Comments by TheCelestialTeapot
1. Georgia gets rain, but it may not help
Comment #88472 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 16, 2007 at 11:43 pm
According to the last book in the New Testament the seasons will run together during End Times and be nearly indistinguishable. I just hope the apocalypse can postpone itself for a little while longer! :P
Comment #88471 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 16, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Wow! What an excellent article!
Comment #88280 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 15, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Well, I for one am a member of the American proletariat.....wait...uh....proletariat? No, no, no, by proletariat I meant corporate slave and addict to wasteful consumer products. My mind is atrophied from too much television, but who cares? You don't need a brain when you're part of AMERICAtm. We are the light of the world, and God's chosen people so if you don't like it build a bomb shelter.
4. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law
Comment #88132 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Just to add....
I think ignoring creationism and creationists is very foolish indeed. To some extent they have been ignored over the last couple of decades and now we are facing a very deadly problem. Yes, I wrote "deadly".
5. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law
Comment #88131 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I agree with those posters who have said that we should not play the language game with the Creationists. It is difficult for the science community to combat the propaganda war the Creationists are playing when so few scientists speak publicly. Richard Dawkins is an excellent public educator when it comes to science, much like the late great Carl Sagan. Really the crux of the issue lies on education. If we changed evolution to a "law" the Creationists would focus on something else or exploit the obvious ploy. Also, by playing the semantic game we lose some integrity in the process and that is the real advantage science has over creationism. Again, it comes down to education and scientists and philosophers of science need to become more vocal. They need to dedicate a little bit of time outside of the lab in order to write and speak publicly about their findings. Peer-reviewed journals are great for having your work looked over, but not many members of the general public take a look at them. If scientists don't make their findings known through various venues, then what good are those findings to the rest of us? Some of us may argue that people need to take the time to research a bit and learn the information for themselves, but that doesn't happen often. Rather, the information should be thrown in their laps so that they have to contend with its truth value one way or another.
6. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God
Comment #86172 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 8, 2007 at 2:04 pm
What I find to be unbelievably ironic rests on my observation that the religious or those wanting or needing or wishing in a Creator must use a whole lot of ideas developed through the imagination. A religious person imagines what god may be like. A religious person imagines heaven and hell. A religious person wonders about things like angels and demons. A religous person imagines a whole lot of things all the time in order to develop a bloody fiction. Why is it then that Stanly Fish and the rest demonstrate, on a regular basis, a complete lack of imagination when they are confronted with a materialistic explanation of the world and universe? Why is it not possible for consciousness to be the result of chemical reactions and neurons firing in the brain? Why are the mathematical postulations and probabilities concerning the universe so difficult to comprehend? Evolution, possibly one of the easiest scientific facts to understand, is butchered by the minds of those who lack the imagination to picture a simple deterministic process. It is near impossible for a religious person to view the earth millions of years ago, covered with some water and other chemicals, being bombarded by lightning and generating the first bits of life. It will be forever puzzling to me that the religious can invent a million different nonsensical and fantastic stories and explanations, yet at the same time lack the little bit of imagination required in order to visualize how science would work in different situations.
Comment #84218 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 1, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Something I have come to notice after months of reading similar articles to this one is that none of the religious ever bring up Dennett's book Breaking the Spell. I think the reason that it often goes unmentioned when the religous are making claims that "Dawkins and Hitchens don't understand theology" or that "this is not my religion" is because Dennett offers the argument that the religious are claiming that the other athiest books do not. Dennett gives as complete an argument as can be given, while being somewhat deferential to belief. It's not necessary for Dawkins or Hitchens to recant and commit themselves to further study. Dennett has already driven in the final nail in the coffin. If some theologian can argue with Dennett philsophical position successfully, then I would be impressed. Or rather, if any theologian or faith-head even mentioned and confronted Dennett's major points, then I would be impressed. To my knowledge it appears that no one can step up and challenge Breaking the Spell, and it also appears that the religous are refusing to do so because they know damn well what would happen. They would lose.
8. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf
Comment #81010 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 23, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Comment 81004 macros_man,
Excellent post! I think you should expound on your ideas, write a book, and then place it in a box set collection with volumes from Charles Pierce and William James. If people understood how it is humans fix their beliefs, then many of these religous/atheist arguments would never take place. Cheers!
9. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio
Comment #78371 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Wow! Seven minutes of crap reporting in which I learned nothing about anything. Either plug the show and tell someone when it is going to be on or do not have a segment on it at all. And as for their 3-7% that is a load of bullshit and it is about 12% or higher. So again, kiss my ass Fox news!
10. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says
Comment #77722 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 10, 2007 at 9:49 am
I have to say that the fish symbol doesn't really upset me that much. Whenever I see someone with a fish symbol on the back of their car I speed up next to them so we are side by side, and then I smile and gracefully and politely raise my middle finger up at them in salutation. I then proceed to slow down and get behind their vehicle where I can see the fish symbol again, and I ever so gently and softly ram the front of my truck into their rear fender thus sending them spinning and careening off of a nearby cliff.
11. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers
Comment #75002 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 1, 2007 at 10:20 am
Nick Good
I think your comment is completely irrelevant. Hitchens and all the rest give political viewpoints mixed in with their views on religion and atheism all the time. It is difficult not to talk about foreign policy when speaking of religious fundamentalism, especially in today's world. The US and the current administration should be criticized for marching around the globe. I also think that the point Richard was making had less to do with conspiracy theories and more to do with a relatively small lobby group holding tremendous power. The atheists could have power even though they are small in number, that kind of thing. Our backing of Israel because of some religous kinship we may have with them has caused a lot of problems. I also think Chomsky is a pretty good scholar even if you may not agree with him.
12. Talking Action Figure Jesus
Comment #73556 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 25, 2007 at 9:24 am
This vid made me laugh so hard that the coffee I was drinking is now all over my computer screen. Thanks a lot toy Jesus! With your push-button parable action and your interchangeable walk-on-water-feet! Doesn't that toymaker know that every time someone tries to make a fortune off the gullibility of Christians that the little baby Jesus cries in his crib?
13. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)
Comment #72935 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 23, 2007 at 3:28 pm
"But instead of building bridges and a dialogue, a wedge is being driven between the faith and non-faith camps by tarring moderate believers with the same brush as fundamentalists."
The age old question thus arises: Have any of the critics actually read TGD? Professor Dawkins has continually attempted to educate the public and has done so with vigor and patience. Whether moderate or fundamentalist believer, the truth is that both believe in something that in all probability does not exist. Certainly Dawkins could attempt to discuss all the intricacy and subtlety of religous belief and then expound on each class of believer, but it isn't feasible. A book that large and of that length would contain one hundred times the number of pages found in Tolstoy's War and Peace. Again I think that this critic mistakes Dawkins passion for contempt. There are certainly those among us who view the world in a binary fashion of "us vs. them" but Dawkins is not one of those people.
Arguing in favor of the differences between moderates and fundamentalists does nothing but add insult to injury. Either a person is concerned with the truth, or he/she is not. It really is that simple.
14. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism
Comment #72682 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 22, 2007 at 8:56 am
DEVOLVED:
I am not sure whether or not you are deliberately blurring the lines between those scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists or not. It all comes down to testing really. Evolution can be tested. Countless examples. Microbial mutation in regards to antibiotics testing. Bones in the geological time line. On and on and on. Creationism cannot be tested, so the conclusions that Creation scientists are drawing off of the same evidence cannot be supported by that evidence.
15. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism
Comment #72679 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 22, 2007 at 8:48 am
My favorite part of reality is that it exists despite whatever opinions or beliefs I may hold about it. Mr Givan said: "I have never believed in the theory of evolution and, like many people believe in the teaching of creation... Well that's great! Believe whatever you want Mr. Givan, but it doesn't mean it's TRUE! Mr. Givan, the tenacity with which you hold your beliefs and the strength of your conviction does not increase or match the verity of your claim. Creationism deals with supernatural processes and therefore is not amenable to science.......... Ah hell........I can't repeat myself anymore.
Comment #71871 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 19, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Good posts so far everyone, keep up the good work! Maybe some of you can help me out with a few things. In Demon haunted World Carl Sagan talks about how the military is the number one fund contributor for science. So what is this Jake guy talking about anyway? What grants? What scientific education? Why should we give them an inch whatsoever? It won't mean anything. I disagree with PZ on the point that if we were to make concessions it would gain us some kind of political edge in the short run, because it won't. The only option is the long run, and to hell with sacrificing our principles and to hell with sacrificing the scientific method. We either adopt the scientific method for fixing belief (to adopt the views of another great pragmatist, Charles Pierce) or we do not. There's no halfway point on this. Fellow post-givers help me out on this. I can't believe what I am reading!
17. The Nonbelievers
Comment #71073 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 17, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I'm going to have to agree with Russell on this one. The article did nothing except raise suspicion in me. I certainly don't like the idea of an atheist reverend preaching to some kind of congregation. It would be easy to see how the congregation might start fixing their beliefs upon the authority of the humanist reverend, which would prove dangerous. Dr. Dawkins and others have said that the attempt to gather atheists together is like "herding cats" and there might be good reason for this. The phrase suggests that many atheists are individuals, who arrived at their conclusions after investigating the evidence themselves. The kind of unity and community that the article speaks about would create some political power for atheists, but I think it also opens the door for control. Frankly, I would rather continue to be despised than be controlled. I am speaking in the extreme, but I think it is at least valid to take into consideration the point that Epstein maybe retaining the practices of the religious while simply interchanging the operating ideology.
18. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored
Comment #69586 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 11, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Thanks Maynard,
At least someone is in agreement with me.
19. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored
Comment #69582 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 11, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I have mixed feelings about this. I didn't actually hear Kathy's speech so without inflection and tone and all I can't comment on what it was she really said. Going by the article it seemed as though it was a joke and certainly not hate speech so Donahue can go chasing after someone else. However, comments like "Kathy you're my hero" stated in her favor simply because she said something infantile and unintelligent. I don't know. I'm certainly not on board with the atheist school of thought that says we should just blindly support anyone who says anything negative about religion. Jokes have their place, but I still like argument based on logic and evidence. I guess if you're in High School a phrase like "suck it Jesus" is pretty funny, worth about a million laughs, but I just thought the article and reading about her speech was just a waste of time and just plain stupid.
20. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'
Comment #69288 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 10, 2007 at 10:23 am
Within the confines of this article the author defines Fascism as such, "Fascism seeks to impose total state control over all aspects of life, from the political and cultural right down to questions of individual ethical and sexual choice. It valorises strength, and exalts the nation state as superior to the individuals composing it." Religion doesn't impose control over all aspects of a follower's life? It doesn't have ready-made answers to political and cultural questions? It doesn't attempt to answer questions concerning the individual and ethics? Nor sexual choice? Religion doesn't value the "in-group" of followers over those who are not?
The article was funny and well written. According to the author's definition of Fascism it would seem as though religion fits the analogy. As for the other point that the author somehow implies that religion "is" fascism or conversely that the religious among us will see this as the main point within the article, that cannot be helped. I'm willing to bet that the idea that the author intended a direct comparison between fascism and religion already exists in the minds of the religious anyway, and that this article will only serve as a confirmation bias concerning their own concrete suspicions. I find the entire argument raging back and forth in the postings to be petty and trivial. While I credit those with an acute attention to detail and nuance, I find it to be completely irrelevant in this case. The whole disagreement was a parade of pedantry.
21. We need a more intelligent religion debate
Comment #68478 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 am
Hitchens calls religion: "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."
Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges.
Yet Mr. Hobson, you fail to name any of these other manifestations that remain guilt-free. While your point may be accurate, I cannot take it on "faith" sir and therefore make some citations next time. I would also try to ammend your definition of religion, it seems a bit broad, and you are including such things as sporting events and raves. While there may be something of the religious in each of these experiences, it would greatly improve your argumentation if you were clear about what it is you mean. To imply that Richard Dawkins and his anti-god squad are attempting to do away with sporting events and the like is simply ridiculous.
A requiem? I've attended several Mr. Hobson and I assure you that my deficiency in superstition and wishful-thinking has not had an affect on the solemnity and respect I show for the dead. Your statistic about British Christians and Creationism may also be accurate, but that isn't the only false story hanging around is it? I think many more Christians might believe in life after death. This belief is the one I find to be the most dangerous.
Normally I do not respond to many articles posted on this site, since many do so and show a competence in such matters far superior to my own. So I congratulate you Mr. Hobson. This piece of trash has inspired me to write something of my own. Tighten your definitions down so that things like "religion" are not so relative and flexible to the point where it could mean anything you want it to mean. Add some citations to your work, so that readers can attach some kind of credibility to your arguments. To be honest I've seen more defensible position papers written by 10th graders. Lastly, do not insult the intelligence of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest with your whimsical fancies and half-assed arguments.
Comment #65701 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 25, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Ben Stein? A second tier actor? Absurd! I believe you're rating him a bit high PZ and in doing so being much more generous to him than he was to you. The only redeeming quality to the movie would be that most of the people, nay probably all of the people who will watch it will already agree with it. The very fact that the movie producers had to lie about their intentions in order to make a stronger case for their own position is an act of desperation. I remember the same thing happening with "What the Bleep do We Know?" Many of the scientists in that movie were outraged that their views and the evidence for their views was so shamefully distorted. I just find the whole situation absolutely ridiculous.
23. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation
Comment #62176 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm
BAEOZ,
I'll never get over your icon; he scares me every time. LOL.
24. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation
Comment #62172 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I would also like to add a few things to this discussion because I think it is imperative to do so. I think that the best we can do would be to approach this problem pragmatically, and Robert has stated it in far better terms than I could formulate. Really we have to ask ourselves how well either my personal experiences or those of another individual will benefit the community of knowers. I think that everyone on this site is concerned with truth, and in particular objective truth. Pierce argues that "beliefs are a mode to action" and we cannot escape the fact that there exists an independent reality which operates despite whatever opinions we may hold in contention. There is a simple test to prove this statement and either you accept the opinion-free independent reality or you do not. If you hold the claim that somehow subjective knowledge trumps objective truth then prove it as such. It should be noted that we as humans certainly do not behave in that way, unless of course you buy into books such as "The Secret" or films such as "What the Bleep Do We Know?" both of which can be proven false or at the very least questionable. The way in which we act is much more important than that which we claim to believe. It is not my intention to be combative on the subject, but I would suggest that those arguing in favor of qualia do so with a clearly stated definition. As previously stated I think it's a loaded term and it means a variety of things to different people. I would also like to say that this has been one of the more provocative discussions I have seen on the site, and good work to all parties involved.
25. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation
Comment #62170 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Dismissive? Perhaps. One reason that I may be dismissive is that the notion of qualia simply isn't new. Descartes started this whole duality thing a long time ago with his cogito ergo sum and the rest. Most qualists, if indeed they can be called that, cannot even agree on a working definition of what qualia may be. Describe to me what an apple taste like, or what a symphony sounds like. My main point in the previous post is that oftentimes I see qualia as a last ditch effort to protect some mystical notion. Whether or not that was the point stag was trying to make I don't know, I merely wanted to bring that to light. And if you want to talk sensible then it seems to me that beginning with scientific testing and methodology is much more beneficial than beginning with the subjective experiences of individuals who by nature are prone to make perceptive errors in their own judgements. Among the proponents of qualia that I am familiar with, not one is pushing for a reductive materialist point of view, so to say that they would be in favor of a physical world explanation seems to me to be at odds with the other part of their position.
26. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation
Comment #62166 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Stag:
I disagree with you on several points, although I do commend you for attempting to argue your position on subjective knowledge. The first, is that NOMA, I believe it was initially proposed by Stephen J. Gould, is clearly a blatant defense of mysticism. It attempts to protect religions among other things from scientific research and scrutiny by saying that religion is a different realm of knowledge than science and is therefore somehow immune or should be free from scientific inquiry or methodology. I assure you that it is not, nor should it be. In reference to Beethoven's 9th (one of my favorites by the way) if you are merely speaking about the replication of audio pathways then I believe that science will be able to do so in the future either with A.I. or robotics, and MIT is on the cutting edge of this sort of thing. However, I felt that you may have been arguing for something else entirely. I thought you might have been referring to "qualia" or the "subjective qualities" of experience in the individual. This is really not a tenable position either with listening to symphonies or eating fruit for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that among cognitive neuroscientists the notion of qualia is quickly evaporating as more and more information enters the field and more experiements are being conducted. Dan Dennett refers to the proponents of "qualia" as "closeted dualists". Qualia is kind of a loaded term that refers to a number of things. It may mean a difference between the mind/brain or soul/body, or simply what you consider the specific taste of a fruit might be. However, if you take seriously our evolutionary past it becomes frankly inconceivable that a soul comes into play at any given point. Would a soul enter into the body in the early homonids? Earlier? It's kind of absurd. The only knowledge we have therefore stems from the material world. If I could get you to concede that modern human beings have roughly the same wiring, circulatory system, organs, neurons, and the like then I would same that we are all made up of the same stuff which functions in similar ways. If you bite into a piece of fruit, the fruit enters your mouth, stimulates the tastebuds, this in turn sends an electric signal to the brain which forms a pattern of neurons corresponding to that taste, and you receive this information back in the taste glands. We are all wired in this same way within a limited range. To say then that tasting fruit in a certain way is specifically personal to you is then really a cognitive illusion. While it may be true that there are some differences in taste, and that tastebuds may actually change, the personal and specific experience that you may classify as subjective knowledge only known to your person is really known by many. It seems to me that any implication made that something is completely subjective and remains so even beyond scientific experimentation is nothing more than an act of protection. Although I will concede on the possibility of difference among tastes with individuals, it does seem rather improbable that nature would implement that kind of wasteful variance among all human beings. Since cognitive neuroscience has only been around for 50 years or so the notion of qualia is still argued by many. David Chalmers comes to mind. But like anything... given enough time I think science will produce answers.
27. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate
Comment #60660 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I don't think the real problem here has to do with sex ed or abstinence. No, I'm afraid that I am far more concerned that Texans are reproducing quicker than the rest of the nation. It could be bad news in the future :)
Comment #52128 by TheCelestialTeapot on June 26, 2007 at 8:41 am
To Patrick McArdle
I am certainly in agreement with you about the importance of the website and the function it provides. I guess my point is that it is not necessary to attack religion with logical fallacies (committing the same mistakes as the faithful), when it can be defeated through science and logic. While I would concede that Mr. Hitchens has a silver-tongued sharpness about himself, I do not hold him in the same brackets of scholarship as I do Dawkins, Dennett, and Mr. Harris. One of the dominant topics of his book is sexual repression in religion. All who have been religious and those who have not understand this, and the topic itself is unoriginal and uninventive. It would be inconsistent if we were to be critical of religion and not critical of our own position, as well as those authors and speakers for atheism.
Comment #51621 by TheCelestialTeapot on June 23, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Excuse me for saying so, but I find it troubling that all of us clear-thinking, open-minded, rationalists get swept up in the fervent and over-zealous denunciation of religion. For those of you who can see that Mr. Hitchens is merely swooping in on the tail-end of a movement of intellectuals superior to himself in order to sell a book, I commend you; and for those of you who cannot justifiably see the difference between someone such as Mr. Hitchens and say, a Dan Dennett, I am ashamed. This article is certainly not correct in all of the points that it makes, but it draws out some interesting questions. Things, that I believe, are worth considering. Certainly we are all angered when Dr. Dawkins, given his knowledge and position, is attacked by silly ad hominem and straw men fallacies, but then why is it so common on this website that the same mistakes are made? If we truly want the dialogue to progress and move forward toward the point of change, then I suggest that everyone begin thinking for themselves rather than have Dawkins, or whoever, do it for them.
30. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?
Comment #37542 by TheCelestialTeapot on May 4, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Denoir:
Don't forget about David Chalmers, him and his qualia get my blood boiling. LOL.
31. The Damned
Comment #36947 by TheCelestialTeapot on May 2, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I didn't think this video was that great. While I agree with the sentiment, I've seen similar videos a dozen or so times before. I don't think that simply linking different names to atheism (some of whose contributions to humanity are questionable) is that powerful of a message. And as for Christians and Muslims condemning people to hell, so what? They condemn everyone to hell. What else is new? Feel free to disagree, but I thought this video was just a different face on the same worn-out approach. Perhaps I'm being picky. I realize it is important that people make these videos, and the time that they put forth to do so should be commended, but at the same time I'd like to see something creative and fresh. I can certainly agree with everyone else on the "Smile, there is no hell" t-shirts, they would be cool.
32. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling
Comment #36088 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 30, 2007 at 6:56 am
Brian,
I think cybercoma has a really good idea there, but I was thinking more along the lines of showing a man tortured, beaten, whipped and then nailed to a cross all in the name of religion and maybe have John Lennon's "Imagine" playing in the background....wait a minute...scratch that, it has been done before. Sorry about that Brian I thought I was on to something good.
Comment #35605 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I feel compelled to disagree with you Brunoflame. If you're speaking about Cartesian dualism, or mind/body duality, then I think you need to clarify the point you're trying to make. Cartesian dualism is no longer a tenable position. Philosophers in the field of cognitive neuroscience argue for what's called "qualia" or the subjective qualities of personal experience. Although many materialist/reductionist philosophers, like Dennett, have really done a terrific job of examining that argument. I would also suggest that you clarify what you mean by "spirituality", because as it stands I certainly disagree with your last statement. I'm not trying to be combative, I just wanted you to expand on your ideas. Thanks Bruno.
Comment #35574 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Any good scientific hypothesis will try to minimize the number of unwarranted assumptions made in any given experiment. In this case the simple explanation of brain function and brain chemicals causing religious ecstasy is much better than saying the brain was "wired by god". It seems to me that many theists invent any old ad hoc response in order to preserve their cherished beliefs. Theologians are entitled their opinions, but religion has no place in science unless it's under the microscope.
35. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
Comment #35162 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 26, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I grow weary of religious apologists, they're much worse than the fundamentalists. Dr. Winston is merely upholding the taboo on religion that Dennett talks about in Breaking The Spell. Dawkins' eloquent and scathing attacks on fundamentalist religious sects become necessary when those groups attempt to teach Creationism and I.D. in the classroom. The attacks made on religion may be insulting, but at least they are logical. I find nothing wrong with ostracizing idiots, that's generally how modern society works.
36. Potentially habitable planet found
Comment #34991 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 25, 2007 at 8:56 pm
In response to Phaderus' idea of sending Xians to colonize the newly discovered planet, well I'm all for it except that 120 trillion miles just doesn't seem far enough away....
37. Study: Religion is Good for Kids
Comment #34986 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 25, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Correlation does not necessitate causation, although until I see the research data it's difficult to draw any solid conclusions. It's not surprising to me that young children are well-behaved while in church. I find myself in agreement with many of the posts for many different reasons. It would be interesting to see the results of a similar experiment if it were conducted among religious teenagers. By that age you have a natural distaste for authority, if you have any curiosity left it manifests itself into a number of doubts and questions, and sexual repression becomes extremely difficult to deal with.
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
