OPINION: I'm sure that the audience of atheism's high priest, Richard Dawkins, had a great time last Wednesday in Wellington's Michael Fowler Centre. What I'm not so sure about is whether its members realise that their champion is at least just as religious as Christians.

Forgetting for the moment the question of the origins of the universe (also an issue of faith), he believes, as all those who insist that evolution gives a plausible explanation for our existence must, that life arose spontaneously from non- living molecules (abiogenesis). Notice the appearance of the word "believes" - it has never scientifically been demonstrated that this is even remotely possible. Hence, it is a question of faith.

I believe this faith is much bigger than the faith required to believe in a god who created the universe and the life we observe on Earth. I'm convinced that atheists (and I do have atheist friends whom I love and care for) ultimately reject God for theirs, not because he's so highly improbable, but because their god neither condemns sin, nor requires anything from them.

RICUS ERASMUS

Northland

Anon #1 12:46 pm Mar 15 2010
While there are degrees or 'atheism', in its simplest form atheism simply rejects the existence of [any] god. This being the case, Dawkins' 'belief' in the origins of life are not germane to this argument - it is a very weak argument to try and reverse Dawkins' position on religion based on semantics.

GdB #2 04:39 pm Mar 15 2010
I know very few "strong" atheists, meaning those who are certain that there is no god, and to some extend, it might be true that this requires some kind of conviction or "belief". Most non religious people (myself included) simply points out that we cannot know whether a god exists or not (ie, being agnostic), therefor any discussion or belief around this is non sensical. I can make lots of propositions about how life might have started, although it is clear that evolution (through natural selection) is the driver of change in life. But speculating about the involvement or not of any deity in our origins or day to day life, is about as useful as claiming that we were planted here by aliens. It might be true, but we cannot ever know. Unless the god or alien in question comes down here and reveal themselves.

Matt #3 05:05 pm Mar 15 2010
Mr Erasmus's argument is most furphious, and spurious. I couldn't agree less with him. There is a recent, plausible explanation for abiogenesis around white smoker vents on the sea floor, where the eubacteria and archaebacteria are thought to be derived from thin films of lipids on the surface of bubbles (and the energy equations make sense). Add a bit of endosymbiosis, 3 billion years, and no diety, and away we go. Mr. Dawkins would be fully aware of such research, and he, unlike the general population, is not mistaken for what constitutes religious belief and what doesn't. It is most frustrating to hear the arguments like Mr Erasmus makes, when he makes the leap of logic from "I don't personally understand" to "therefore it must not be happening." I, like Mr Dawkins, conclude, quite correctly, that there is no God. If you're looking for some gap in the knowledge that is modern biology for your god to hide then you're barking up the wrong tree.

jackp #4 07:06 pm Mar 15 2010
I agree with Ricus Eramus. Evolution has not been scientifically proven. Those that say it has are still clinging on to the origins of species but that has so many holes in it, it isn't funny. Athiesm is a belief to me until it has been proven. Didn't they find a bone of some animal and some "authority" said it was the missling link a year ago? This turned out to be false. The bible states it correctly, life begets life and there hasn't been anything contrary to that. Even science is disproving Darwin's theory. I like Erasmus last sentence which is why most condemn christianity. It is hard to live a life of Christ.

Ian #5 10:03 pm Mar 15 2010
Evolution is the only process which explains how life came to be the way it is. There is no such thing as a "missing link" - evolution is a continuous process, happening all the time. There are no in-between species.

Jackp's assertion that science is disproving evolution is just plain wrong. It is hard to live a life of christ however - ask lots of former alter boys from the USA, Ireland, Germany, etc.

J #6 07:19 am Mar 16 2010
@jackp

Epic fail!

Lee #7 08:04 am Mar 16 2010
Absolute rubbish Jackp - in the future please give links to such 'evidence', science is not faith based so simply saying something won't fly...post the 'evidence'.

As well as that, Darwins book is entitled 'Origin of the Species' not 'Origin of Life', evolution is the theory behind how different species arose not how life began.

Suggest you also do some reading about the rubbish that is the 'missing link' before you use that as teh cornerstone to your anti-evolution arguement.

I have no problem in people following a religion if they chose(I am unsure if there is a God, the odds are long but I have no proof for or against), I do have a problem with people using blatant lies and misinformation to try and persuade others of their view.

Sam #8 08:28 am Mar 16 2010
I love how this arguement inspires people so much, wether they believe either of the two arguements everyone gets into it. Generally i sway towards to science side of the arguement but in saying this i dont completely debunk some kind of force behind everything in this universe, but don't get me wrong when i say this because i thoroughly believe that the christian persona of god is completely human imagination.

John #9 09:38 am Mar 16 2010
Ian #5 ..... the athiests of the world, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and the great Mao have done far worse than a few pathetic priests.

Wake up son!

Lee #10 10:49 am Mar 16 2010
John #9
But they haven't done evil in the name of Atheism...they didn't do their deeds out of the need to spread Atheism, it was political ideology. Besides there is contrasting evidence as to whether Hitler was an Athiest, he professed himself to be a Catholic many times.

Paul G wrote:"I'm sure that the audience of atheism's high priest, Richard Dawkins"

Stopped reading here. Petty and childish.

hackenslash wrote:'Furphious'? Is this an Ozzieism? I've never heard that word before, and google only turns up the OP here and what looks like an Aussie blog or something similar.

Anyway, the usual conflation of evolution and abiogenesis (which is a fact, regardless of whether it happened by chemical means or by magic), usual ignorant attempt to paint atheism as a religion, usual fuckwittery about rejecting their celestial peeping-tom, which completely misses the fucking point.

This article doesn't rise to the level of being worth a response. It's such vacuous arse-gravy that there's almost nothing to debunk.

Paul G wrote:"I'm sure that the audience of atheism's high priest, Richard Dawkins"

Stopped reading here. Petty and childish.