Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins
by Cristina Odone, The Observer
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2078536,00.html
You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?
This was the dilemma Richard Dawkins put to me during a weekend in the country. Our host, publisher Anthony Cheetham, had mischievously placed us next to each other at table. I thought the dilemma was a no-brainer - my only doubt was whether I would shoot straight enough to kill the beast.
He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul.
Dawkins's hatred of religion went on, as is well-known, to flower in television documentaries and, more recently, his bestselling The God Delusion. All faith is blind, rationality is anathema to believers and religion is the enemy of science: the tenets at the heart of the Dawkins dogma have been polished again and again and so widely transmitted that they have become common currency.
Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir.
In secular Britain, faith-bashing carries far more resonance and risks causing far greater damage. In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.
But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it. It sounds suspiciously like God under another name. Catholic schoolchildren used to pray for the conversion of England; nowadays, I'd settle for the conversion of Richard Dawkins.
For the only hope for tolerance is for him to publish a stream of new titles - The God Solution, The Selfless Gene - and address cosy church groups as an apostate who has seen the light. With their loudest persecutor silenced, believers would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive.
But what about me?
Cecil Day-Lewis, poet laureate, Oxford professor of poetry and consummate ladies' man, was obsessed with his identity. He was convinced that people were always mistaking him for CS Lewis.
Day-Lewis's identity crisis, described in Peter Stanford's forthcoming biography, C Day-Lewis: A Life, lives on in his widow, Jill Balcon. Although in the 1950s, she was a already a well-known actress, Balcon always saw herself referred to as, first, the daughter of Michael Balcon, celebrated head of the Ealing Studios, and, later, the wife of the poet laureate.
She claims that today, everyone thinks of her only as the mother of actor Daniel and cookery writer Tamasin. 'Of course she's proud of her offspring, but even mother-love has its limits,' Stanford explains. Quite.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2078536,00.html
You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?
This was the dilemma Richard Dawkins put to me during a weekend in the country. Our host, publisher Anthony Cheetham, had mischievously placed us next to each other at table. I thought the dilemma was a no-brainer - my only doubt was whether I would shoot straight enough to kill the beast.
He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul.
Dawkins's hatred of religion went on, as is well-known, to flower in television documentaries and, more recently, his bestselling The God Delusion. All faith is blind, rationality is anathema to believers and religion is the enemy of science: the tenets at the heart of the Dawkins dogma have been polished again and again and so widely transmitted that they have become common currency.
Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir.
In secular Britain, faith-bashing carries far more resonance and risks causing far greater damage. In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.
But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it. It sounds suspiciously like God under another name. Catholic schoolchildren used to pray for the conversion of England; nowadays, I'd settle for the conversion of Richard Dawkins.
For the only hope for tolerance is for him to publish a stream of new titles - The God Solution, The Selfless Gene - and address cosy church groups as an apostate who has seen the light. With their loudest persecutor silenced, believers would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive.
But what about me?
Cecil Day-Lewis, poet laureate, Oxford professor of poetry and consummate ladies' man, was obsessed with his identity. He was convinced that people were always mistaking him for CS Lewis.
Day-Lewis's identity crisis, described in Peter Stanford's forthcoming biography, C Day-Lewis: A Life, lives on in his widow, Jill Balcon. Although in the 1950s, she was a already a well-known actress, Balcon always saw herself referred to as, first, the daughter of Michael Balcon, celebrated head of the Ealing Studios, and, later, the wife of the poet laureate.
She claims that today, everyone thinks of her only as the mother of actor Daniel and cookery writer Tamasin. 'Of course she's proud of her offspring, but even mother-love has its limits,' Stanford explains. Quite.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 47 of 47 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #40256 by mmurray on May 14, 2007 at 3:31 am
In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot.
I think she needs to think hard about what constitutes persecution. It usually means more than
someone disagreeing with you.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
3. Comment #40257 by mmurray on May 14, 2007 at 3:31 am
People might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Odone
and also the many posts on the Guardian website
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
4. Comment #40258 by ridelo on May 14, 2007 at 3:32 am
But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it.
WHAT?
Other Comments by ridelo
5. Comment #40259 by BaronOchs on May 14, 2007 at 3:34 am
ridelo she refers to this I think:http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1018,God----in-other-words,-Ruth-Gledhill-Religion-Correspondent
Other Comments by BaronOchs
6. Comment #40262 by pewkatchoo on May 14, 2007 at 3:56 am
I posted a rebuttal to the Guardian site, though it probably will not be printed.This is without doubt the most disgraceful and truth bending article that I have ever read. To call a person who has written a book, and a very honest and rational book at that, as rabid is totally dishonest. I agree with much of what Professor Dawkins says, though not everything, and for this creature to dismiss me as a camp follower I take as a personal insult. Dawkins has stimulated me to read the Bible in full, rather than rely on vague memories of upbringing, in my personal quest for answers. He is a thoughtful, painfully polite individual, as anyone who has actually seen or heard him in debate will testify. Ms Odone is referring, in this passage, to an interview last week with Ruth Gledhill. Ms Odone has jumped to some very weak conclusions. I suggest that people read the original interview first before taking what ms Odone says as literal truth. Yet another piece of journalistic hackery posing as serious opinion.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
7. Comment #40263 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 3:57 am
It appears that the religites are writing RD's death bed conversion while he is still alive.It no longer surprises me how easily religites can ignore one of their main commandments, i.e. thou shalt not bear false witness. It wouldn't be quite so ironic if it wasn't for the religites always telling us that their god is needed to give us a basis for morality.
Other Comments by John Phillips
8. Comment #40264 by rokort on May 14, 2007 at 4:01 am
Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremismHow extreme is it to follow the laws of nature we're all subject to and not believe in something of which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever?
In secular Britain, faith-bashing carries far more resonance and risks causing far greater damage. In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.
Somewhat in line with mmurray's comment : why is having another opinion "bashing" or a "rabid attack" and does that lead to "hard line" christians or "damage"? Why -in line with neoconservative speach- is another opinion a danger and should it be labeled as such, and only as such?
I guess because then the debate will not be about the real issue, but -also perfectly in line with american life pushed forward by folks only interested in money and power- it can stay superficial. Creating fear is top priority on a theist's agenda - the only thing they understand since their entire life is based on it. How shallow. How sad.
Other Comments by rokort
9. Comment #40267 by wahoonie on May 14, 2007 at 4:04 am
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?This was the dilemma Richard Dawkins [...]
He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul."
i cannot at all understand dawkins being "outraged" by such an answer:
being a homo sapiens i can only but react to my set of behavioural patterns which means "protect the child of your own species for you might most of your the genes and those must survive" - be it my own or someone else's offspring.
and then if i know that it is the last elephant and it will be extinct anyways in a few weeks, months or years...
appears like some argument for the sake of dispute
Other Comments by wahoonie
10. Comment #40268 by wahoonie on May 14, 2007 at 4:06 am
btw is there any chance to sue people that threaten you pray for your "soul" ???Other Comments by wahoonie
11. Comment #40269 by petermun on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 am
Is "rabid" another word for "reasoned" in the RC Church then? Must be another of those anomalies arising from translation from the original latin.Other Comments by petermun
12. Comment #40270 by USA_Limey on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 am
Dawkins is a secular extremist eh? What because he won't sit down and shut up but has the temerity to ask a few polite, (always polite from Richard), questions about the voracity of certain claims?What an insult to the victims of the Gulag under Stalin - now that's secular extremism.
What an idiot.
__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!
~ Logan
Other Comments by USA_Limey
13. Comment #40272 by AbortGod on May 14, 2007 at 4:15 am
Dr. Dawkins,Could you comment on this post? I seems, well... a little one-sided.
C.S.K.
Other Comments by AbortGod
14. Comment #40273 by Chris Davis on May 14, 2007 at 4:15 am
GAWD I hate that woman. She's one of the best examples I know of how overrated Christian piety is.CD
Other Comments by Chris Davis
15. Comment #40279 by Logicel on May 14, 2007 at 4:35 am
In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position._______
What a sloppy and unclear conflation between the reality of a minority of the British population practicing religion with implying--with the most slimy intellectual dishonesty--that this minority status is solely because the hidden majority are not allowed to practice their particular brand of religion.
So what is it, open and well thought-out criticism of religion deters or spurs the practice of religion? In the second sentence quoted above, she seems a bit muddled about to which situation she is referring. This author has already committed two strikes against logic, and therefore, I will not give her a third chance and did not finish reading the article.
However, this pathetic kind of article, no matter how inane it is, is positive as others have pointed out. These religious apologists are realizing they must try to combat this very effective criticism against non-evidential religious beliefs--in part, being virally transmitted via the Net--to the best of their abilities. Happily, the best of their abilities is falling miserably short, and they are--apparently obliviously--further contributing to the swell of opposition against belief without evidence.
EDIT: Please double post--I just did, remember only one comment per 30 minutes is allowed at the Guardian site.
Other Comments by Logicel
16. Comment #40281 by Russell Blackford on May 14, 2007 at 4:39 am
Oh dear, what can I say? Someone's been around with the inanity stick again.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
17. Comment #40282 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 14, 2007 at 4:40 am
Everyone else is doing a fine job taking this one apart, so I will restrict myself to something I am interested in.I just would like to know one thing from Professor Dawkins: Is the following true?
"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul."
Because in my case, I wouldn't hestitate to pull the trigger. And I would be proud to do so. The only concievable standard of morality is the sanctity of human life. I cannot think of any single code which does not place human life at its centre which does not end up in bloodshed.
For a practical demonstration, look up what the horrific effects of the DDT ban are.
Anyway, I would just like to know whether or not this is true.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
18. Comment #40285 by GodlessHeathen on May 14, 2007 at 4:45 am
Accusations of "berating" and "outrage" without a single quote. I find that telling.The whole article reads like someone soothing their own fears.
Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
19. Comment #40287 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 4:47 am
Given that there's only one elephant, and it's the last, and therefore extinction is inevitable in the iminant future, then the only logical choice is to shoot dumbo.RD may of course have simply been pulling her leg. It's always tempting to annoy the god-botherers, and so easy to do. And this women seems particularly shrill in any case.
Other Comments by CJ22
20. Comment #40288 by NJS on May 14, 2007 at 4:49 am
If I'd known she was a rabid catholic I'd have added to the dilemma that the baby was Muslim or Jewish (I fully support Dawkins' position on child religion but doubt she does)Wonder if she'd have given the same answer in honesty?
Other Comments by NJS
21. Comment #40289 by Logicel on May 14, 2007 at 4:53 am
If I was in this hypothetical situation supposedly posed by RD, I would try my best to wound the elephant, to slow it down, so I could save the baby. As for trying to save this last elephant as being nonsensical because it is the last elephant, you are not given the information if this last elephant is a female, and if there is frozen male elephant sperm safely squirreled someplace.
Other Comments by Logicel
22. Comment #40292 by Logicel on May 14, 2007 at 4:58 am
Another interesting aspect, is if the human adult in the situation is female who has brought to term a baby herself. In that case, the levels of a certain hormone would most likely encourage/compel the female human to save the baby. This is the hormone that makes postpartum women respond to another mother's squalling infant. Other Comments by Logicel
23. Comment #40303 by newathiest on May 14, 2007 at 5:23 am
Assuming he's not been misrepresented, thenI disagree with Prof. Dawkins, and I'd shoot the elephant.
Not because humans have a soul, but because of what wahoonie said. (comment 9) Own species and all that.
Anyhoo, this caught my eye -
With their loudest persecutor silenced, believers would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive.
Wow. Questioning = Persecution
And the hunted species will bare its fangs? A veiled threat perhaps. Apart from the ever-present potential for religious extremism, it's a good thing xtianity is completely toothless in its fight against science, as recent articles on this site have shown.
Other Comments by newathiest
24. Comment #40307 by jeepinci on May 14, 2007 at 5:27 am
the point is the human ego, possibly the root cause of all religion, the fact that we feel we are the most important beings ever in existance and the whole universe revolves around us... wrong, we are twigs on the Darwinian tree and as free thinking twigs we can and should protect the very tree that we are part of..anyone who singles out humanity as the only relevant branch is stuck in the same quagmire of limited thought as the religious
the Elephant lives!
Other Comments by jeepinci
25. Comment #40308 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 5:30 am
Actually, now I've had time to think about it, both creatures are doomed anyway, since I'm incapable of lactating to feed the baby. The elephant however might be able to survive on the vegetation on the island. So given the baby will die very soon, and the elephant would live longer, then I'd shoot the baby and save myself the pain of watching it die a slow and painful death. Other Comments by CJ22
26. Comment #40310 by bitbutter on May 14, 2007 at 5:32 am
Copy of my post to the original thread..Odone's article is the latest in a string of whiny complaints against TGD that seems to append ' of substance' to the slot title 'Comment is free'.
The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.
Orly? do you have any examples?
My mum listened to TGD audio book lately, she's a mild-mannered catholic. I'm happy to report that, contrary to Odone's alarming prediction, she hasn't transformed into a bomb-hurling gun-toting fundamentalist. Rather she appreciated the opportunity to think carefully and clearly about her faith, and the role of religious faith in modern society.
Other Comments by bitbutter
27. Comment #40312 by newathiest on May 14, 2007 at 5:35 am
jeepinci -I dunno man, I think another, more wide ranging dilemma could have been used to demonstrate that point. Would we kill the last thousand elephants to save a baby? That's tougher.
Other Comments by newathiest
28. Comment #40313 by Jolly Wally on May 14, 2007 at 5:36 am
"But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling."More lies! We know the truth:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,956,Why-the-Gods-Are-Not-Winning,Edge-Gregory-Paul-amp-Phil-Zuckerman
Other Comments by Jolly Wally
29. Comment #40314 by DavidMcC on May 14, 2007 at 5:38 am
"But there is hope. In a recent interview, Dawkins describes a gigantic intelligence which designs the universe. He acknowledges that there may be an awe-inspiring and uplifting force out there and that he is prepared to encounter it. It sounds suspiciously like God under another name."Ridelo, this sounds more like Fred Hoyle's "cosmic intelligence" to me. RD has refered to such a possibility, but Odone conveniently left out this (or words to the effect): "... but it is extremely unlikely."
Other Comments by DavidMcC
30. Comment #40320 by stuartM02 on May 14, 2007 at 5:52 am
I read this artical yesterday in the Observer twice becasue I just could believe the dishonesty.I knew instantly where she had got the assertion from (as others have pointed out). It is infact a good example of how a misrepresentation can go to a misquote to a whole load of sh@t. i.e the first artical, then the second (same author) to this.
I think what annoyed me more in this artical was not so much the dishonesty but the smugness. She must have known she was dishonest and yet still proceeding to be smug about 'catching RD out' and proving he's actually a believer.
Other Comments by stuartM02
31. Comment #40325 by Robert on May 14, 2007 at 6:10 am
Assuming Dawkins actually did raise this thought experiment about the baby and the elephant and is not being misquoted I have to say it's a no brainer. I'd shoot the elephant immediately. There wouldn't be any reasonable alternative. I'd feel very bad about it afterwards, I admit, but no normal person could do anything else.There's no point in treating a practical problem as a theoretical problem. If anyone was actually in that situation human instinct would take over.
Other Comments by Robert
32. Comment #40326 by PeteW on May 14, 2007 at 6:11 am
Suppose the hypothetical Last Elephant was charging Adolf Hitler.Would Christina shoot it then?
Other Comments by PeteW
33. Comment #40327 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 6:17 am
So much for "thou shalt not bear false witness". Not only is the piece dishonest, it's knowingly dishonest. At best I'll be charitable and ascribe it to the mind-bending double-think that christians regularly go through in order to believe their six impossible things before breakfast. At worst, this is crass and deceitful ad hominem propaganda. The paraphrasing of the original article was a deliberate misquote of a deliberate misquote of a remark taken out of context (and truncated). Shamefully shoddy.And how lacking in class is it to use a remark at a dinner party to score cheap religio-political points and to attack a man who is never more than reasonable and polite (if uncompromising). Funny, I was taught that those qualities were a virtue. "Rabid" me arse. If they want rabid they want to see me go at the Jehovahs when they come knocking at my door trying to sell me the Watchtower.
Other Comments by CJ22
34. Comment #40331 by HunterZolomon on May 14, 2007 at 6:21 am
"He was outraged" "He berated me"
"Dawkins hatred"
"Dawkins dogma"
"world-famous apologist of secularist extremism"
"faith-bashing"
"rabid attacks"
"loudest persecutor"
Nice try fundie, noone who has ever seen or heard the Professor will recognize him from your description.
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
35. Comment #40333 by gcdavis on May 14, 2007 at 6:22 am
I nearly spat out my coffee when I read this yesterday. Criticism yes, views with which I disagree off course but ill informed, petulance coupled with inaccurate reporting is not what I expect from a columnist of a major Sunday newspaper. I have cancelled my Observer subscription. Other Comments by gcdavis
36. Comment #40349 by Jack Rawlinson on May 14, 2007 at 6:46 am
Odone is an inveterate catholic idiot. She even used to edit the Catholic Herald. At that time I spent many happy minutes firing off sarcastic letters in response to her pieces, which were far more frequently of this witless nature in those days. Since she's been writing for The Guardian/Observer she's kept her religious cards a bit closer to her chest and generally let Mary Kenny be the paper's resident foaming Catholic nutcase. But it seems RD really does get under their skin to the extent that they cannot help but reveal the true depths of their religious silliness. Which is a good thing. Now more people know Odone for what she is. Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
37. Comment #40403 by Glacian on May 14, 2007 at 8:38 am
A single surviving elephant would hardly be ideal for maintaning a near-extinct population. In any case, the piont of the initial hypothetical is to demonstrate that life has value relative to its rarity, and to put it more broadly could be phrased: Would you allow a species to go extinct, or to save the life of a single human being, if you had to choose one or the other?I don't know what the typical response would be, but I'm afraid it might actually be common, perhaps near-unanimous, to choose that one human life over an entire species. I agree wholeheartedly - passionately, even - with Dawkins, if that is, in fact, his opinion on the matter - that the lives of endangered species, should their deaths threaten extinction, become more valuable than nondescript human life by virtue of their circumstances.
That humans place an infinite relative value of their lives over all other species appalls me and it is a notion that I feel should be abandoned.
One Human > 10,000 dolphins?
I don't think so. I wish people would wake up and start valuing biodiversity in and of itself.
Other Comments by Glacian
38. Comment #40404 by toomanytribbles on May 14, 2007 at 8:40 am
hunterzolomon: exactly. Other Comments by toomanytribbles
39. Comment #40419 by ? on May 14, 2007 at 9:16 am
Too bad she didn't stick with the initial thought experiment about since it was the only interesting thing in the article. A similar hypothetical was done by a man named Louie Savva wo runs a blog called Everything is Pointless (everythingispointless.com). He's an atheist and (no surprise given the title) something of an existentialist. He asked about whether you would save a gorilla or a human from a virus if you had a limited supply of a drug and could only save one. I may be wrong but he seemed to think that saving the gorilla would be cruel since the human would have a much greater understandning of what was happening to him/her and the the person's family would also grieve on a level far beyond that of other gorillas. Savva seems to take a view of consciousness similar to Daniel Dennett and in many articles has argued that the case for self-consciousness in animals is very weak (I disagree with this). If I have misrepresented his views, I apologize--I've just started reading him. My point is that there are many possible secular answers to these type of questions. A Marxist, a preference utilitarian, an existentialist, a social contract theorist, etc. would all have good reasons to save the human. There is no "secular view" or "atheist view" on these things. There is really no "religious view" either. The story of Noah (a myth, of course) shows more interest in preserving each species from extinction than saving every possibe human. If that story was true, babies would have undoubtably been among the drowned. I would save the human because I am not only part of the same species but part of the same community of laws and ethics. Saving a human's life in an emergency situation is something generally agreed upon as the ethical thing to do. It is a norm that can be shown to have value across the board. The author of this article seems to be going farther, of course with the special, separate soul idea and the demonization of those who disagree with her. Other Comments by ?
40. Comment #40439 by Dan P on May 14, 2007 at 9:49 am
"In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot."He is of course 100% percent right. Believers are being viciously oppressed from burning witches at the stake and randomly torturing people, how outrageous.
Other Comments by Dan P
41. Comment #40544 by mikkala on May 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Sweet baby Jesus!!It appears there was an avalanche of most delectable tid-bits of Info. I'll be a while reading/watching/listening to all the articles and various tid-bits, posted on this day of 14/05/07.
RD, you're the best. You keep the hard-core info coming through the system, We'll keep the hits coming in your general direction.
It was indeed a good day at RD.net
Big ups to Josh T. for keeping things tidy!
Over and out.
Other Comments by mikkala
42. Comment #40555 by BaronOchs on May 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm
RD, you're the best. You keep the hard-core info coming through the system, We'll keep the hits coming in your general direction.
Damn right, this is my current favourite place on the web.
Here's a toast!
Other Comments by BaronOchs
43. Comment #40631 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm
"In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot."Oh purleeeese! After all they only run a third of schools with taxpayers money, have 26 seats reserved in the upper chamber of Parliament, an entitlement to charitable status worth millions in tax breaks and a statutory right to religious programming forced upon broadcasters.
And maybe the religious should try being gay or lesbian because I wonder who is responsible for the persecution of gay and lesbian people? Or for that matter, women in Africa and the Middle East?
I could go on. The religious need to take a long hard look at themselves. But I doubt they have the self awareness.
Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad
44. Comment #40637 by the great teapot on May 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm
The religious should try being gay...You are obviously not a catholic choir boy.
Other Comments by the great teapot
45. Comment #40673 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 14, 2007 at 4:49 pm
"The religious should try being gay...You are obviously not a catholic choir boy."
Firstly, paedophillia is no laughing matter.
Secondly, it is deeply offensive and factually incorrect to perpetuate the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophillia.
Thirdly, the fact that attempting to make this link is a common tactic used by the religious in their attempts to smear gay and lesbian people makes such casual silliness even more innapropriate in this setting.
Finally, for the record, gay people make up around six per cent of the population but (according to UK crime statistics) commit only two per cent of sexual offences against children.
Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad
46. Comment #40885 by Eureka Step on May 15, 2007 at 6:54 am
Apologist!?!I think not.
Other Comments by Eureka Step
47. Comment #42068 by lpetrich on May 17, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Richard Dawkins was describing a deist god to Ruth Gledhill, but he hasn't exactly converted to deism. And Ms. Odone would likely find deism almost as bad as atheism, at least if she carefully thought it through.And Ms. Odone might want to ask how far she'd ever get in the hierarchy of the church that she loves so much, as opposed to the rest of society. Would she be allowed to become a priest or a bishop or an archbishop or a cardinal or a pope? Yet in secular society, she became a journalist and a newspaper editor.
Other Comments by lpetrich
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #40253 by BaronOchs on May 14, 2007 at 3:24 am
Other Comments by BaronOchs