Sounds to me like you've been spending a lot of time picking up leftist talking points/rants. You haven't said a word that sounds like you think the Democrats are anything but paragons of virtue. Is there any balance in your mind, or has the trauma of your disillusion with the Catholic Church driven you over the edge?

"This... took the mind of a supreme creator" That's a guess. You don't know that. I can guess too. That an extremely large number of universes, possibly an infinite number, came into existence at the same time, and each one was just a little bit different from all the others, and ours just happened to be the one that had the right combination of all the parameters needed to make our universe stable and life producing. What caused all those universes? What caused your supreme creator? Same answer.

"mocking a fool (Dawkins) is not the same as being offended by him" Would you call someone a fool and mock them if your weren't offended by them? Come on! Be honest! Like so many others in these comments, you're scared to death that your own doubts will send you to hell. Right? So you have to prove your bonifides to god by villifying Dawkins, just in case he exists.

Even if he could, you would probably 1) Not believe him and/or 2) Not understand him and/or 3) Throw another question at him with the same demand 4) ad infinitum

...new discoveries, or never make new discoveries.

I'm with you, Jerome. Brown's comment was a cheap shot. I'm an atheist too, but I say "oh god" all the time out of habit, from hearing it from others all my life. It's merely an idiom of english. I don't think Dawkins claims that science can explain everything. It does explain a lot, but ultimately, there is a lot that will never be known or understood, either because of human limitations or just the impossibility of obtaining the information needed. But that fact doesn't automatically mean that the explanations of religion are true or even likely to be true. Not being able to answer a question doesn't mean we can make up just anything we like. Honesty demands that we admit that we don't know and leave it at that, until we make...

...able to impose them on anyone else through government regulation. The marriage license would be a legal contract that embodies a public declaration of exclusive commitment between two consenting adults, that clearly states their terms for the sharing of property, incomes, health and medical issues, and any other issues important to them. That would be the sole content of a license. It should not be a basis for special treatment in the tax code, or any other form of government regulation, no matter how well meaning. The government should be marriage blind in how it deals with private individual citizens, married or not.

All of what you said WAS true. But not anymore. Government long ago surrendered its power and control over marriage as it allowed freedom of individual choice to trump all else. Barring a sudden and drastic reversal of this decision, one the public would never accept, the government should simply man up and take its light handed policy to its logical conclusion--stop trying to use it as a tool of social engineering. This doesn't mean that one's freedom of conscience has to be surrenderd if you are in the mariage business in some form, but disapprove of being involved in certain kinds of marriages. It doesn't mean that, if you have certain religious standards for your own mariage, you aren't allowed to employ them. You just won't be...

Nobody ever called Obama an Arab. Arab does not = Muslim. There are Muslims of all sorts of nationalities and ethnicities. He is a Kenya African who's father was a Muslim, who sent Obama to Muslim Mosques and to Muslim schools. Later, as an adult, he converted to Christianity, or so he claims. But he still loves the Muslim religion, which suggests that his conversion to Chrisitanity was more inspired by his political ambitions than by any compelling theological arguments. Maybe you should do a little more reading yourself.

... there is no such thing as something for nothing--but the presumption is that what we want will be taken from "the rich" and given to us for free. And who are the rich? "Anyone having more money than me." I expect that if, by some fluke, we get what we want--a true conservative government that reverses all the foolishness of the past decade or two--that in the next election, the People will vote back into office all those supposedly corrupt lying politicians we kicked out, or someone like them, because we will want all the free goodies back that were part and parcel of the problems we got into. There is no limit to human folly. Greed is its name.