Richard Dawkins / Archbishop of Canterbury debate
It still amazes me the way we let experts on nonsense babble on about their specific deity and its role in the natural world. What does super-magical-man-you-can’t-disprove have to do with evolution? The moderator made the mistake of claiming both Dawkins and the Archbishop knew for certain what the truth of the Universe was. Dawkins ended up admitting the limitations of his own understanding (and the obvious inability to disprove a negative), and yet this same humility in the face of the unknown is never displayed by our religious counterparts. How can the Archbishop be certain that his specific brand of fairy-tale bullshit is the right one? He just decided it was true, and the rest was easy.
The annoying thing in all of this is the fact that mouth-breathers couldn’t wait to point out the fact that Dawkins had to concede that he couldn’t fully be sure of the existence of God. It’s our honesty that gets the better of us when it comes to that question, because the truth is, this uncertainty is extremely overstated. Remember, religious people rely on absolute certainty to tell them about the world they live in. In their minds, doubt is a golden opportunity to convert someone. Religious folks just can’t understand the fact that atheists naturally accept the incomplete picture of nature we do have, specifically because that uncertainty has scientific value. How can progress ever be made if people think all of the answers to the questions of the Universe were answered a few centuries ago by illiterate animal herders?