Well, it's our old friend the straw man.  He's right, of course.  Evolution doesn't prove that there's no god.  Dawkins doesn't say that it does.  He says that evolution proves that life is not intelligently designed.  These are two vastly different statements.  Yes, Dawkins uses evolution as a fundamental support for his comprehensive argument that there is no god, but I've never heard him say evolution proves there is no god.

You arent going to get the Vatican  fighting directly science these days, its got its fingers burnt too many times doing this (well burnt everyone elses fingers). It employs its own physicists, astronomers  biologists etc

Not to say it won't twist and manipulate scientific progress but its not going to make scientific statements about the modern world that can easily be disproved. Ancient world of course is a different matter

It makes a mockery of the literal telling of the bible but most christians had stopping believe in that by the 19th century . It does make a mockery of creationism but this is  basically an American 20th century invention.

It really depends on how much you want to take religious books as stories with err strong moral tales (not sure what these moral tales are but hey the god squad love em)

Now Bob Spence is, like a drug hound, can spot what I am about to say clopping a head(inside joke to him).

The bottem line is magic doesn't exist and theists dont want to face that all the crap they spew is nothing but a gap answer.

Virgins dont get pregnant via "POOF, ghost logic" anymore than Thor magically slams clouds together to make lighting and thunder, anymore than I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass.

But if you have any doubts about Jesus, let me remind you that he was speared in the side, all the blood drained out of his body, he suffered complete orgain failure, brain death and celular death, only to magically survive rigor mortis via the "Poof" logic of "God did it".

Hambi, why don't you bow to the naked assertion of tradition? WHAT THE F IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Meh. This is bad, but I suppose that I don't think that it is a big deal. The Vatican is blathering about things they don't understand and misrepresenting the positions of atheists. Sounds like a run-of-the-mill day for them. Saying stupid things is a full time job for them. Most people say stupid things an a strictly volunteer basis, but the Vatican is literally paid to spout of nonsense like this.

Why is the same subject debated between theists and atheists?  There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Immanual Kant knew this.  Why is it still debatable?  The only thing that has changed since Kant is that we now have more evidence to suggest there is no God rather than evidence to suggest there is.  Dawkin even brings this up.  I think what theists need to do is actually read the material they are questioning.  Mark Twain knew this as well, know your facts before you dissect.  The most looming question is why do we still have religious institutitions and leaders that wear funny hats?

Ahem!  I'll take this up.

The Christian god posesses contradictory atributes.  Therefor the Christian god cannot and does not exist as defined.

Perhaps that's not the most rigorous example, but it is completely true.  I could go on and on with that one alone and an infinity of god concepts. 

To say that there is 'no way to prove or disprove the existence of god' is to first take god out of this universe (if it is not here that would be the only reason there couldn't be a way to prove its existence) and to secondly conflate each and every god concept as one and the same (a very serious error).  Don't do either of those things.

There are a virtually unlimited number of entities one could imagine which could be neither proved or disproved, especially if you 'give' them attributes that 'explain' why they can't be detected unambiguously by objective means, or 'extend' normal concepts of logic to 'explain' how they can have apparently contradictory characteristics. The more you seem to need to go beyond normal logic and observation to make some concept 'possible' the more actual strong positive evidence you need to produce to justify the idea.

So you need much more than the inability to disprove a concept before taking it seriously. So Russell's orbitting china teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Yahweh, Allah, and the like, all have serious problems here.

Understanding the nature of reality is not constrained to stuff we can clearly prove or disprove. It is a matter of assessing the likelihood that the reality of some proposed entity is worth taking seriously, is there sufficient independent evidence pointing specifically to its existence, does it 'explain' some aspects of reality better than alternatives while not raising problems in other areas, and so on. Since IMHO no God concepts meet these criteria, and most, probably all, require assuming the existence of modes of existence and/or 'extensions' of logic that are essentially invented purely to argue for the reality of the idea, and no arguments are put forward other than the negative ones that point to things we can't currently explain by non-supernatural means.

To repeat, the ability to 'prove' is not relevant to the study of reality. The ability to disprove is useful in eliminating incoherent, contradictory, propositions. The only things which can be known to be absolutely true or can be strictly proved are definitional or deductive propositions, like 'a square has four sides', or math and logic arguments which basically prove that a conclusion is consistent with a set of propositions or assumptions.

Strictly speaking, nothing in Science (ie the systematic investigation of reality)  is 'proved' in an absolute sense, but science is immensely useful in building an ever more accurate and explanatory model of reality,which is ultimately probably all we can ever have.