










My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic2. Comment #21932 by SteveKisko on February 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Right on, Richard.3. Comment #21933 by Gironzolatore on February 11, 2007 at 11:41 pm
5. Comment #21937 by Conrad on February 12, 2007 at 12:29 am
Here here! HERE HERE!6. Comment #21938 by DNAtheist on February 12, 2007 at 12:32 am
7. Comment #21943 by Clappers on February 12, 2007 at 12:48 am
Richard Dawkins was quoted in an acceptance speech at the Academy Awards last night. Maybe the general public will start to take interest in real science8. Comment #21945 by toomanytribbles on February 12, 2007 at 12:51 am
9. Comment #21948 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:04 am
Dear Richard,10. Comment #21954 by Howzat on February 12, 2007 at 1:27 am
stpetes:11. Comment #21957 by opposablethumbs on February 12, 2007 at 1:36 am
12. Comment #21960 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:43 am
Howzat - the Times only publishes short letters so I had to deal with the substance of Dawkins letter - a vicious and unwarranted attack on McGarth and his motives.13. Comment #21961 by ScienceBreath on February 12, 2007 at 1:49 am
stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side.14. Comment #21963 by David James on February 12, 2007 at 1:55 am
And who is this "McGarth" guy you keep going on about stpetes?15. Comment #21965 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 1:59 am
16. Comment #21967 by bitbutter on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am
"THE Truth" is the province of fundamentalism; one of the defining characteristics of reason is that it is always ready to look at genuine new evidence.
17. Comment #21968 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am
'After thousands of years of theological reflection' - stpetes18. Comment #21971 by Russell Blackford on February 12, 2007 at 2:33 am
I'm continually amazed at how many people don't actually understand the meaning of the word "fundamentalist", or affect not to.19. Comment #21978 by Jef on February 12, 2007 at 3:00 am
Russell, isn't the term fundamentalist, as used in the context of religious debate, the counter-position to modernism? As in "the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy in the Presbyterian Church", to use Wiki's example.20. Comment #21979 by Stewart on February 12, 2007 at 3:02 am
One really would think, wouldn't one, that, judging by the accusations of intolerance and arrogance so wrathfully hurled against Prof. Dawkins by some theist opponents, the very least he had done was to state categorically that there is no god. The person in the world probably most famous for his atheism, and so villified for it, has never even done that. We really are a bad bunch, if they can't even say that about the "worst" of us. How many promoters of "divinely" inspired morality use "almost certainly" to convince their followers there is a god, as Dawkins does when arguing against the proposition?21. Comment #21989 by Severus on February 12, 2007 at 5:05 am
Richard was correct in one asssertion he has made. we are not yet ready to take on the debate with the religious. he called for a methodology which we could use to promote our position and social status such as was used by the gay pride initiative and the equal rights groups.22. Comment #21991 by ksskidude on February 12, 2007 at 5:13 am
23. Comment #21994 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 5:44 am
24. Comment #21997 by padster1976 on February 12, 2007 at 6:45 am
25. Comment #22015 by captain underpants on February 12, 2007 at 10:29 am
26. Comment #22016 by Red Foot Oakie on February 12, 2007 at 10:36 am
27. Comment #22028 by Pieter on February 12, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Alister McGrath = A flea on Darwin's Rotweiller. i like it.28. Comment #22031 by kaiserkriss on February 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm
29. Comment #22036 by Sam on February 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm
30. Comment #22040 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm
"stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side."31. Comment #22049 by kkant on February 12, 2007 at 7:05 pm
So, stpetes, are you religious? A young-earth creationist perhaps?32. Comment #22102 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Nope - I hate religion. However I am a Christian. And I am not a young earth creationist because the evidence seems overwhelmingly to point to an old earth and the bible says nothing about the age of the earth.33. Comment #22107 by Hal9000 on February 12, 2007 at 11:23 pm
34. Comment #22127 by Howzat on February 13, 2007 at 1:28 am
stpetes wrote:35. Comment #22131 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 1:55 am
36. Comment #22160 by the great teapot on February 13, 2007 at 5:01 am
Richard you are an idelogical fanatic because you wish to educate people who refuse to be educated.37. Comment #22202 by stevencarrwork on February 13, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The irony of somebody in the Free Church of Scotland calling others dogmatic.38. Comment #22206 by tatsie on February 13, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Articulate as always Richard. And as diplomatic as ever. However, I'd have preferred a response like you gave at that Belief Conference late last year. A simple "Fuk Off".39. Comment #22286 by MarcusA on February 13, 2007 at 11:25 pm
"Creationism Is Dead" - A Darwin Day Video40. Comment #22325 by Luis_Cayetano on February 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm
"There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much."41. Comment #22365 by TigerDunc on February 15, 2007 at 5:55 am
stpetes - Interesting that you provided a link through to the Free Church (An oxymoron if ever there was one).42. Comment #22366 by Homo economicus on February 15, 2007 at 6:06 am
43. Comment #22370 by BaronOchs on February 15, 2007 at 9:56 am
"Dawkins has made a name for himself by assailing the persistence of religion, philosophy, poetry, and many of the other human activities that constitute culture-as if these represented a threat to modern science.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2002/seeing.htm
twin obsessions dominate [A Devil's Chaplain] namely darwinian evolution "hurrah" and religion "boo"
45. Comment #22406 by BaronOchs on February 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm
"The conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence"
46. Comment #22409 by lpetrich on February 16, 2007 at 7:39 pm
For the sake of inquiry I read "Dawkin's God" after having read "The God Delusion". McGrath's arguments come to the conclusion that christianity gives a beauty to existence, a framework from which to go about life with meaning.
47. Comment #24617 by maton100 on March 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm
48. Comment #28945 by gelf on March 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I think the real reason that Dawkins is so criticized is that he is so transparently hypocritical and the people and his followers are so mindless.49. Comment #37481 by D'Arcy on May 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm
50. Comment #66655 by Tyrant007 on August 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Is there any academic department other than theology that is fully comprised of charlatans? I can't think of any.
1. Comment #21931 by Peter Hearty on February 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Other Comments by Peter Hearty