1. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62491 by rftluong on August 10, 2007 at 1:19 am

I'm afraid I'm at a lost when I'm attempting to understand Christianity changing with modernity. Now we say that no modern Christians believe in Hell. I'm afraid that there are a few Christians that I know do and are sad to see that I and others will wind up there. There are also many Christians that homosexuality is completely wrong based on nothing but a holy book.

Ironically, I find the point to defend religion I find is its weakest pillar. Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins have beat the point to death that if religion is an assembly of ethics; then it has a long way to go to proving it has any value.

2. Electrons to Enlightenment 4: Debating Darwin

Comment #61773 by rftluong on August 6, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Olson raises a point but I think he doesn't do it very effectively. It is true that science needs to appeal to those who don't believe. However, where is the solution? It's very easy to criticize and say that scientists are snotty but do you have anything else to say to that?

Paulson brought up some interesting facts about Darwin that I didn't know. I was glad to hear them.

Dawkins was excellent as usual.

Sahtouris seemed very unclear. If she may have a point she really didn't sell it very well. The mixing of Eastern religions and Western science seemed a bit silly. She didn't state of purpose of merging the two together. She just said that it needed to be done. Maybe I need to hear more but it just seems like pantheism.

Lastly, that sob story about creationism was pathetic. The music, the terrible 'outcast' feeling ... goodness. How pathetic. If you have the data and proof then put it on the table. If you don't then you have nothing. Those are the rules. Such a poor attempt at playing the victim.

Anyways, this is a very skippable segment.