no need for an apology.

Dawkins is usually pretty gentle and eloquent when he's given a chance to speak uninterrupted. Usually though, he's put in situations where he's having to counter someone's arguments and accusations.

The Colbert interview was hilarious, though, and I am pretty sure Dawkins knew he wasn't under attack, really.

crap i also didn't notice there were 2, but not until after i rated the sucky one with people arguing a high rating. Mrs. run-on-sentance vs the interuptors.

Sane voice - Alistair McGrath? He's Author of 'The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine'.

http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/staff.phtml?lecturer_code=Amcgrath

I'm probably going to get a bunch of angry replies to this, but whatever. You know, I love this site, the games and the funny videos and whatnot. But why does everyone here seem so hostile towards Christianity? Not all Christians are like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, just like not all Atheists are hostile to religious people. Regarding the statement, if you need a book to give you morals you are not a good person, well it's pretty easy to be a good person if you make your own rules. I'm not saying Atheists or Agnostics are not moral people, it's just that the main moral points from the Bible, such as don't kill or steal or lie, are pretty much the same for most people whether you are a Christian or not. The thing about religion is that 99% of the time you will not be able to convince the other person that you are right and they cannot convince you of the opposite. People who know me know what I believe and if they want to know about Christ I am happy to tell them, but I know badgering someone only seeks to make them angry. There are people, both Atheists and Christians, who have not learned this lesson and some are to the point of being belligerent. There is a difference, however, between the overzealous Christian and the overzealous Atheist. The Christian believes that his persuasion is going to be helpful to the other person, that if he can convince that person to believe that he will save him from eternal punishment. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning, he at least, believe what he is doing is for your own good. The overzealous Atheist, on the other hand, does not persuade people to abandon their believe so they can escape perdition or obtain an eternal reward, he does his work for his own reasons. He thinks the other persons beliefs are naive and foolish and they annoy him. If the Atheist can convince the believes to abandon his faith, then it is a victory for him, not the former believer for there is one less person to question his lack of faith and one more person to reinforce his world view. If a person is happy in their faith, and continuing to believe causes them or you no harm, then aspiring to destroy that faith is rather selfish. Once again, I'm sure I'll receive plenty of angry comments because of this and to be honest I really do not care. If I am right about my faith, when I die, it will not be the end, and I will be reunited with my family, friends, and the God who made everything possible. However, if I am wrong, I die and that is it and I am no worse off than had I believed any other thing in my life. I have a no lose scenario before me. For the non-believer, if he is right, once again he and I will share the same fate of nothingness. But if he is wrong, there will be a price to pay. The Christian has nothing to lose based on his belief, but the Atheist has everything to lose if he is indeed on the wrong side of the argument. So until the day that everything within the universe and any existence beyond has been observed, there can be no absolute proof as to the existence or lack there of when it comes to God. Since that day has not and will never come, I will keep my faith as I am free to do and you are free to do the opposite if you wish. It is not religion that causes the world's problems, but a lack of tolerance of the beliefs of others.