1. Comment #12126 by Jakob on December 10, 2006 at 5:15 pm

A lot of the conflict here occurs, IMO, because Dawkins and the audience aren't in agreement on a few basic points.

For example, I'm not convinced they all agree with this statement: "The truth is important."

Without a solid foundation, how can they ever expect to make any progress? I think Dawkins forgets that most people are not intellectuals.

Other Comments by Jakob

2. Comment #12130 by melisande on December 10, 2006 at 5:43 pm

That was so frustrating to watch.

I need to cleanse my brain with some actual reasoned discourse....

Other Comments by melisande

3. Comment #12133 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Jakob, I agree, but I think the real problem is that most people _pretend_ to be more interested in the truth than they actually are. Well, it could be argued that everybody is like that, but some people are worse than others, and religious people tend to be among these.




Other Comments by Janus

4. Comment #12134 by ignored_ethos on December 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm

I don't believe in ex-atheist. I guess that makes me an "a-ex-atheist". (we need a new word for that). I've had it up to here ^^^ with these guys.

Also, the red-headed guy with the sort of mullet, is trying to hold onto a religious idea he truly no longer believes.

One more thing, why is everyone who says there is no god, called condescending. Isn't it more condescending to believe you are certain there is a god, without any proof whatsoever?

Other Comments by ignored_ethos

5. Comment #12135 by He-man Daunted World on December 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm

There's an interesting point in there that wasn't fully explained.
We can see subtle (or not so subtle) evidence of what our friends feel about us. What's the equivalent evidence that shows how god feels about us?

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

6. Comment #12137 by KJC on December 10, 2006 at 6:02 pm

Looks like the disease is still going strong in Ireland. Lots of really delusional people.

Other Comments by KJC

7. Comment #12139 by marklennox on December 10, 2006 at 6:16 pm

Firstly as an Irish person I apologise for the poor showing in that 'debate'. However, Pat Kenny, and obvisouly his audience, are far from intellectual giants. Pat is known as 'the plank' in Ireland for good reason.

The 'ex-atheist' was a disgrace. He at least professed to be an intellectual but instead furthered his obvious agenda by appearing to agree with Dawkins on all important points before trying to smear him as at best intellectually dishonest or at worst a UFO conspiracy theorist nut with his little 'reading' from Richards book and insisting that 'quite probable' was a statement of fact - as Professor Dawkins said - 'Come on! You cant be serious!!'

The audince were terrible I'm afraid. The creationist, the biologist who was trying to force faith onto everything, the young woman who claimed her recovery was a 'miracle' (no praise for the doctors, friends and family then, it was just her and God I presume) and that strident, verbose, boor who insisted that Dawkins was a fundamentalist and compalined that his definition of proof was too limited.

A very poor showing - more the land of Saints than of scholars I'm afraid and as an Irishman it makes me sad on many levels - the paucity of intellectual debate and the fact that we are not as free from the thumb of the church as we supposed.

Some of us are fighting the good fight!

Other Comments by marklennox

8. Comment #12142 by Sri on December 10, 2006 at 6:36 pm

I think people who say that they were atheists before should stop saying that they were ex-atheists....i believe that these people were never really atheists in the first place. If they really were, they can no way turn into theists all over again.

It really irritates me, seeing and hearing these people saying how they were non-believers for so many years and all of a sudden figured it out that God is behind all the elegance of the Universe.

Shut up!

Other Comments by Sri

9. Comment #12144 by Wonko the Sane on December 10, 2006 at 7:10 pm

He-man Daunted World said
"We can see subtle (or not so subtle) evidence of what our friends feel about us. What's the equivalent evidence that shows how god feels about us?"

The equivalent evidence that shows how god feels about us is everywhere. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, etc. Almost every place in the universe would kill a human instantly. So god clearly hates us and wants us dead.

It may take some small degree of faith in the way a friend feels, and we know many people are often wrong at judging how other people feel. However we have good evidence that our friends exist.

Anyway, I liked the discussion but I felt the audience was a little hostile. And I agree with Sri's point about people who say they used to be atheists and claim to have converted because of the "evidence".

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

10. Comment #12145 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Actually, I think it's quite possible, and even easy, to go from atheist to theist. After all, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, there's nothing about atheism that makes it unlikely the person will believe nonsense.

However, I think most of us who post on this site, and on sites like Internet Infidels, share the ideologies of naturalism, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, etc. And THAT makes it very unlikely any of us will ever become theists.

In other words, let's not assume that 'atheist' means 'reasonable person'.

Other Comments by Janus

11. Comment #12146 by Algebratheist on December 10, 2006 at 7:24 pm

Sri,
i completely agree.
Janus,
youre referring to weak atheism and i do agree with you there, but i dont think a strong atheist can convert to theism. If he/she does then he/she never really understood why he/she was an atheist in the first place.

Other Comments by Algebratheist

12. Comment #12147 by plastictowel on December 10, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Well all of us atheist could switch to theism...I mean we are all open minded enough to agree if some kind of genuine miracle like the clouds opening up and god shouting "Hail Friends!" we'd cave. But it's because we are open minded that we could make an honest switch to theism, not a "leap of faith."

Other Comments by plastictowel

13. Comment #12149 by OUMedStudent on December 10, 2006 at 8:27 pm

I envy all of you in the UK. Have you ever watched American late-night television? I mean, I get the feeling that this show is not even the cream of the late-night crop and yet I cannot fathom being so utterly stimulated by watching TV here in the states. A debate this like simply would never happen here on network television.

While I find the same frustration in some of the audience's inability to grasp very fundamental aspects of the nature of science, I still applaud you all for living in a region where the debate is encouraged.

Other Comments by OUMedStudent

14. Comment #12152 by Cineaste on December 10, 2006 at 10:56 pm

OUMedStudent, I absolutely agree with you. The closest thing we got was when Richard appeared on the Colbert Report for 10 minutes.

Other Comments by Cineaste

15. Comment #12154 by yogibear on December 11, 2006 at 12:42 am

Embarrasing to be Irish and watch this, as has been noted, no intellectual heavy weights on this show barring Richard, however i think a good representation of how the belief in the church in Ireland still prevails.

After all that has happened in many dioceses and after the cover up and denial of the church is it not time people in Ireland asked themselves some hard questions about what they believe.

If child abuse on this scale had occured in Mc Donalds resteraunts by their managers in different regions in Ireland, nobody would ever eat their again, in fact the company would be out of business. The church apparently can lie about it, allow it to continue and then get away with it and people still believe.

Other Comments by yogibear

16. Comment #12160 by kinvara on December 11, 2006 at 1:42 am

What a wasted opportunity; this is the second time in a month that Richard has appeared on Irish TV or radio (with Ryan Tubridy a few weeks ago) and on both occasions he has been paired with an intellectual inferior, neither of whom could deal fairly or reasonably with any of the points made.
Gerard Casey was particularly spineless, and seemed to bask in Richard's relected light; his final point about Richard's mention of other possible life in the universe was a very pathetic effort to retrieve some credibility, and failed embarrassingly. Pat Kenny maybe be wooden, but he seemed to be one of the few in the studio who could (or wanted to) understand Richards points rationally. When I think about it, it would have been much better to pair Richard with Tommy Tiernan, the refreshingly irreverent comedian who was on earlier on the show.

Other Comments by kinvara

17. Comment #12161 by mundi luminar on December 11, 2006 at 1:59 am

Truly embarrassing, frustrating and disappointing non-debate. Apologies from an Irish person to all rational thinkers.

Other Comments by mundi luminar

18. Comment #12162 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 2:43 am

16. Comment #12160 by kinvara on December 11, 2006 at 1:42 am/"Pat Kenny maybe be wooden, but he seemed to be one of the few in the studio who could (or wanted to) understand Richards points rationally."
__________

I was also satisfied with how Kenny hosted--pretty impressive to manage fielding live audience questions and statements while interviewing two guests of opposing viewpoints within scheduled time limits.

Alien life has been given a bum rap because of all the irrationality associated with it--abductions, abundantly outrageous anthromorphic depictions of such aliens, fear of the bogie man, the subsitution of alien life for the communistic threat prevalent during the fifties and early sixties, etc.

As usual Dawkins, has cemented his committment to being open minded and dealing with statistical probability by emphasizing since we now know that there are countless galaxies that the probability of alien life is higher than the probability of our lowly imaginary sky buddy. Kudos, Richard!

I was unable to make out Casey's points, except perhaps that he thought Dawkins was silly in thinking that the highly misrepresented 'alien' life was more probable than the earthling's sky buddy, and that his reconversion back to theism is some kind of evidence that atheism is wrong. His style was odd--staccato and thoughtless, like an infocommercial's sound bites.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #12164 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:09 am

17. Comment #12161 by mundi luminar on December 11, 2006 at 1:59 am

Truly embarrassing, frustrating and disappointing non-debate. Apologies from an Irish person to all rational thinkers.
_________

Believers of religious superstitions are everywhere, in every country on earth.

Dawkins has repeatedly focused on how it is the so-called moderate segment of supporters of religious superstitions that are the problem, in the sense that they encourage the suspension of critical thinking in favor of faith. That red, long-haired guy in the audience, to me, puts that danger in the flesh: just watch how that moderate and tolerate guy's anger flashpoint was feverishly rising towards the end of his boorish rant.

Believers of religious superstitions will and can --I have no need or desire to make them not believe--continue to believe, but no longer can they do it in front of a silent and acquiescent me. No longer can they bath in the light of their virtuous--and virtual--ignorance, and expect me to agree that their faith, and lack of critical thinking, is admirable or virtuous. Now, these very same supporters of religious superstitions may very well have other admirable qualities, but their insistence that since science cannot answer all questions, and may never be able to at least in their lifetimes, and that since they need to believe in religious superstitions to find purpose, deal with death, and be good, does not make religious superstitions anything else then what they are--very unadmirable bunk.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #12165 by ryanbooker on December 11, 2006 at 3:51 am

Well that was infuriating.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

21. Comment #12166 by k1mgy on December 11, 2006 at 3:51 am

From here in the US, the show looked similar to a classed-up Jerry Springer broadcast, and a good exercise of experience that Richard Dawkins may wish to avoid in future. The basis of his argument is sound; the force of his argument needs no invective, but in such an audience the rules of debate and discussion change. This forum clearly lives for controversial zingers.

He attempted survival in the circus, and despite not being cut out for it (which is surely to the Professor's credit) should receive a passing grade and from us a "survivor" award.

As for that other fellow, the wiry-looking character whose relaxed posture caused me to refer to him as "Mr. Leanback", he pulls one Rabbit out of the hat in the end, attempting to bring down the entire book with its tiny built-in anomaly. Richard Dawkins never says that aliens exist, making the point that any with technology enough to visit us would surely be viewed as "god-like". Instead, he acknowledges the possibility, one in my mind far greater than any god hypothesis itself might rate.

Unfortunately even Dawkins was not prepared to retort this one - but he will be next time. The best way to hold your audience - particularly a bizarre and partisan one as was gathered - is to appear to agree with them. All Dawkins has to say is, "As I say in the book, I cannot state with 100% surety that a supernatural god exists, but I can say there's a higher probability of them than any god"

This would have put the argument of Aliens (and the subliminal association, "UFO", and "nutcase") on its ass.

There are some environments Richard Dawkins thrives in; others where he is challenged as a debater. I salute him for injecting himself into one that surely challenges, and thereby hones, his reasoned argument.

Other Comments by k1mgy

22. Comment #12167 by Seti on December 11, 2006 at 3:53 am

@ point 4 (above) I suspect atheists are perceived as "condescending" because somewhere in the brains of theists is the recognition that they are talking utter codswallop, and atheists call them on this. The cognitive disonnance between what their reason tells them and what they insist on trying to beleive must be quite painful, hence their panic and anger at anyone who increases the disonnance by attempting to add to the rational side.

Self-labelled "ex-atheists" are rather to be pitied. For them, the disonnance must be even more powerful, as once their rational mind was able to see clearly. But they had never dealt with the emotional needs which cause people to cling to the notion of a Big-Daddy-Inna-Sky who will sort everything out for them. In the end, the emotional needs won, at the price of their sanity.

Or else, of course, they are just lying. They were never atheists at all. Sadly, good xians seem very prone to lie. Of course we shouldn't be surprised at that. For them, beleif trumps evidence every time.

Other Comments by Seti

23. Comment #12168 by Apemanblues on December 11, 2006 at 3:55 am

It seems that nobody is addressing the really important question that was posed right at the end. What kind of animal is Baloo? I say the answer is a bear.

Poor old, up against it again. Always outnumbered, but never outgunned.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

24. Comment #12169 by Aussie on December 11, 2006 at 4:00 am

I really get frustrated with this ubiquitous Christian chauvinism.

Almost invariably whenever "religion" is discussed in the West a tacit assumption is made that the only religion worthy of discussion is Christianity.

People clinging to their Christian beliefs provide anecdotal examples of how beneficial these beliefs are not only to themselves personally but also to

humanity in general. A good example was that girl who suggested that her religion so helped her through personal difficulties that it bordered on the

miraculous.

What they do not even consider is that a Hindu sitting beside them there could equally well, and with corresponding sincerity, make the same compelling

claims about the benefits of his own religion in similar circumstances. Whenever "God" is mentioned, simply substitute "Lord Brahma" or "Allah" or whoever

and you will get the point.

If they expect us to be impressed by such arguments then to be consistent they should accept any identical arguments coming from the Hindu or the Muslim.

If you confronted them with this they would sit there looking at you like stunned mullet thinking you were crazy. The truth is that they have no

perspective on religion - being blinkered to considering only the one in which they were most likely raised ie Christianity.

In audiences like we have seen above there should either be people of other faiths present (or people such as rationalists who could put the views of

other faiths) to provide some cultural perspective to the discussion.

Even if faith and religion per se could be demonstrated to be as beneficial as claimed then it is up to Christians to explain why their brand of it alone

is a repository of truth superior to the mutually exclusive competition.

Other Comments by Aussie

25. Comment #12172 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:19 am

22. Comment #12167 by Seti on December 11, 2006 at 3:53 am

@ point 4 (above) I suspect atheists are perceived as "condescending" because somewhere in the brains of theists is the recognition that they are talking utter codswallop, and atheists call them on this. The cognitive disonnance between what their reason tells them and what they insist on trying to beleive must be quite painful, hence their panic and anger at anyone who increases the disonnance by attempting to add to the rational side.
_________

Thanks for such a thoughtful post. I would imagine that increasingly popular cognitive imagery exercises which increase the strength and focus of our cognitive function, would cause a splitting migraine in those infected with the religious virus.

And thanks for posting the videos. I would suggest that when posters to this site have an extra 10 minutes here and there, check out both google and youtube for videos to watch concering the challenging of religious superstitions. Just key in atheism or other relevant keywords. Some very hardworking atheists are downloading wonderful stuff.

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #12179 by Haymoon on December 11, 2006 at 4:54 am

Comment #12139 by marklennox on December 10, 2006 at 6:16 pm

Firstly as an Irish person I apologise for the poor showing in that 'debate'. However, Pat Kenny, and obvisouly his audience, are far from intellectual giants. Pat is known as 'the plank' in Ireland for good reason.

What are you apologising for? That audience was just a cross section of Irish Society and so what if they could not match the intellect of Dawkins. I feel sure there were some in the audience who could but preferred to stay silent. The Late Late Show is a peculiar animal in that just about any topic could be expected to feature and while a discussion with Dawkins may tickle the interest of Irish atheists, one cannot expect it to be a forum where "The God Delusion" could get an in depth treatment.
I must stand up for Pat Kenny. His TV persona may appear wooden but he is one of the more intelligent of Irish TV presenters. As for "planks", well, now Casey ........

Other Comments by Haymoon

27. Comment #12180 by FXR on December 11, 2006 at 4:54 am

I'm not sure if Richard Dawkins was on the Late Late show due to my efforts. Since Pat "the Plank" Kenny's interview with the creepy Fr. Brian Darcy I've been e mailing them constantly to have Prof. Dawkins on. Either way at least he made an appearance. I'm sorry I missed him. As for the Irish people in general it is one of their failings that most are mindless sheep when it comes to tackling the Catholic Church. The country is run by the Fianna Fail party which is, to all intents and purposed, the political wing of the Vatican. Add to that the fact our national station, RTE, acts a lot of the time like the Church's PR wing. At the moment I'm preparing to post copies of the God Delusion to as many members of the government as I can. Where there's life……
Happy winter solstice.

Other Comments by FXR

28. Comment #12186 by nonsequitar on December 11, 2006 at 5:18 am

As a (newly embarrassed) Irish person, this interview irritated me greatly. While Pat Kenny conducted the interview as he usually does (mediocre, but not appalling), the audience and panel (not Mr. Dawkins) struck me as a bunch a "thicko's" and symptomatic of the catholic church's poisoning of the Irish over the decades. There were certainly no saints and scholars in evidence to me - this depresseses me greatly. Mr. Dawkins, it's always a pleasure to hear your rational arguments, patience with ignorance and your willingness to engage with the 80% of most populations that can't see beyond their own intolerance for openness - kudos!

I do like Dawkin's writings a lot, and though I can even disagree with some of his points and beliefs (hey, I have my own after all! ), I'm overwhelmingly in agreement with him on the futility and insanity of worshiping supernatural beings and in the absolute insanity of the Church being an entity that cannot be questioned without reprimand.

I often wonder about the relationship to "being good" as it relates to the vatican's behaviour in covering up systematic abuse of its flock and, even more cynically, at this time of the year when I see no churches opening their doors to the poor and destitute. Why partake in a religion like that? Perhaps a few scrapings from the picture frames embossed with gold from the vatican's art collection itself would feed numerous of our poor this "religious" season. Hey, selling some of the massive "religious" properties in Ireland would do very well in generating a fund for the giving of alms. Will this happen? I think not!

Lastly, we're not part of the UK in anything but a shared membership of the EU, if not the EMF ;-)

Other Comments by nonsequitar

29. Comment #12190 by ridelo on December 11, 2006 at 6:34 am

It escapes me completely how somebody who utterly misunderstood TGD was paired with professor Dawkins as an "expert". That remark about aliens was as futile as it can be.
And I wonder if the audience was random choosen. It rather seemed to me as if some churchmen had rounded them up. Always with the same moot arguments.
I don't know what I admire the most in RD: his wits or his drive to keep fighting irrationality.

Other Comments by ridelo

30. Comment #12195 by Roy_H on December 11, 2006 at 7:39 am

"And now to win tonoights terty tousand euros prize,all yers has to do is answer de followin' question. Was Baloo de bear created by
a) God
b) Walt Disney
or
c) Did he evolve from an extinct group of mammalian carnivores known as the Miacids?"

Other Comments by Roy_H

31. Comment #12196 by Zaphod on December 11, 2006 at 7:50 am

I am started to get pissed off with this type of shit. Why is it Richard Dawkins duty to disprove all stupid shit in the universe? Why is it his duty to give a reason for everything?

The man is just one person. He doesn't know everything. He is a biologist. He may have done some reading in other areas but he doesn't know everything.

AS I SAY TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT. THAT PROVES NOTHING.

Other Comments by Zaphod

32. Comment #12198 by gcooke on December 11, 2006 at 8:03 am

>It escapes me completely how somebody who utterly misunderstood TGD was paired with professor Dawkins as an "expert".

I don't think they did say he was an expert, just that he was an "ex-athiest", and they obviously picked him because he seems to have, on the surface, good debating skills.

>And I wonder if the audience was random choosen.

They are. I must say that the interview seemed as balanced as it could be- Pat Kenny certainly was balanced and, though he may be stiff, he's good at mediating serious debates. They need to have someone representing both sides for it to be a debate, the texts coming up on screen were fairly mixed, but the producers can't be responsible if the majority of the audience disagree.

Tonight on The Panel should be good though...

PS:
>I envy all of you in the UK.
Ireland isn't in the UK.

G.

Other Comments by gcooke

33. Comment #12201 by CruciFiction on December 11, 2006 at 8:20 am

Among one of Richard's great quotes is this:

'It worries me about religion in that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding.' ~ Richard Dawkins, [God Under the Microscope]

The audience for that program clearly supports this notion that religionists simply do not want to know and understand the truth. They much rather prefer to remain wrapped in their comforting delusion and utter ignorance. This spreading mindset does not bode well for the future of humankind.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

34. Comment #12214 by Anat on December 11, 2006 at 9:36 am

I liked the comments of the few atheists in the audience. In particular the guy that explained how being an atheist helps him not take bad things that happen personally. That he can understand that the fact that something bad happened to him does not mean he deserved it in any way. This is my preferred response to the 'religion is comforting in hard times' claim.

Other Comments by Anat

35. Comment #12216 by bhyde on December 11, 2006 at 9:42 am

Wow, how did all those Americans in the audience learn to speak with such a convincing Irish accent!? My Irish friends need not apologize; we US-ian have pretty much cornered the market on global stupidity.

I can't believe that RD would agree to do such a show. While the premise may have been sound, it's only a matter of time before it degenerates into a pissing match that does nothing but agitate bad dialog.

The next time RD feels he needs to go on one of these little talk shows, I'd recommend he take along Sam Harris.

Other Comments by bhyde

36. Comment #12221 by kevin82485 on December 11, 2006 at 10:02 am

Wow, theists scare me.

Other Comments by kevin82485

37. Comment #12222 by godma on December 11, 2006 at 10:03 am

While it is indeed frustrating how dense, confused, and misinformed people continue to be (and I'm sure this must be enormously frustrating for Dr. Dawkins...answering the same stupid questions over and over with only trivial variation), I was not frustrated by these videos.

Stuff like this is great, because Dr. Dawkins makes great points, and the opposing side does a great job of showing themselves up. This is surely not good enough to convince strong believers, but I can't imagine that it isn't helpful to reasonable people nearer to the middle of the spectrum.

Other Comments by godma

38. Comment #12225 by godma on December 11, 2006 at 10:28 am

One thing Dr. Dawkins could have said that I think would have made a stronger point would have been in response to the guy who was complaining about Dawkins' "narrow" standard of evidence.

The point is that the standard for evidence that people use to justify their religious beliefs rarely, if ever, would be sufficient to justify their non-religious beliefs. Faithful people themselves carry around this double-standard, so there's no need to discuss it in terms of inter-personal differences in standards.

There are lots of fun examples one could make, substituting some other kind of thing (like Sam Harris's enormous diamond buried in the backyard, or Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage), and see how spectacularly the same justification fails to convince.

Other Comments by godma

39. Comment #12226 by kevin82485 on December 11, 2006 at 10:46 am

I have to admit I was waiting for Dawkins to mention the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" when that one guy was calling Dawkins "narrow-minded".

Wouldn't you WANT to be narrow-minded if someone said the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" existed?

Other Comments by kevin82485

40. Comment #12232 by Tintern on December 11, 2006 at 11:19 am

For the first time in years I'm sorry I didn't tune into the Late Late Show. I sometimes encounter it while channel hopping but always move on. A pity I wasn't hopping this time.
I can tell you, however, that the interviewer is so uninteresing, his existence should be evidence for lack of intelligent design, and that, in the past, on "issues" of importance, this audience has certainly being stacked on the instructions of the church. This is a state controlled station - it does what it is told while protesting its "liberal" credentials. Our only defence here is that the voice of reason does exist, it simply has to find a way to get past people who take their instructions verbatim from undemocratic institutions. Perhaps this new-fangled internet thingy will help.

Other Comments by Tintern

41. Comment #12247 by godma on December 11, 2006 at 12:35 pm

Both sides use old, rehashed arguments, but that's just the nature of the beast. It's not that the arguments need to be improved, it's that our arguments need more visibility and to be represented clearly and accurately. Dawkins does a superb job of both. It's a PR issue for the purposes of motivating social change, and is only proximally about actual debate.

The example of fundamentalism being tied to a book was maybe a bit flawed, but pretty trivially so, I think. The real point has to do with granting unwavering loyalty to any authoritative standard (book or otherwise). Dawkins made this point immediately afterwards and it was brilliant. Trust in any theory should be dependent on the strength of the evidence for and against it.

Other Comments by godma

42. Comment #12248 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:38 pm

No. 43/I think there's a real problem with atheism today (and this forum stinks of it) - we are arrogant. A bit of humility goes a long way and Dawkins lacks it.
________

I want to see less of humility in the atheistic camp. The theistic side is welcome to wallow in it. Not everyone sees humility as virtuous and not certainly the false humility that the supporters of religious superstitions carry with such overweening pride.

Other Comments by Logicel

43. Comment #12251 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:45 pm

No. 43/Doesn't one have a right to be wrong?
_________

Huh?

A scientist who is wrong does not practice correct science.

A medical doctor who is wrong and causes harm is liable--his defense is not that he has a right to be wrong.

Other Comments by Logicel

44. Comment #12259 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:21 pm

No. 53/He's slipping a bit I think, it annoys me when he's slack and allows people to pics obvious holes. He needs to be water-tight.
__________

Thanks for the belly laugh. I would adore to be slack as you regard RD as being!!!!!!!!!

All RD needs to do is to continue the excellent work that he does.

If it annoys you that he is not water-tight then why don't you stick a pin in yourself and let out some of the putrid pool of nonesense in which you have been drowning per your last several posts. I think the stagnate water is pressing on your nerves and causing the annoyance.

"pics?" In your case use a 'icepic' in bursting your sac of putrid nonsense

Other Comments by Logicel

45. Comment #12260 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Atheists can be as humble as believers, it is just that believers are proud of their humility.

We should keep in mind that atheism only deals with what an atheist doesn't believe. Thereafter atheism becomes a foundation upon which to build a world view.

Other Comments by Vardu

46. Comment #12262 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:24 pm

A foundation without buildings is a waste of space.

Other Comments by Vardu

47. Comment #12265 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:28 pm

I was joking, godismybody. Lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously.

Other Comments by Vardu

48. Comment #12266 by seals on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Re what the grey suited guy in part 2 said - death seems wrong to us all, RD explained by saying that the genes of people who wanted to die aren't inherited by later generations because natural selection favours those who live as long as they possibly can, if I understand correctly what he said, in order to pass on as many genes as possible I guess.... but would it necessarily follow that, having lived a full lifespan, we should still see death as being "not right" i think the other guy's words were?

Having said that, although the afterlife sounds an interesting idea, if it doesn't exist, there is nothing to regret. It's dying, not death, which is the problem!

Other Comments by seals

49. Comment #12268 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:30 pm

hotandspicymeltdown loves atheists.

Other Comments by Logicel

50. Comment #12271 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:33 pm

RD is often called "intolerant", but considering the aberrant pseudo-scientific garbage that many believers throw at him, it is no wonder that he gets a little testy at times.

Other Comments by Vardu