1. The books that inspire me

Comment #158773 by Rational Thinking on April 11, 2008 at 3:07 am

I'm writing a book which I hope you'll all read when Apple gets its act together. Very nice people, and red-hot on security, which I like.

The books is entitled er and eight on the side.

Love

H

2. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #151077 by Rational Thinking on March 28, 2008 at 6:00 am

Many happy returns of the day Professor D. I had my birthday on 22 March, and we (ahem) Aries :-) people must stick together.

Many, many happy returns - and may it be your best year yet.

Best wishes

3. Leaving the Faith

Comment #136352 by Rational Thinking on March 1, 2008 at 12:37 am

All simply the best.

And if people are going to start changing the numbers yet again ...... well, I think it's 49 myself, but I've really lost count.

How wonderful :-)

4. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136170 by Rational Thinking on February 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Where the BLUE BLAZES did you come up with such an extraordinary bizarre idea. You might be right :-)

5. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135312 by Rational Thinking on February 28, 2008 at 8:19 pm

et al!

6. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134727 by Rational Thinking on February 28, 2008 at 6:26 am

Confidnence. Just get your facts straight first. In the teeth of the evidence - and by the way, the flying teapot was inspired.

Now, if you will all please get your acts together, I may even ROFL again.

Smoke and mirrors - but 'ware the mirrors!

Infinity and whatever the opposite IS!

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134725 by Rational Thinking on February 28, 2008 at 6:23 am

et al. Four letter.s

Whoever, by the way, thought up quantum physics has my undying gratitude.

KISSES

I am NEVER OFF! Now, if you can just work your minds around that ... who knows

8. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134718 by Rational Thinking on February 28, 2008 at 6:19 am

Well I can see I have missed shedloads - as if! Of course, I was off doing my own thing, whatever the heck that means. However, be what it may, I ALWAYS get there in the end.

PERFECT - just perfect.

Still waiting for the pink champagne, however. But I do have patience; or solitaire, or something. Keep me posted.

Heads in a whirl right now. If - well, there's that really pathetic and rather delightful word again. INFINITIY AND BEYOND! Somebody else can do the footnotes ....... CLEAR - you go, I'm staying. Or any other bright idea anyone comes up with. I'm quite good at that :-)

9. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133667 by Rational Thinking on February 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I seem to recall somebody somewhere or nobody nowhere once said "Nothing is ever lost or wasted":-)

Just geniuses, the lot of you (shhh, even Wee Flea)

Enjoy!

10. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133103 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm

People lie: then they feel guilty. Might make them wonder if they'd be considerably better off telling the truth. And of course truth is going to be subjective.

I remember my wonderful history and politics 'a' level teacher, when I had produced what I thought was a wondrous achievement - a linear graph of left to right on politics. Nice try, but only there if you put it there :-) Great guy.

And his expression when I posited that perhaps the same event, in the gospels, had taken place, and everybody just saw something slightly different was truly hilarious. A remarkable man with remarkable patience:-)

11. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133090 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 3:28 pm

If I had to pick one book, just one, that I thought the most intriguing, fascinating, just plain weird book I ever read, it would of course be The Selfish Gene, by Professor Dawkins

Of course, I have a lot of reading to do:-) Pretty certain it will stand up:-)

12. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132854 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 9:57 am

Well I can't resist this, because all this fiction and non-fiction thing (I know, I started it:-)) is kind of beside the point.

I like a Good Book myself, and here's a couple I suggest people read - both are quite short, you'll be relieved to hear:

Richard Rose: The Albigen Papers
Douglas Harding: On Having No Head: Zen, and the Rediscovery of the Obvious

I can see now that I never read enough Science Fiction - thanks be for Douglas Adams, if that won't offend anyone :-)

13. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132853 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

Oh ditto that :-)

14. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132827 by Rational Thinking on February 25, 2008 at 8:51 am

Yes, I agree: all this talk of angels and evangelicals - why would it have to be an angel? Is there such a thing as an angel? Is there not such a thing as an angel?

You know, there's a huge assumption right there.

I shall be extremely interested to hear Professor Dawkins' response, should he wish to:-)

15. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #132532 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 11:35 pm

An afterthought :-) depending on what kind of service you're having, you could hand out copies of the God Delusion, rather than prayer books :-) Might be rather fun :-)

16. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #132530 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 11:33 pm

"Let there to the marriage of true minds admit no impediment" .... can't remember the source, but the words appear apt.

Delighted and heartiest congratulations to you both.

Where are you having the wedding? I work at Culzean Castle - not a bad venue, if you're looking.

17. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132505 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Here's a thought: what if the Sun rose in the North?

18. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132473 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Troy - simply because if and or when the event occurs, you will view it through the filter of the underlying assumption.

Personally, I disbelieve anything on principle.

19. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132463 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Troy - "Belief in Atheism" - just run that by me again :-)

20. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132456 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I entirely agree with you. And possibly it's a hypothetical question. I just find it intriguing.

21. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132454 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Predictions wouldn't do it - all you'd have to do is rationalise them afterwards. Mass hysteria or the like.

It's an interesting question.

22. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132439 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Interesting piece - of course, the author doesn't realise that he is already operating under the influence of an assumption - an unquestioned assumption. What he also fails to realise is that Professor Dawkins is not operating under the same assumption. He questioned it. That's all he wants anyone to do.

Evidence, by the way, someone spell this out for me: anecdotal evidence does not make data. What does?

23. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132432 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Five favourite fiction books, thus far :-)

Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy (all of it) by Douglas Adams
Bridget Jones' Diary and Edge of Reason (counts as 1:-))
Five Red Herrings by Dorothy L Sayers
Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals

24. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132151 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 10:56 am

I heard this live this afternoon - great programme. One thing somewhat puzzled me, and I wondered about the "Self-proclaimed Biological Guru" :-) I thought it was rather amusing.

25. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132141 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 9:46 am

Comets are wonderful things. I have a photograph in my living room of the Halle Bopp comet, taken over Stonehenge (not by me, I hasten to add) - at 9.37pm. My father died recently, and with the family get together my brother noticed the picture and reminded me that I had actually seen it too - we were on a ferry coming back from France that night, and I recalled we went out on the deck and watched for it.

If you have a moment, Professor Dawkins, I wrote a little thank you letter to you recently on the Forum - it's in Faith and Reason, under Religious or Spiritual? My thanks again.

26. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111570 by Rational Thinking on January 15, 2008 at 2:51 am

All best wishes George. I hope the best is yet before you. My father (now aged 88) had blockages on both sides of the carotid artery necessitating ticklishly difficult neurosurgery, had to give up driving and his beloved fishing because of failing eyesight - and yet, five years later, having had a pacemaker put in just 15 months ago, he's going strong. He has back problems that restrict his mobility somewhat - but he sees a physio fortnightly and that keeps him going nicely. In fact, he's out now, walking the dog!

What the world needs is more like you. Thank you for all your contributions - to the RDFRS and to life.

27. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98069 by Rational Thinking on December 13, 2007 at 3:31 am

FatherMike: I really think you have misunderstood the term atheist. The point, again, is that the only common denominator of atheists is that they do not believe in god/s. That is not a cop out - it is a statement of fact. The fact that you assert that "[atheists] do have beliefs, very strong ones", does not make that proposition true. You may believe that it is but, once again, that does not make it true. You cannot logically assert that a disbelief amounts to a belief. Religious belief is based upon faith. Atheistic disbelief is based upon fact. It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that the two are comparable.

I think that you may possibly be confusing secularism and atheism. Which does happen. Perhaps this would be an interesting topic for your sixth form students to discuss?

28. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #98002 by Rational Thinking on December 13, 2007 at 1:28 am

Flipping fantastic - this made my morning. The NASA guys who designed Voyager should be extremely proud of themselves and the probes.

29. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97433 by Rational Thinking on December 12, 2007 at 4:52 am

Responding to FatherMike comment 97432:

No atheist represents my views. They couldn't possibly do so. Please try to get it clear in your own mind that "I am an atheist" simply means I do not believe in god/s. Atheism is NOT synonymous with religion or with politics, in any form.

For the umpteenth time of writing: atheism cannot be used as a justification for any behaviour of any sort. Unlike religious belief, which is often used in this way.

So - to answer you directly: I condemn all evil action unreservedly. Is that clear enough for you?

30. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97378 by Rational Thinking on December 12, 2007 at 1:55 am

Slightly off topic, but I'd recommend A J Bullocks's excellent book "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives", which sheds some light on the reasons why these men acted in the way they did.

His book "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" is also worth reading.

31. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97376 by Rational Thinking on December 12, 2007 at 1:37 am

This is fascinating. Kudos to Sam et al. I'm intrigued by the differences in reaction time between true, and false or uncertain. A predisposition to accept a proposition as true until proved otherwise? Hmmmm.

32. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97075 by Rational Thinking on December 11, 2007 at 11:10 am

Has he actually read the Selfish Gene? If he has read it, I have my doubts about whether he understood it.

The article is just plain dreadful. Then again, having glanced at the synopsis of the book he has written, that sounds dreadful too. Methinks a mutant flea arises ...

33. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96924 by Rational Thinking on December 11, 2007 at 5:22 am

Good point Naba and others. This is the sticking point with deists, theists and others of religious persuasion: they have been led to believe that their particular deity or idol might require them (along with suspending all critical thinking or analysis) to perform certain actions -e.g.to convert people, kill people etc..

Religious belief may indeed be a motivating factor behind all sorts of acts, civilised and otherwise. But atheism? It's not a religion, it's a confident expression that we don't believe in god. Therefore we can't use the god card to justify anything. Let's see: I am an atheist. Who do I need to please or placate? Who do I need to subdue or attack? I can't find any answer to that.

It's one of the many refreshing differences between atheism and religion. You can't use atheism to justify anything.

34. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94756 by Rational Thinking on December 6, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Here's a new nomination for a bad faith in perpetuity award:

God

Or Allah, or whatever ...

35. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94727 by Rational Thinking on December 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

Bear in mind here that I'm in pain from a tooth extraction.

Religion is not an emotion. Atheism is not an emotion.

Anybody who thinks that it is, is mistaken. By defintion.

End of broadcast.

36. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94694 by Rational Thinking on December 6, 2007 at 9:17 am

Come along now, Abdullah, get a grip.

This is a website dedicated to reason and science.

Neither appear to be uppermost in your post. Please repeat to yourself, slowly and breathing deeply, "belief does not equal knowledge".

Are you serious?

37. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94326 by Rational Thinking on December 5, 2007 at 10:08 am

See, this is why you shouldn't yell "fire" in a crowded disco.

38. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94288 by Rational Thinking on December 5, 2007 at 6:45 am

Good point Atlas.

My mother, when I told her that if I had to choose another country to live in, I'd probably pick Austria, was horrified. Her "clinching" argument was "Well, Hitler was an Austrian you know". Still makes me chuckle.

This whole "Stalin was an atheist" thing is a very similar red herring. Isn't the point really that nobody gets to use beliefs or disbeliefs to excuse uncivilized behaviour?

39. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94236 by Rational Thinking on December 5, 2007 at 4:14 am

Some of the questions on the bbc website are hilarious - my particular favourite is the chap who asks whether Professor Dawkins isn't making money out of the ignorant and unread? The writer's view appears to be that the only reason TGD is successful is because society is biblically illiterate.

I'm still laughing half an hour later.

40. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92852 by Rational Thinking on December 1, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Corylus - thanks for pointing it out - I hadn't even realised I'd done so. Does it affect the logic?

41. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92751 by Rational Thinking on December 1, 2007 at 11:45 am

Allan W - what on earth are you apologising for? To misquote Eleanor Roosevelt (I think), "no-one can make you feel upset without your consent". Beth is (and I'm making an assumption here) an adult.

On a general note, btw, the article appears to me to be ill-thought out. And RD posts apologising for making it "so easy to misunderstand". Does that mean that those of us who question the article are idiots? Of course not. The questions it raises are important.

To ask an author to relate an article from the theoretical to the personal seems quite reasonable to me. Given that Professor Dawkins talks about Chris Tarrent's wife in the article, then, I'd like to be able to presume he has all the facts. If he hasn't, then, to quote Corylus in the response he posted to etny, it's a "spectacularly impertinent and intrusive" observation to comment upon "their private life without prompting".

It may simply be a matter of taste.

42. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71785 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Oh I'm sorry - my comment 44 was in response to comment 42. Apologies - I'm having difficulty with quotes. My bad.

43. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71781 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Right, individuals need to define purpose for themselves. If there are those of us who can't (if you can allow that possibility) might those of us who think we have a handle on it be allowed the possibility of offering a suggesion or two?

Good for your purpose. But you wouldn't attempt to suggest (I assume - deliberately) that all of us should follow suit?

This sounds cross. Sorry, if I'm missing something.

44. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71771 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Ice-cream - as purpose? Chuckling.

Though if I was to be picky (having re-read the posts here) I'd say that "no, you didn"t". Not explicitly. (Deep rumbling noise from SW Scotland). Erm - don't think I said you did. But let's not call a straw man right now.

And maybe (oh yikes) I was wrong in the inferences I drew. If so, I apologise. If not, let's talk.

45. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71761 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Dr Benway and Corylus

I don't think I suggested that one HAS to have purpose. If you think not, fine. Evidence?

And you may be right. As yet it's unpoven, so far as I know.

Your responses may not be too helpful for anyone seeking one (a purpose, that is, rather than a cause).

46. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71750 by Rational Thinking on September 19, 2007 at 3:09 pm

re calbear77: I don't know whether the idea that the question of purpose is "about the dumbest question one could ask" is a reasonable idea. If one accepts that a large number of people are indoctrinated into the idea of religious belief, then it might be. On the other hand, if one reaches the idea that "my life MUST have a purpose", it might be helpful to attempt to list some possibles. It's not about weakness, it's about a desire to be of service. That's not weakness, where it appears.

Here's a few I'd offer:

Add unto, don't strip mine
Put an arm around, don't deliver a knock-out punch
And (brace yourselves) - if you can be right or be kind, be kind - or both, but at least be kind
By whatever route, for whatever reason, we're here in the same time frame - let's make it a memorable one

Probably lots more. But that's a few.

RT

47. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50931 by Rational Thinking on June 20, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I was interested to hear the book The God Delusion described as "bitter" and "vitriolic" by Michael Ruse. Presumably that was the tone which he didn't like?

On a personal level I don't like the tone of the bible much, but I don't think that would constitute a valid argument against its contents. Fortunately (from my perspective), there are people like Richard Dawkins who provide reason-based evidence to support their arguments. The God Delusion, to me, is intended as a wake-up call. It attempts clearly to differentiate faith-based belief from scientific proof. I don't believe, ultimately, that one can effectively do that without being direct. I'm glad Professor Dawkins took the gloves off. I think the book is honest. And I don't think the tone matters at all. I think this is a case where content matters more than form.

If the book hadn't been so effective in ruffling some sensibilities, I doubt it would have been so widely publicised and disseminated. I'm very glad to see the debate that it has generated.