I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.

He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God

He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations. 

Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.

As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us.

Sentiment: negative