1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166563 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 9:57 am

Oh - and TruthID -- answer this clearly and unequivocally please:

What are "supernatural laws?"

Can you please list three "supernatural laws?"

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166557 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 9:53 am

TruthID, you said, "....Evolutionists are narrow minded and will only consider natural laws for the explanation of anything and everything..."

Ummm...Yeah. Science is the study of nature, and the supernatural is outside science. If you are claiming some other source, other than nature, for your evidence for God, please share it.


And, "..Science has proven that the intricate and complexity of life, down to the cell, would be impossible without a creator/designer." Umm...quite the opposite, actually.

And, "They will not accept any supernatural laws for the explanation no matter how idiotic their alternative is." Well, the first part is right - they will not accept "supernatural laws" but that's because there are no supernatural laws (or at least not any that we can detect - if we could detect them, they wouldn't be supernatural, would they?). But the last bit is silly - "no matter how idiotic?" If the theory of evolution was idiotic, it wouldn't be accepted - just like the theories on the origin of life - which at present are basically mere hypotheses - we don't just grab something out of the air.

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166461 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 8:59 am

I want to add that I went to see Expelled last night. I have always thought Ben Stein to be intelligent and witty. I thought his show "Win Ben Stein's Money" was funny, and his appearances on television cable-news shows never made me question his integrity.

This movie has.

I won't say I was offended, because it's virtually impossible to offend me (barring personal attacks upon me). However, I would say my general feeling after seeing this movie was, "sickened." It was a disgusting display of false and deceptive film making.

I thought the made-up controversy about Sternberg - trotted out as the prime example of the orthodoxy killing its opposition - was laughable. I mean, the facts are just not what they were portrayed to be. Or, in other words, they just lied.

They lied about the Discovery Institute, and portrayed it as some dinky David in the face of the Evolution Goliath. And there was the meek and mild Ben Stein wandering listlessly around Seattle looking for the Discovery Institute. Such a monster of an organization must be known to everyone around, right? So, he asks people at coffee shops if they know where it is. Did he not have the address? Or, was he lying, pretending that he didn't know where he was going and asking for directions. I'm sure most of those people don't know where many offices of various corporations and organizations are located - however, the implication is that the D.I. couldn't have been much to speak of, since nobody nows where it is. He then happens upon the building and says, "...it must be this whole building..." only to find that it is just one office (as if he was just finding that out by happenstance). I mean - it's disingenuous at best - no mention of the Wedge document or the fundamentalist creationist base of the D.I.

And then there was the female professor, Winnick, I believe her name was, who claimed that she through them for a loop because she wasn't a "fundamentalist Christian" but rather was Jewish. That, of course, means nothing since there are plenty of fundamentalist Jewish people who believe in Genesis literally and in creationism as well. And, the implication is, of course, that "the scientists" are prejudiced against Christians. The whole purpose there is to simple cast aspersion.

I won't even go into the inane scenes of Stein experiencing the collective pain of the holocaust, implying that it was all caused by "Darwinism."

One main issue I have with respect to this movie however is the fact that Stein never goes into the science. He starts out by saying it's not about whose right and whose wrong - just free expression - but proceeds to claim that evolution is clearly wrong, and evil. However, they never address any of the science.

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166420 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

I have what I think is a new question that should be posed to ID-ers or creationists, and clear response demanded. I've posted this on some other boards, and get nothing but evasions. What do you all think?

Question: How does the Creationist or ID-er explain extinct species? [note - I did not ask "how does evolution explain it wrongly? - the question is How do Creationists or ID-ers explain extinct species?] Focus. Did they all live on earth at one time?

For example (note - this is an example - the question relates to the fact that there are literally gobs and gobs of extinct animals: modern horses are known scientifically as "equus." However, skeletons of animals that no longer exist on Earth have been found that are similar to equus - including, plesippus dinohippus, plichihippus, hipparion, merychippus, parahippus and kalobatippus, and many others. Modern equus exists today while those other horse-like animals do not. Did all these horse-like animals get created by God at once? Did they all live on Earth at the same time? If not - then what is the Creationsist/ID theory?

To answer this question does not require them to accept dating technologies or old-Earth vs. young-Earth arguments, natural selection, evolution, or any other theory at all. All they have to accept is that myriad animals have been found and no longer exist today (I don't think there is a creationist/ID-er who will say there aren't a lot of extinct animals).

It seems to me that there can only be two possibilities here: Either all the animals on Earth (extinct and existing) were created at the same time, or they were not. If they were created at the same time, then we have a major Earth overcrowding issue, and there are certainly some real issues to address about how come there were millions of more types of animals around in the past than there are now.... if, however, they say that only some (one or more, but less than all) of the animals were initially created by the designer, then there must have been some process or mechanism that resulted in more animals coming to be. So, the question then becomes, "what was that process or mechanism?"

The inevitable response will be directed at evolution, I predict. That's what I've gotten so far - more talk about the holes in evolution. However, I think this question, or perhaps one that Prof. Dawkins can more artfully compose, focuses the issue on what THEY'RE theory is. But instead of getting into what THEY theorize, they simply post tripe about their "questions" or "holes" in the theory of evolution.

5. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #142455 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Here's a fabulous article in the New York Times that says it well - a nation of Christians is not a Christian nation: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07meacham.html

6. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #142453 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm

If the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation then why have there been many efforts to incorporate express Christianity-adopting statements into the Constitution? And, why have they been rejected?

In February 1863 a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations from seven northern states gathered to discuss the state of the nation. Seeing the Civil War as God's punishment for the omission of God from the Constitution (not 'tolerance of gays' at that point...), they discussed a proposed amendment to alter the wording of the Preamble to acknowledge God. The original draft, by Pennsylvania attorney John Alexander, read: "We, the people of the United States recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, religious people can suck the fun out of anything!

In the following year the "Christian Amendment Movement" was founded and quickly renamed the National Reform Association with Alexander as its first president. They sent a "memorial" to Congress formally proposing the following amendment: "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves and our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The idea that civil governments derive their legitimacy from God, and Jesus in particular, was based on Biblical passages in Romans 13 and Psalms 2. The proposal was supported by Senators Charles Sumner, B. Gratz Brown and John Sherman, but did not come to a vote. However, one member of the National Reform Association, James Pollock, did play a role in getting the phrase "In God We Trust" on the two-cent coin in 1864.

Similar proposals were considered by Congress in 1874, 1896 and 1910, but none were passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Amendment

7. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #142319 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 10:04 am

al rawandi,

Of course they have prevented people from owning them - city-wide handgun bans, etc. -- bans on types of guns like Saturday Night Specials and sawed off shotguns, etc. I suppose you can own them all you want so long as you keep them in some other place outside of the jurisdiction.

I think people should be able to own firearms too. But, the question then becomes "which" firearms? where? how? It doesn't seem reasonable to say "any, wherever and however a person wants." And I know you're not advocating that position. However, it does strike me as odd that so many pro-gun groups are so vociferous and self-righteous about the issue.

Should felons be able to get them? Some of them? Long guns? Handguns? Children? How old? Should any "arm" be allowed - bazooka? Rocket launcher? Grenade launcher? Any ammunition? Hollow point? Armor piercing? Maybe some new kind of uranium tipped ammunition? Where are the lines drawn.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Can't we use reason to parse out where a nice line might be drawn?

8. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #142263 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 7:58 am

al-rawandi,

Nope. It was not the intent of the framers. First off, "the framers" did not have a unified intent. There is no such thing as the "intent of the framers." Each of the men involved in creating the Constitution had different opinions on different things (Jefferson vs. Adams - Federalists vs. Antifederalists, etc.).

It's misleading to talk of THE intent of "the framers." They were not a unified group of robe-wearing philosopher kings. They were men.

The states and city governments DO limit the right to keep and bear arms, though. They do. In lots of places in the cities around me I can't carry guns - courthouses, city hall, etc. State governments have licensing requirements (which means some people can't get guns, if they don't qualify for the license - so, that's a partial ban). Some cities ban handguns altogether.

There's a good reason why it's the DC handgun ordinance that is under attack now - Washington DC is federal. We don't have to pipeline the 2d Amendment through the 14th Amendment. Think about it.

9. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #142229 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

al rawandi,

You're missing the essential point. Even the 1st Amendment itself does not limit STATE government power (governments of California, Idaho, etc.). It doesn't. Speech, religion, etc. were determined by the SCOTUS as limitations on state power through the 14th Amendment Due Process clause.

The same MAY be true of the 2d Amendment, and in your opinion obviously should be true, but it has not yet been decided. The Supreme Court has not decided whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental right limiting state power through the 14th Amendment. Nobody, however, is making the legal argument, anywhere, that the 2d Amendment (or the 1st, 3rd, whatever) apply DIRECTLY to state governments.

When people talk of our 1st Amendment rights, what they are really saying is that the federal government can't abridge our freedom of speech under the the 1st Amendment, and the state governments also can't do it by virtue of the 14th Amendment. See what I'm getting at?

10. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #142193 by prospero811 on March 12, 2008 at 6:21 am

al-rawandi,

You are incorrect that the Constitution was a limited document directed at the states. It simply is not that. The U.S. Constitution is the document that the states signed which CREATED the federal government, and the federal government was given certain enumerated powers by the states. The bill of rights is more properly called the "bill of limitations" insofar as they are limitations on federal power.

They do not, directly, limit State, as opposed to federal, power at all. The federal constitution had no impact or effect on the state governments until after the civil war, when the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified. Particularly the 14th Amendment due process clause. The substantive aspect of the due process clause was found, by the Supreme Court, over the year to require states to not infringe upon certain "fundamental rights." To the present day, the 2d Amendment has not yet been found to be one of those fundamental rights, just as the right to a grand jury hasn't been found to be a fundamental right.

I haven't taken anything out of context. Believe me, I've studied enough Constitutional law to know something about this.

11. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #141995 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Interesting sidebar here on the right to bear arms argument. It's important to note that it is not an absolute right, by any stretch of the imagination, in the U.S. for people to have and carry guns. It never has been.

The 2d Amendment to the US Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However, that Amendment is part of the federal constitution, and limits FEDERAL power. It has never, for example, limited the power of city governments to outright ban guns within city limits. Cities do it all the time, and they always have - even way back in the day of "The Founders."

State governments in the United States have many laws restricting the types of guns, licensing them, and limiting who can own them. For example, typically, felons can't get concealed weapons permits in most states.

Interesting isn't it? Even 2d Amendment absolutists take it as given that convicted felons should not be allowed to have concealed weapons permits. Why? The right to keep and bear is not limited that way in the text of the 2d Amendment, is it?

The reality is not that it's implicit in the 2d Amendment that certain limitations can be made. The reality is that the federalism of the American system means that certain governments are limited more than other governments. State and city governments are NOT limited in their power by the bill of rights. They are limited by the the 14th Amendment's restrictions incorporating many fundamental liberties espoused by the bill of rights into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Not all of the rights espoused by the bill of rights are considered essential for substantive due process in the U.S. For example, the right to be grand jury indictment is one. State prosecutions do not have to start with grand jury indictments, while federal ones do. Another example is the 2d Amendment - to date - the Supreme Court has never held that the 2d Amendment is applicable to the States and local governments by virtue of the 14th Amendment. And that is precisely why state governments and city governments in the U.S. can, and do, restrict certain weapons and ban some.

12. Pascal's Wager

Comment #141984 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Pascal's Wager becomes quite complex when we look at the basic claims that only certain Christians can be saved. You'd better be Christian? Well, which one? The 7th Day Adventists think the rest of Christianity is doomed. The Catholic church at least at one time taught that Protestants were going to hell. Mormons think they have the true faith.

Which Christianity? I don't know.

13. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #141980 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:52 pm

This is an argument in which the theist assumes the "badness" his argument. Atheists are "just as bad" as theists? So, the theist admits the badness of fundamentalist theists? Good. We're in agreement on that then!

14. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #141978 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm

The argument is correct. Science and religion both make faith claims, but the faith claims they make are fundamentally different from each other.

Science takes it on faith that what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell, are what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Science takes it on faith that we can figure out what's going on around us through use of our senses.

Science does not, however, take it on faith that there is a given state of affairs beyond that. Religion, however, makes concrete claims about what it can't see, hear, taste, touch and smell, and takes it on faith that those concrete claims are true.

15. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #141976 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Perhaps not.

However, how does one determine what is moral?

An atheist would say that a moral determination is made through reason and philosophy.

A theist's response to that is invariably some iteration of the following: "Ahhhh so you think 'anything goes' - you can't say my morals are bad and someone else's good because we all come up with our own version of what is moral."

One problem with the theists argument is that the theist must also use his own head. He doesn't think he's using his own head - his own reason - but he is. He has to figure out which religion to follow. And religions have differing views on morality. Some denominations are very strict and draconian, others are liberal. Some allow divorce, some don't. Some allow abortion, some don't. Some allow capital punishment, some don't.

The theist says that God tells us what is right and good. But, since there are so many denominations out there, the individual in the first instance must decide which idea of what's in God's mind to follow. He can only do that through the use of his own faculties.

So, can the theist not cast moral judgment upon beliefs that he thinks are wrong (or he thinks God thinks are wrong)? He has to cast such moral judgments because he thinks his God is right.

It's just one order removed from making up one's own mind. In fact, it is the illusion of NOT making up one's own mind, when in fact one is making up one's own mind.

So, if the theist is allowed to say that "my idea of what God has in mind is correct," then why can't the atheist say "my idea is correct?" Both are value judgments relative to morality. Both are claims that some other poor fellow's morality is way off. What's the difference? Aren't they both just as much "anything goes" philosophies?

And, isn't it just reality that we really all CAN simply decide what we think is moral. We're then free to live like that, until such time as we run afoul of the criminal or civil laws. You may say I am immoral for having gotten a divorce, or had sex before marriage. I may say you are immoral for casting a vote on a jury for capital punishment. Both moral judgments can be supported by reason. Both moral judgments can be supported by some idea of what God's reason is. So, I guess, anything does go, no matter how you look at it.

16. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #141967 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:32 pm

One way to attack this argument is to point out that what the theist is doing is denigrating what they claim to be a virtue: faith.

They claim that having faith in atheism is a knock against it. All this does is point out that both are ludicrous. One can say, o.k., assuming without admitting that atheism sucks because it requires faith - you, Mr. Theist, have just admitted that your theism sucks. We'll certainly agree on that, since we both agree that Theism is all about gobs and gobs of faith.

Essentially, the theist is trying to argue that his faith is no stupider than the atheists. That's as far as the "as much faith as..." argument can take him.

17. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #141959 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm

How else should life be?

We either have free will, or we don't. Whether there is or is not a God, the issue is the same: we either have free will or we do not. Some Christian denominations believe in predestination, as do other religions.

God has either given us free will, or we are born with it despite the non-existence of God. Or, God predestines us, or we are born with our futures mapped out without a God. Whether there is a God can tell us nothing of the likelihood of free will actually existing (unless God shows us what reality is somehow).

Whether or not there is a God, we may only be under the impression that we have free will, when in fact we do not. It sure seems like we have free will. It looks like we do. But then again, as Wittgenstein might have asked, how would it look if we didn't have free will?

It boils down to this - the atheist uses his head to come to a decision of what the universe is like (free will or no free will). A theist uses his head to come to a decision about how God made the universe (free will or no free will). Some atheists may think there is free will, and some might not. Some theists think that God made free will, and some might not.

The difference is that the theist cedes the responsibility to God. The theist then says what he thinks God did (other theists differ). So, the theist thinks that he has some anchor to certainty, when in doubt that certainty is simply an avoidance of the question.

The theist decides which God he wants to follow, and then accepts all that follows from that single choke-point. The atheist takes it on a case-by-case basis.

18. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #141958 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm

First, why does anyone care what others think? Because we like to debate and persuade others that we are correct. We are also interested in the truth, so talking to people and listening to their arguments is part of learning about what others believe and whether it makes sense. People like me are more than happy to change their opinions when confronted with good reason to do so.

Second,and this is a more confrontational response, how DARE a religious person imply that atheists shouldn't care what others believe. I can't think of anyone who is more judgmental and condemning of the ideas in the heads of another person than devoutly religious person.

19. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #141952 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Mr. Dawkins,

The claim that the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" is an outgrowth of what I've called "Founder Worship." There is a significant segment of the population, including many pundits on radio and television, that often refer to the "intent of the Founders," always with the upper case F.

This conjures an image of great robed thinkers who founded the nation in a golden age of unified thinking that we have since gone away from. We've lost the religion of The Founders. If only we could get back to the wonderful time of The Founders, then all will be well.

And, what did The Founders believe? Whatever it was, we have to agree with them, because they were the wise Founders. And, we're constantly told that The Founders were Christians and Founded this nation as a Christian Nation.

What's the reality? The nation was founded by a large number of different men, with a large variety of differing opinions, philosophies, and religious views. They argued vehemently with each other, bitterly (e.g., Jefferson and Adams, Federalists and Antifederalists, Deists and Christians, etc.). Jefferson, who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence, expressly loathed Christianity. Not one mention of God is made in the U.S. Constitution (the document that creates the U.S.), let alone the Christian God, and the only mention of religion is to say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Clearly, if The Founders intended to form a Christian Nation, wouldn't they have spoken in a unified voice and stated in the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People...in order to form a Christian Nation..." They absolutely did not.

I always take care to never, ever.... ever use the term "the Founders" or "intent of the Founders" exactly for the reason that there never was such a thing! This country came about out of strife, and out of struggle, among many men of differing temperaments and ideas, philosophies and religions, etc.

And, not to stop there, they were MEN, nothing more and nothing less. They had affairs, duels, fights, etc. They lied. They cheated. They were hypocritical. They flip-flopped. This isn't to say that they weren't essentially good men. Most of them were. But, they were no more of unified group of "Christian Nation Builders" than we have today.

Perhaps I've rambled. So, I'll stop my stream of consciousness there.

20. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #141946 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I've answered this question with another question: "how else should it be?"

It's much like Wittgenstein's statement regarding how people believed the sun went around the Earth rather than the Earth going around the sun. Someone said to him, "because that's the way it looks..." to which Wittgenstein responded, "what would it look like if the Earth went around the sun?" The answer of course is "just as it looks right now."

Not to mention, however, that the heliocentric view is in reality just as wrong as an Earth centered view. Neither are at the center, and both revolve around each other as they travel through space, and it looks from here the way it looks.

So, if the world being suited for life is an argument for the existence of God, one has to ask, "what would it look like if there wasn't a God?" Wouldn't it look just like this?

And, from our perspective, our whole reality seems so "perfectly suited" for us to live. But, is it really? Would an intelligent designer create so much useless space? Why sent comets and meteors into the Earth to wipe out millions of species on Earth if it's all so "perfectly suited?" Why have disease and painful death? Why does childbirth hurt? Why are our bodies so fragile? Why do some animals eat others? If I was designing a life-sustaining habitat, I would certainly make it more hospitable than this one.

21. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #141941 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Mr. Dawkins,

Well, aside from the obvious answer being that having a sense of community has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the God proposition, this is a simple question to answer. I get my sense of community by participating in other social organizations besides religious ones. Like a high school as academic clubs, social clubs, and other student organizations, one can find a sense of communal belonging through many different interactions with other people.

Going to a church is a fine idea. One great one is Unitarian Universalist meeting houses, wherein one may choose to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, pantheist, deist, agnostic, atheist or whatever. In that sense, a church can be used for communal purposes, educational purposes, and social purposes. Whether one believes in one or another ludicrous idea is wholly beside the point.

22. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #141937 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Mr. Dawkins,

This is a debate point on which I feel I have scored several victories in the God-no-God debate. I've been asked this very question, "what is the purpose of life without God?"

My rebuttal is simple, and it starts by answering the question with a question: "What is the purpose of life?" Most of the time, the answer is just as applicable to a no-God universe as it is to a God universe. For example, "to be fruitful and multiply," is the same as "procreate." And, another answer is "to do good" is another example, which is just as applicable to a "no-God" universe as a God-inhabited one.

A bit problematic is the answer, "to do God's will." However, that of course assumes the answer to the essential question, and also avoids the "purpose" question altogether. They say, our purpose is to "do what God wills" or in other words, "to fulfill God's purpose." However, most people have no idea what God's purpose is! What does He want? For us to do good? For us to be fruitful and multiply? For us to refrain from sin? All those purposes can be our life's purpose s WITHOUT CALLING THEM GOD'S PURPOSES.

I can not lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, etc. , as well as any Christian, Jew or Muslim. So, if God's purpose is for us to refrain from those activities and/or to do good deeds/works, I can (and do) still accomplish those purposes.

And, since we do not know the mind of God, we still have to use OUR OWN JUDGMENT and OUR REASON to parse out what we think God wants. And there are as many opinions about what God wants as there are denominations and sects of religions, and more. There is no unified understanding of God's purpose. We are still in charge of picking that purpose or those purposes!

Thus, we are back to the beginning - what is the purpose of life without God? It's the same as the purpose I've surmised, or guessed, that God has. Or, it's the purpose I've surmised, or guessed, that I should have. There's no difference.

23. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #141419 by prospero811 on March 10, 2008 at 11:24 am

I enjoyed this debate. I was, however, quite disappointed with Ms. Bunting's performance. I thought she was terribly evasive when it came down to answering factual questions.

The question of whether Jesus was born without a human father in her mind was not deserving of an answer. She simply refused to answer the question, instead diverting the conversation to whether there were other "Truths" at play. Implicit in her statements was that she does not, in fact, believe that Jesus was born without a human father. However, she could not bring herself to say that out loud. Instead, she preferred to answer, basically, that it doesn't matter because the point is not whether he ACTUALLY had a human father, the point is that there are other Truths to consider.

I certainly agree that there are other Truths. However, I think her answer should have been, "No. I do not believe that Jesus was born without a human father. However, I don't think it matters because the point has to with...."

I was also very concerned about her inability to articulate what these Truths are to which she refers. She mentioned generalities in question form such as, "...what about human emotions?" and that sort of language. I could not connect her references to the question of the virgin birth. It doesn't follow.

She also seemed very apologetic throughout the interview, taking a submissive position to Mr. Dawkins as if she was asking him to have mercy on her. It's almost as if she understands completely that she cannot explain why she believes what she believes, or even clearly articulate WHAT she believes. She just wants her "belief" to be acknowledged as important and valid.