If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle.
There's clearly a lot of Ludditism, and you see it in all the hysteria about every scientific story.
If Bush and Blair are eventually put on trial for war crimes, I shall not be among those pressing for them to be hanged.
The central dogma of the New Testament is that Jesus died as a scapegoat for the sin of Adam and the sins that all we unborn generations might have been contemplating in the future. Adam's sin is perhaps mitigated by the extenuating circumstance that he didn't exist.
What Darwinian theory shows us is that all human races are extremely close to each other. None of them is in any sense ancestral to any other; none of them is more primitive than any other. We are all modern races of exactly equal status, evolutionarily speaking.
Either Jesus had a father, or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it.
You can't understand European history at all other than through religion, or English literature either if you can't recognise biblical allusions.
Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.
The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.
I once wrote that anybody who believes the world is only 6,000 years old is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.
A universe with a creator would be a totally different kind of universe, scientifically speaking, than one without.
The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warm feeling inside.
I think I would abolish schools which systematically inculcate sectarian beliefs.
Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity?
We have to find our own purposes in life, which are not derived directly from our scientific history.
There are quite a lot of YouTube clips of me that have gone viral. One that I think of is of a young woman at a lecture I was giving - she came from Liberty University, which is a ludicrous religious institution. She said, 'What if you are wrong?' and I answered that rather briefly, and that's gone viral.
I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales.
All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation.
I love words.
If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there's something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.
We have the power to turn against our creators.
We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes.
Einstein was adamant in rejecting all ideas of a personal god.
The population of the U.S. is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the U.S. leads the world by miles.
If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists.
You can't imagine how gratifying it is to have a reader come up to you and say, 'You changed my life.'
There's branches of science which I don't understand; for example, physics. It could be said, I suppose, that I have faith that physicists understand it better than I do.