Also how dare you, no scientist, try to define who and who is not a scientist. He gives the valid scientific critique of the idea of a deity. You might not like it, but even many religious scientists agree that strictly scientifically he is correct.

You lost respect for him why? It's a fact, most theologians don't believe in the miraculous anymore. I'm a biblical scholar myself and I agree completely with Dawkins. And I propose you a lying if you claim you've read any of his books. He has never been judgmental about anyone. He judges the beliefs. If that's judgmental, he should be proud of such.

How is he a jerk? He never attacks or even criticizes believers simply for believing. You anti-atheist bigots see anyone who dares publicly discuss their atheism and reason for lacking belief as jerks, no matter how nice they are. Dawkins is very nice to people who simply believe. He only insults those who do bad things, lie, etc. in the name of such belief, which is completely valid. You are the only one here being a jerk.

Must you lie about what he says to make your point?

Every single time Dawkins is asked, he specifically says that he DOES NOT believe there is no God. He understands that there is no good reason or scientific evidence that gives you a reason to have belief, so he lacks it, but as a scientist he understands you can never definitively disprove anything. He says this is practically every interview he has ever done. He never, ever says that there is absolutely 100% no god. In fact, he usually puts the possibility that there is no god somewhere within 90-98%. Extremely likely, but nothing is every definite.

You make yourself look foolish criticizing a man for something he has never said.

Wrong. Let's look at the etymology of the word: 'a' â" without, 'theism' â" belief in a deity. Atheists simply lack belief in a god, there is no reason why they must actively deny such existence. One who has never heard of the idea of a God is just as much an atheist. By it's basic etymology, atheism has no specific ideas or beliefs, it's simply a lack of. In that way agnostics ARE atheists, just atheists that make a specific claim about why they lack belief.

Strawman strawman strawman. He never starts by assuming others are morons. Again, if you had ever read or heard anything Dawkins says, he has never ever said such. He attacks the beliefs and people whose horrible actions have been allowed by such beliefs. He NEVER attacks people who simply believe. People against Dawkins don't make themselves look very good when they lie or simply don't even attempt to know his actual views, arguing against views he has never expressed.

If you claim Dawkins has ever been disrespectful of people you are either lying, or have never heard/read much of what he has said. He is very clear not to disrespect people, but disrespect the beliefs themselves. If he does criticize people, it is due to their actions based on religious. Now we can't criticize people's actions? He handles situations the most respectful ways possible. Those who see otherwise are having reality distorted through their religious bias. It is only the anti-atheist bigots who claim he is disrespectful, because they see disrespect everywhere, whether it exists or not.

I work in education, and this is complete bullshit. Just because you can't physically search a student doesn't mean you call the fucking cops. Are you kidding me? If the student refuses to give up the phone and is disruptive you send the student out of class, to the principal, etc. I doubt any of you claiming otherwise actually work in a school, despite your claims.

Life is carbon based. That's it. You can't detect non carbon based life, because it isn't life. As we have never seen anything life-like that isn't carbon-based, the definition of life has always been carbon-based. You may find something non-carbon based that can do some similar to life things, but it's simply not life. This isn't semantics although it seems so, it's just a fact. You don't get to redefine a scientific truth simply to fit your needs.

Once again the news media loves to misrepresent the science to make it seem like there is some "controversy." These ideas have not been controversial, and the idea that certain acquired traits can be inheritable has been accepted for a long, long time. I'm not surprised, though, ./ has no shame.

That's just as bullshit. 3 cups of coffee can have as little as 240mg (nothing to someone who drinks coffee regularly) or as much as 510mg (yeah that's a lot). 3 cups isn't specific at all.

This isn't news at all. We've known high doses of stimulants cause hallucinations for decades. I fail to see what is new about this study.

Wikipedia is not a primary resource, and not a reliable secondary. I never had a singly class in college that allowed anything but a primary resource as a source. I would question the validity of any education that does, especially such an academically unreliable secondary source such as wikipedia. It's good for looking things up for fun, that's it.

It's legal in the US too, no matter how many people say otherwise. The law is relatively clear.

It doesn't have to be your own music. You simply must own the file legally i.e: have purchased it. I can't believe I keep having to repeat this. THERE IS NO US LAW THAT MAKES SHARING LEGALLY PURCHASED MUSIC ILLEGAL THERE IS NO US LAW THAT MAKES SHARING LEGALLY PURCHASED MUSIC ILLEGAL