse is not a proof of Gods existence. It only makes clear that we long for a Supervisor. Some of us, though. And longing for something doesn't make it a reality. Maybe it is rooted in our deep engraved need to survive.
And if somebody here says that Dawkins never has said anything of importance, I think he has never read him; probably only read about him from his opponents, who in many cases have read him neither.

Religious - Nil point from 10 Atheists -ten out of ten.

This debate has become stale and pointless. Please stop covering it New Statesman.

'I' pleased to know that you regarded Dawkins as mighty. '

One of us is joking, not both.

I was impressed by Tinbergen, but not by Dawkins.

'reading two articles'

If you can read two articles, surely you can find just one argument? :)

'he argues in favour of democratic government.'

Oh, splendid. Where is he at election times, though, demanding an end to state interference in education? Where was he when that Cameron licked the pope's patootie in full public view?

It's no surprise you have nothing to say, because Hitchens is no more, and RD has just announced his resignation, and capitulation. He's now an agnostic, pictured with his old mate, cassocked Rowan Williams, so he's as good as a believer. Next stop, the Vatican, to join control freak Blair, with Gove and Warsi as acolytes. Pickles will be along just as soon as he's finished his bouillabaisse.

John Fennimore summed it up during last weeks Now Show on Radio 4. "Dawkins is a very clever man who is also rather stupid."

Victor, when talking about morals we should discount the bible as it condones genocide, rape, infanticide etc. I would rather live be my own standards than do good things simply to gain a place in the christian heaven.

What the Bible does is promise justice for people who lie about its message. Saiph, you really ain't.