Print
Atheists' sign sparks controversy
News Channel 8
Thanks to Mad Scientist for the link.
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7470226&nav=menu29_2
ANYONE is welcome to use the 'Imagine No Religion' design, available in our left column under 'Imagine No Religion Flyers' or HERE
For more pictures of the sign and info about the group see:
http://cvatheists.org/
Click here to download a QuickTime version (3.7 MB, 1:33)
Atheists' sign sparks controversy
Vernon (WTNH) _ A sign posted by Atheists in the Rockville's Central Park has people talking, prompting calls to the town hall and the local clergy.
The Connecticut Valley Atheists posted the three-sided sign, which some call a billboard, and it was the only sign in the town center marking the Holiday season. Two sides of the display feature the Twin Towers, framed by the words "Imagine No Religion."
This Christmas, Martha Chennelle and Amy Houser say Vernon could use a few prayers, considering the sign standing in front of town hall.
"We believe that Christ is the reason for Christmas," said Chennelle.
"I feel like this is an attack on my beliefs as a religious person," said Houser.
The sign, put up by the Connecticut Valley Atheist Group, which was supposed to mark the winter solstice, but the "Imagine No Religion" part of it, taken from John Lennon's song, "Imagine," has a lot of people upset.
Houser says the sign mocks her religion during a holy time of the year. "Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them," Houser said.
The town issued permits to the Atheist group to put the sign in the park. They also issued permits to a group of churches that plans to put a nativity scene and to a local synagogue to put up a menorah.
Dennis Himes, a Vernon resident, and member of CT Valley Atheists, says he was tired of seeing Christian displays.
"There are plenty of places to put up nativity scenes in Vernon. The original question that started this controversy was not whether a nativity scene would be put up in Vernon," said Dennis Himes of Vernon. "The question was whether the nativity scene would be put in front of a church or in front of town hall, on government property.
Himes also says that the picture of the Twin Towers is meant to show that without religion, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. A suggestion that has upset Muslims, as well.
"This is an attack," said Houser.
Chennelle and Houser have been fighting back with prayer.
"We ultimately believe that Christians have been persecuted throughout history," said Houser, "so this is nothing new."
According to the Hartford Courant town officials issued the Atheists a permit to put up the sign to commemorate the Winter Solstice. Permits were also issued to local churches and a synagogue to put up their own displays.
Yesterday the town of Rockville put up a large Christmas Tree, just 10 feet from the display.
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7470226&nav=menu29_2
ANYONE is welcome to use the 'Imagine No Religion' design, available in our left column under 'Imagine No Religion Flyers' or HERE
For more pictures of the sign and info about the group see:
http://cvatheists.org/
Click here to download a QuickTime version (3.7 MB, 1:33)
Atheists' sign sparks controversy
Vernon (WTNH) _ A sign posted by Atheists in the Rockville's Central Park has people talking, prompting calls to the town hall and the local clergy.
The Connecticut Valley Atheists posted the three-sided sign, which some call a billboard, and it was the only sign in the town center marking the Holiday season. Two sides of the display feature the Twin Towers, framed by the words "Imagine No Religion."
This Christmas, Martha Chennelle and Amy Houser say Vernon could use a few prayers, considering the sign standing in front of town hall.
"We believe that Christ is the reason for Christmas," said Chennelle.
"I feel like this is an attack on my beliefs as a religious person," said Houser.
The sign, put up by the Connecticut Valley Atheist Group, which was supposed to mark the winter solstice, but the "Imagine No Religion" part of it, taken from John Lennon's song, "Imagine," has a lot of people upset.
Houser says the sign mocks her religion during a holy time of the year. "Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them," Houser said.
The town issued permits to the Atheist group to put the sign in the park. They also issued permits to a group of churches that plans to put a nativity scene and to a local synagogue to put up a menorah.
Dennis Himes, a Vernon resident, and member of CT Valley Atheists, says he was tired of seeing Christian displays.
"There are plenty of places to put up nativity scenes in Vernon. The original question that started this controversy was not whether a nativity scene would be put up in Vernon," said Dennis Himes of Vernon. "The question was whether the nativity scene would be put in front of a church or in front of town hall, on government property.
Himes also says that the picture of the Twin Towers is meant to show that without religion, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. A suggestion that has upset Muslims, as well.
"This is an attack," said Houser.
Chennelle and Houser have been fighting back with prayer.
"We ultimately believe that Christians have been persecuted throughout history," said Houser, "so this is nothing new."
According to the Hartford Courant town officials issued the Atheists a permit to put up the sign to commemorate the Winter Solstice. Permits were also issued to local churches and a synagogue to put up their own displays.
Yesterday the town of Rockville put up a large Christmas Tree, just 10 feet from the display.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 | PermalinkComments 401 - 450 of 479 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers402. Comment #97832 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Goldy-I'm sure many a soldier doesn't walk to his death for the sheer fun of it or an afterlife...
Yeah, but I bet you couldn't get him to strap on a bomb to blow up some kids along with himself.
For that, you need a sick heaven of a sick God written by a sick man.
Other Comments by Diacanu
403. Comment #97833 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:28 pm
BMMcArdle-Your assertion that I was constructing a straw man is a poorly constructed straw man.
Read post 410 again, and dare tell me I'm wrong.
Other Comments by Diacanu
404. Comment #97834 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Firstly, who says that it is the suicide bombers arranging things? It could well be (and almost certainly is) higher up people in an organisation who make the plans, and use religion to corrupt and manipulate others to follow those plans.
I didn't say the whole plan was hatched by the bombers themselves, I always said that complex motives and considerations by different players have to be considered, without those there would be no plot. It is you who insists that only religion is the biggest item because the bombers themselves say so, as if they lived in the vacuum.
I think you are the one setting up a strawman.
econdly, we know full well that people can compartmentalise. There are many examples of madmen who have rationally planned crimes fuelled by their madness.
And how does that contradict what I said? It seems it is you who try to deny the complexity in what actually goes on in the minds of the plotters by saying that it is religion and that is it. Religion has to go through the filter of psychology, why do you think that compartmentalization and post hoc rationalization didn't happen when they interpreted what the religion told them?
So we are talking about human psychology here, not some immutable belief "out there " that you can just get rid of. The mind will manufacture a belief system to rationalize and justify actions that are deemed necessary.
I gotta go, it has been good debate. :)
Other Comments by Bonzai
405. Comment #97835 by Goldy on December 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Diacanu - yes, I agree - that's terrorism. That is sick. As is strapping said bombs to kids and the mentally ill (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001277.php - not the original news, but I dare say you remember it well).Just and unjust wars, just and unjust suicide bombings. How can we win?
Other Comments by Goldy
406. Comment #97836 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Goldy-just...suicide bombings.
Present one.
Other Comments by Diacanu
407. Comment #97837 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Beam ME up, Scotty.Click on the link in #432 for some examples of U.S. intervention.
No wonder they're pissed at us.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
408. Comment #97838 by Goldy on December 12, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Aaah, that depends on the point of view, eh? Imagine I am standing by Hitler in, say, 1933. I have a gun, no one suspects me, I can shoot him, but I'll die for sure by his bodyguards. I do it, pop one in his head and he's dead. Justified? For many, yes. For Nazis, no. Of course, the following events will reveal if my actions are totally justified.I can't give you one because it is open to where you stand on the matter. I can give you one, you'll say no. I'll ask you for one and I will say no. We will both have valid reasons (to us) but we'll never agree.
Gavrilo Princip and the Serbian nationalists believed it was a just action when Franz Ferdinand was killed. Others didn't.
Other Comments by Goldy
409. Comment #97839 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:38 pm
It is you who insists that only religion is the biggest item because the bombers themselves say so, as if they lived in the vacuum.
It seems it is you who try to deny the complexity in what actually goes on in the minds of the plotters by saying that it is religion and that is it.
No, no, no, no, no, no....
I really don't understand how you could have read that into what I posted. I have been saying the exact opposite of that at every stage. OF COURSE it is complicated! I have been saying that all along. All I am trying to say is that religion is a key factor, a major factor, in my view the one that makes the difference. I am not saying only religion matters!
So we are talking about human psychology here, not some immutable belief "out there " that you can just get rid of.
But that clearly is the case, as where are the Tibetan suicide bombers attacking China?
Have I really been posting so unclearly that anyone could think I was saying that "it is religion and that is it?" I am mystified as to how anyone could think I was arguing anything so simple.
Other Comments by steve99
410. Comment #97840 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:39 pm
BMMcArdle-No wonder they're pissed at us.
Don't give a shit.
Answer post 410.
You can't.
Because you'd have to swig the bitter shot that western self loathing won't do jack shit.
Other Comments by Diacanu
411. Comment #97842 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Goldy-I have a gun, no one suspects me, I can shoot him, but I'll die for sure by his bodyguards.
Ah, but where are the innocent kids to blow up along with him?
See? You can't do it.
Other Comments by Diacanu
412. Comment #97844 by robotaholic on December 12, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I just love that picture diacanu you are very passionate Other Comments by robotaholic
413. Comment #97845 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 pm
If you insist.You made the assertion, you prove it.
Hurry up, Scotty.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
414. Comment #97846 by Goldy on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Diacanu, no kids - I am a just suicide bomber, if you don't mind! None of that terrorism crap from my sort! ;-)Edit. Hang on - I got a gun, not a bomb. Change that to a just suicide assassin...
Other Comments by Goldy
415. Comment #97849 by Goldy on December 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm
But that clearly is the case, as where are the Tibetan suicide bombers attacking China?
Dalai Lama says no? As it is, I read there's heaps of suicide bombings in China - mostly disgruntled farmers and the like...
A very complicated state of affairs...
Other Comments by Goldy
416. Comment #97850 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm
robotaholic-Thanks. The pic comes from this anime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_Hunter_D
Other Comments by Diacanu
417. Comment #97852 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm
BMMcArdle-You made the assertion, you prove it.
I didn't make an assertion in a vaccuum, I was responding to YOUR assertion that the anger of the middle east over western foreign policy was at heart. The next logical step of that argument is if we appeased their frustrations, there'd suddenly be peace.
Prove that assertion.
I called it bullshit, prove me wrong.
Other Comments by Diacanu
418. Comment #97853 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Dalai Lama says no? As it is, I read there's heaps of suicide bombings in China - mostly disgruntled farmers and the like...
Not the point, is it. This is about the motivation for suicide bombings of civilians in other country.
Other Comments by steve99
419. Comment #97858 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 6:09 pm
"We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."-Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
420. Comment #97859 by Goldy on December 12, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Yeah, I know. A flippant comment, sorry ;-)Is there a difference between targetting civilians in a war and blowing them up personally in a terrorist action? I struggle with this sometimes.
Maybe Tibetans will start a campaign in the other Chinese provinces (other countries, if you will) - after the Dalai Lama dies. Who knows. Interesting times...
Righty ho, off to get good lady wife and get her to the doctors. Auckland is awash with viri and other bugs. What a healthy place I live in...
Other Comments by Goldy
421. Comment #97861 by Dr Benway on December 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I'm ordinarily a sympathetic person. Yet I've done terrible things to small children. I've directed adults to hold down the limbs of terrified, screaming boys and girls in order that I might press a large needle into their spines. And I've done these things without a pang of guilt. My conviction that the procedure was necessary effectively blunted my instictive inhibition against harming a child.Good people will override their normal inhibitions against harming others in service to higher objectives.
This has nothing to do with religion per se. What matters is this: is it reasonable to feel certain of the higher goal? The greater the injury, the greater the need to weigh the evidence properly. And by "weigh the evidence" I don't mean "personal revelation" or "read it in a book." That's crap.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
422. Comment #97865 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 6:31 pm
BMMcArdle "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."-Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer
I'll take Al-Quaida's stated objective of creating an arab superpower under sharia law, and then eventually worldwide caliphate, over what that dummy says, thanks.
Other Comments by Diacanu
423. Comment #97871 by scotthershall on December 12, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Wow, this one sure got a lot of comments.I grew up in eastern CT (and went to UConn), about 20 miles from Vernon.
I'm glad someone has finally taken a stand.
I have to plan on taking a look at the display when I'm home for... Christmas.
Scott
Other Comments by scotthershall
424. Comment #97883 by robotaholic on December 12, 2007 at 7:31 pm
no I am not talking about your avatar - sorry Diacanu -i mean the "Imagine No Religion" - your avatar is alright- Other Comments by robotaholic
425. Comment #97893 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Apology accepted.You're welcome!
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
426. Comment #97898 by quicksilver on December 12, 2007 at 8:06 pm
[IMG]http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff225/quicksilverMH/npic-santaed.jpg[/IMG] Other Comments by quicksilver
427. Comment #97991 by silverlight on December 13, 2007 at 12:56 am
I wonder why these religious people feel so paranoid just because of a harmless non-religious sign.Remember that the city, the stores or the public toilets do not belong to christians or any other religions, they belong to all Americans.
Whatever happened to free speech?
Other Comments by silverlight
428. Comment #98123 by MorituriMax on December 13, 2007 at 5:26 am
I take your "Fuck 'em" and raise you a "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."I pointed out to a morning radio show hostess that she seemed to be happiest if she was being attacked by non-christians.
Other Comments by MorituriMax
429. Comment #98136 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 6:10 am
So we agree that this is a very fringe belief even within Islam how does the poster in any way "provoke thought" about religion in general?
I don't know if it is a fringe belief. But let's assume it is.
The poster provokes thought because such fringe beliefs are what you get when you allow people to cut themselves free of reason and the need for objective evidence. If you are going to allow people to consult their inner feelings as a source of truth, then you are going to have to deal with what happens when those inner feelings allow people to justify very bad things.
Other Comments by steve99
430. Comment #98184 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 8:16 am
Well . . . I leave for the evening, and both Riley and Bonzai are no closer to realizing their flimsy arguments are not logical (and strain at gnats not particularly related to the thread), krisking is still able to distract the thread with a lot of newbie theist junk, and the BMMcArdle/Diacanu snarky exchange continues.Sad. I had expected better. This is exactly why I don't involve myself more. It is also exactly why Richard Dawkins himself doesn't bother posting.
Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply (those of you who have it, I'm not talking about you).
So much energy wasted on silly posts. Please take a good hard look at yourselves and what you're putting out for worldwide display. If it isn't something you'd be proud to put in your portfolio of best work, maybe you might not choose to submit it.
We all tend to look up to the quality of Dawkins' writing -- why? Not because it is rushed out full of typos and showing the sophistication of a teenager with too much Red Bull. We appreciate the depth, the accuracy, the scholarship and the high quality of the writing.
We should emulate that in this forum.
Other Comments by gr8hands
431. Comment #98210 by BMMcArdle on December 13, 2007 at 9:11 am
So much energy wasted on silly posts.I agree.
Especially the supercilious ones.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
432. Comment #98220 by notsobad on December 13, 2007 at 9:40 am
So much energy wasted on silly posts.
Welcome to the Internet.
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5323/internetanonymitygu6.jpg
Other Comments by notsobad
433. Comment #98223 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 9:54 am
Comment #98184 by gr8hands:Sad. I had expected better. This is exactly why I don't involve myself more
...More than the 18 posts you have made in the last day and a half?
It is also exactly why Richard Dawkins himself doesn't bother posting.
... actually he posts quite frequently I think.
You should do a search:
http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,53
So much energy wasted on silly posts. Please take a good hard look at yourselves and what you're putting out for worldwide display
... good advice. I'd follow it.
Sorry for the attack. But we are all grown ups here. We are responsible for our own posts and don't need to be lectured by you.
If the quality doesn't always meet your standards, well so much the better for your smug sense of superiority eh?
Other Comments by USA_Limey
434. Comment #98228 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 10:02 am
Welcome to the Internet.
Well, indeed. This is a pretty open forum, so there will be a range of views and approaches.
Other Comments by steve99
435. Comment #98256 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 11:36 am
Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults. Other Comments by Riley
436. Comment #98260 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:43 am
USA_Limey -- let's see, Dawkins has made only 2 posts all this month, 3 all last month, 8 all the month before... only 102 total in over a year. (compared with over 9 pages full of posts from you) But I suppose that could be construed as "quite frequently" by some, so I stand corrected. I should have written "It is also exactly why Richard Dawkins himself doesn't bother posting on every topic, or every day, or in response to every question directed to him."You are also in error when you state "we are all grownups here" as evidenced by the childish exchanges.
As for taking my own advice, I do. I try to be careful when I post, providing links when I can, checking the accuracy before posting, admitting an error when I make them (reports that I claim or believe I am perfect are in error), and try to stick on topic.
For others, I do not need to be welcomed to the Internet, having been involved in its predecessor. I did, however, expect the standards to be higher on the Richard Dawkins website, because I thought he attracted a higher caliber of discourse.
I had hoped there would be more people involved in the sciences, in technology, in the application of reason, in the desire to expand knowledge rather than merely trying to score points.
I believe Richard Dawkins expressed such hopes himself, when announcing the creation of this website. So, you are also accusing him of lecturing.
Other Comments by gr8hands
437. Comment #98261 by notsobad on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 am
Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.
Conservapedia?
Other Comments by notsobad
438. Comment #98262 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 am
Riley, is that what you assume? Not me. I just wait for the evidence to make itself known.Other Comments by gr8hands
439. Comment #98268 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 11:51 am
You are also in error when you state "we are all grownups here" as evidenced by the childish exchanges.
But that is just your opinion.
Others might have the opinion that it is childish to come to an internet forum and expect everyone to conform to your view of what it should be.
Just another point of view that's all.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
440. Comment #98271 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 11:59 am
I post becasue it fills in my time. I post becasue there are things are like to think about. I post because I enjoy the interaction with others. Sometimes I post reams of stuff becasue I didn't quite understand what the person I am arguing is saying. I post for my enjoyment, mainly.I really don't care for killjoys that expect me to stop, ponder, think, research, spellcheck, etc, etc so I can place a post here that someone will agree with (though, I will admit, I try my utmost to do so). In the heat of an argument, sometimes things go awry in that department. Sanity generally prevails - just enjoy the ride until it does.
Other Comments by Goldy
441. Comment #98272 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:59 am
USA_Limey, that opinion might have validity if this were any generic forum. However, as I wrote in my previous post, I heard Richard Dawkins speak about this new website at its creation, and he was clear that it was going to be an oasis of reason amid the nonsense, and a beacon for civil discourse. He had high hopes for high standards.That is why I came to this forum, not just any forum. It was to be a forum set apart, with higher standards than say the Dilbert blog. It is not my view of what it should be, but how Richard Dawkins himself said it was created to be. Any other 'point of view' would be in error.
I believe it has evolved over time into something that he may be less proud of, because it has become dominated by so much of the junk filling other forums. I do not believe it is living up to the ideal it was created with -- but we can all take responsibility (as you put it) of our posts and work for that higher standard.
Other Comments by gr8hands
442. Comment #98281 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 12:17 pm
gr8hands:Having been an internet user from the earliest days, I have to say that Dawkins was probably somewhat naive about the way this all works. Open a site up to everyone in the world, with minimal moderation, and you aren't going to always get the highest possible standard of contribution. However, perhaps he was not so naive after all. I can say that standards here are pretty high. Being an internet user with so much experience, I have to say that this is the most respectable and well-mannered open forum I have ever seen (at least since the old usenet days of the very early 90s). There is a real attempt here to engage with those wiith other views, to politely discuss, that is rare.
Other Comments by steve99
443. Comment #98282 by BMMcArdle on December 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I believe RD this, I believe RD that.I think you've made your point about how beliefs can cloud a person's reasoning.
Very appropriate for this site.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
444. Comment #98283 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 12:23 pm
steve99-Open a site up to everyone in the world, with minimal moderation, and you aren't going to always get the highest possible standard of contribution.
HEY!!! B-(
Other Comments by Diacanu
445. Comment #98288 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Riley wrote:And that evidence is based on what? Your own opinion and ability to follow what you think my argument is. You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument. Certainly, you can bet I had the same thoughts about you and your ability to follow my logical argument, but for the sake of keeping this post to a higher standard, I refrain and force myself to acknowledge that I might be missing, or misunderstanding your points. For the record, I actually think I understand your points, and I understand where the disagreement between us lies, but it would get so far off the track of the topic of this thread and likely mired in unecessary details that I don't go there.
Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.
gr8hands wrote:
is that what you assume? Not me. I just wait for the evidence to make itself known.
Other Comments by Riley
446. Comment #98289 by Diacanu on December 13, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Riley-Do you EVER stop whining?
Other Comments by Diacanu
447. Comment #98290 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm
HEY!!! B-(
No offense intended to your good self; a valued contributor in my view. But consider how the Dianelos-types have been allowed to post again, and again, without censorship or moderation.
I don't understand how anyone can complain about this site in the way that we are discussing here. when it allow, and posters are so patient with, even the most fundamental of theists.
Other Comments by steve99
448. Comment #98296 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Riley, please provide the Comment # in this thread where I've used the word 'stupid'. (Fact check: I haven't used it since a post on October 3rd, and then once back in July.)Please provide the Comment # in this entire forum where I've suggested that
the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.You will not find any such examples -- and that is not an 'opinion' but a fact.
That, by the way, is what I would call 'evidence'.
Also the fact you ignored two very important parts of my short post: the first word, 'is', along with the question mark at the end -- denoting a question, rather than a statement.
Please provide the evidence that
You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument.You appear to have the nasty habit of making statements without backup. Edit: Actually, you appear to make statements which contradict or do not arise from the backup, which is one way I would define a problem with logic.
Other Comments by gr8hands
449. Comment #98322 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm
gr8hands wrote:This is a perfect example of the kind of disagreements we've had on this thread.
Riley, please provide the Comment # in this thread where I've used the word 'stupid'. [...]
You will not find any such examples -- and that is not an 'opinion' but a fact.
That, by the way, is what I would call 'evidence'.
gr8hands wrote comment 431#:
"Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply"
You did not actually use the word "stupid", you used words that describe people as being stupid. Or don't you think "an inability to use reason" is an apt definition for the term "stupid"?
This is what you call evidence, and that's one reason why we have a problem reaching an understanding.
Other Comments by Riley
450. Comment #98331 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm
You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument.
This statement illustrates that has been a problem in this discussion. Instead of dealing with issues, there has been awful lot of claiming what other people think, what other people say. Too may claims of "if you disagree with me, then you must think..."
Let's calm down and get back to the issue. The issue is not interpretations of what others have posted. It is the poster, and what we think of it.
Other Comments by steve99
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks
Other Recommended Reading
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
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
401. Comment #97831 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Other Comments by walk