First, I read the review and enjoyed it. Then, because I'm not the totally secure person I like to think I am, I read the letters. Then I doubted myself and read the review again. I still like it.

As far as I can tell, a critic is supposed to give his impressions of what he sees, reads, and hears. People seem to think Andrew was unduly influenced by "MSM talking points." I think he came to these impressions all on his own. Al Gore is an intelligent guy with a fairly in-depth knowledge on what is, frankly, a peripheral topic in our culture. This could easily fall into the realm of "wonky" if you look at what the average person interprets the word "wonky" to mean instead of what Webster's says about it. People partially interpret many words, and Andrew is writing for people, not for Webster's. He watched the movie, had an impression, and wrote it down. After reading his impressions, I'm a lot more interested in seeing the documentary. Job well done.

As for the slightly put-on accent, I lived in California most my life and now live in North Carolina. I can honestly say that southern drawl always sounds put-on to me, too, whether it is real or not. Once again, it's an impression, which he shared because it makes the review a little more intersting to read and a little more honest about what he got from the film.

I do find it disturbing that many commenters will tear so hard into a person who is largely in agreement with them over an innocent mistake. I wrote a bad line of code today that didn't work as I intended, I'm glad I don't publish to you guys.

Finally, the first person to mention some irritation at phrasings is, hopefully, trying to give constructive criticism. Nine pages of it is just plain vicious. People aren't even original about what they don't like, they are just repeating the original poster's "talking points." Congratulations, you've reached a higher understanding of the inner workings of the MSM machine.

We did not create the universe, we are parts and products of it. Our hunger is not the cause of food. The food available in our environment is the cause of our hunger. We feel hunger because we require energy to function. Without experiencing a drive to acquire energy, we'd be at a severe disadvantage on the evolutionary scale and would surely have perished to a more aggressive species long ago. Hunger is nothing more than our body's way of indicating that there isn't anything in the stomach (or isn't enough to register) that it can turn into usable energy.

It's a major fallacy (not to mention an astounding level of arrogance) to believe that we are the purpose of the universe. Our existence does not mandate that the laws of nature be as they are. The laws of nature mandate that our existence complies with them.

As an aside, the limitations of human beings dictate that the existence of an omnipotent force CAN NOT be proven, because we'd have to be omnipotent to comprehend omnipotence, and I'm pretty sure omnipotence isn't on my resume. Obviously, you can't have more than one omnipotent critter running around anyway, way too many paradoxes there. This goes to show that you can not have any coherent argument for the existence of an omnipotent God. The best you can hope for is dogma. So please, try not to argue, you've no leg to stand on.

If the god of your choice isn't omnipotent, then what pray tell is the point? Why should any other critter in the universe be so deserving of the complete subjugation of your own sovereign will that is worship? Yeah, will is a funny concept, but I think of it as a bookmark for the phrase, "that which motivates me to act as I do," since it is easier to type.

Anyway, just some food for thought, because our evolutionary path also demands that we also have a drive to learn (it helps us to eat and to keep the lions at bay).

Noid presents us atheists with the the option of opening ourselves to experiencing God. Okay, how do I do that? The only thing I can imagine would allow me to experience God would be to stop applying critical analysis to what people say. In essence, stop thinking, and I will understand God. I claim that if I turn off my critical thinking skills, I have just as much likelyhood of experiencing purple unicorns. Heck, in that state, I can accept just about anything I want. Mindlessness does not lead to knowledge. If you have some other mechanism for understanding God, it does truly completely elude me.

Alternatively, I suppose you could be interpreted as saying that I have to accept the possibility of God before I can experience God. Well, that's nothing at all like the black hole example. Whether or not you accept the possibility of black holes, you will witness their effects (experience them). Just as you can deny the existence of UV rays all you want, but you'll still burn in the mid-July sun. Neither of them require you to alter your state of mind in order to have very real effects on your existence.

Also, atheism is a lowercase sort of thing. There is no philosophy of Atheism. There is simply a principal of not assuming facts not in evidence. I try to apply that to all aspects of my life, not just to my assessment of the value of religion/God. Admittedly, I'm not particularly good at this skill yet, but I think it is a goal worth striving for.