1051. My God Problem

Comment #7164 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 12:37 pm

I started the thin-book nonsense so please let me finish it.

Next week, John Ashcroft will be distributing a very thin book to members of congress, it's called:

"Atheism for Dummies"

1052. My God Problem

Comment #7124 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 9:07 am

Roger,

I didn't mean to start a thin-book craze here but these are pretty funny :)

Here's one I just thought of:

"The Ted Haggard Guide to Christian Living"

1053. Morality

Comment #7087 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 5:10 am

Aha, I bought TGD a couple of weeks ago but missed that. Probably due to my habit of reading a book in random order.

1054. My God Problem

Comment #7086 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 4:57 am

That article by Natalie was certainly one of the better ones posted here. It's certainly true that American atheists have to either deny their true thoughts or dodge the God issue like Gould did with NOMA, personally I think HOMA (hugely), would be more accurate.

I spent ten years living in the USA working on computer software. At least 85% of my colleagues were atheists but would only admit it to me privately or in small groups where thoughts were shared. In 'mixed' company, most would never raise the question of religion and would avoid direct references to it. There's no doubt in my mind that the number of American atheists is far greater than surveys suggest. There are many very intelligent people in the USA but it's also true that there are hordes of uneducated also, the stronghold of religion lies mostly within the latter group.

I completely understand why atheists in the USA have to be careful; religion acts like a kind of Gestapo and behaves in a similar manner, admitting atheism can cost you your job. I had to give a 2-day technical seminar once at a company in Southern Indiana, casual small talk over lunch revealed the owner to be an evangelical Christian who had also financed the building of a new church that stood in the lot next to the company offices. Employees told me that if you wanted to work there, you'd better be a worshipper and show up at church on Sunday. When I told them I was an atheist their attitude changed, next day I never got invited to lunch, I guess nobody wanted to be seen associating with a heretic. I was glad to return to Florida, lots of Jewish people, but much more fun, far more tolerant and noticeably more intelligent. Indeed, one of the friends I made in the USA was Jewish who loved to tell anti-Jewish jokes; I'll end with this one from him.

Q. What are the two thinnest books in the world?

A. The Italian book of war heroes and the Jewish book of business ethics!

1055. Morality

Comment #7077 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 3:25 am

That was an interesting audio clip. What struck me most was how it resonated with me, the bells of truth were ringing in my head and it starkly highlighted how the religious version of the source of morality, rung hollow and empty in my mind.

I am against the death penalty but also feel that under certain clearly defined circumstances, killing a person would be the right thing to do. I wonder if my response has a similar evolutionary history to that involved in the train dilemma?

The chimp episode made me think of "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", the book by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan; in it, Carl said that being a chimp was like being in the army, I'm not a biologist but I thought the chapter on chimpanzees was a masterpiece.

1056. Science vs religion

Comment #6629 by Yorker on November 15, 2006 at 7:14 am

Religion was invented to keep us in order, its controllers are well aware that the power of science and its ability to help humankind, is increasingly threatening the grip they have on the largely uneducated mass of believers. Home schooling is therefore an obvious way to undermine the advance of science and breed more easily manipulated sheep whose ability to think critically and independently, has been stifled as much as possible. Indeed, to achieve complete success, their goal must be complete eradication of independent thought.

I find it difficult to imagine anything having a more evil and deleterious societal effect than this doctrine would have. The long-term effects for the USA (or any country adopting it) would be catastrophic; medical, and all forms of scientific research would come to a standstill; sane people would be forced to seek asylum in countries where reason still prevailed. The rest of the world would look upon the USA as the world backwoods, populated by supreme hypocrites living in a dream.

The hypocritical nay-sayers of scientific evidence will still use and retain all that science has given them so far however, especially weaponry; with a religious fanatic in charge, they would endanger the existence of humankind. It's not all gloomy of course; the many good American scientists in their new host countries would be able to carry out unhindered research and we sane people would benefit as a result. Eventually we would have to solve the problem the USA would pose, after the failure of Jesus to show up, there would be a load of "rapture" believers pissed off at their continued earthly existence, trying to get their president to press the nuclear trigger in order to "assist" the Lord with Armageddon.

Could the unthinkable happen? Will the day come when the people of the secular world must unite and in the name of humanity, not God, eradicate by force the deluded ones?

I certainly hope not, but current trends bring the possibility closer.

Much has been recently made of the perceived need to replace religion with something else even if we got rid of it. I see no such need. I have lived my entire life without it and so have many others, children are born without it; clearly, nature has decreed it superfluous to human requirements. Certainly, a void would be left if we ditched it tomorrow, but it won't happen that way. We need to stop it spreading, just like we would stop the spread of any other contagious disease, only the vaccination of true education for children would be required, given that, religion would die by itself.

I cling to the optimistic hope that about 120 years from now it will all be over. In that cosmically-short span of time the billions of present-day god-crazed humans will no longer exist; their lives will have been for naught, a total waste, a hindrance not a help, to their species.

In the USA, wise citizens must unite and speak out against this home-schooling nonsense. Here in the UK, we must be much more vociferous in our condemnation of the rise in privately-backed faith schools. Dawkins has said that getting atheists to unite is like herding cats, but we are humans and know that strength lies in numbers. So just for this noble and crucial endeavour, let us unite like intelligent sheep against this oppression, once the battle is won, we can go back to being cats again.

1057. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6539 by Yorker on November 14, 2006 at 5:25 pm

I think atheists should treat Islam the same as any other religion. It appears to be the only religion that gets upset about being insulted, well, that's just tough.

Since incitement to murder is a crime in the UK, I'm perplexed as to why the Muslim criminals who waved "behead those who insult Islam" placards on TV are still free, as far as I know, they weren't even arrested!

The British goverment need to take a leaf out of Australia's book. Subversive immigrant Muslims there, were told to fit into Oz society and obey its laws or leave the country.

1058. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6096 by Yorker on November 12, 2006 at 2:55 pm

Terri,

My experiences here and in the USA have convinced me of the impossibility of serious debate with god worshippers. A person sincerely willing to engage in debate must be prepared to change their mind when faced with unquestionable reason. I have yet to meet a single dogmatically committed religite with such a mindset. The goings-on here are a perfect example, - just a waste of time.

Religites mostly seem unaware of the simple fact that since they are making the claim, the onus is upon them to prove, or at least convince atheists of their thesis! When the day comes that one of them is prepared to admit they may be wrong about their god, then I will debate them, until then what is the point?

If you expect David to listen to reason and to renounce his god, I think you will be disappointed and I'll be confounded! Either god exists or he does not, that's all it is, the rest is superfluity. Arguments about evolution are pointless, evolution is a fact, you can't have an opinion about a fact! Two years ago, Dr. Jim Watson (of DNA fame) stated that we can now see human evolution at the gene level because of the discovery of fossil genes, that's the cruncher (if one were needed) that we are an evolved species.

Incidentally, a listening reporter put it to Jim that he was playing God; in his lovely engaging way Jim replied:

"Well, if I don't play God, who will?"

No, strongly committed godites will never listen to reason because they didn't get their belief through reason, it was drummed into them when children. They don't want to believe, they *need* to; rationality would take their lives away; it's not going to happen.

There are only two things we can do; let nature takes its course and allow religion to die a natural death, or as Dawkins says, prevent the indoctrination of children unable to defend themselves. That way, I think, religion would be gone within perhaps two generations.

1059. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6045 by Yorker on November 12, 2006 at 10:13 am

Fellow atheists,

Why are we wasting valuable web-space on Jack Sparrow? This man is simply a blethering, run-of-the-mill, common-or-garden, god-of-the-gaps creationist who thinks that a fossil has to exist for every minor mutation. His arguments have been destroyed time and time again to the point of stupefying boredom, its a futile waste of time engaging him in intelligent discussion. Even after Judge Jones kicked the arse of him and his kind out of Dover, they still bleat on.

Intelligent Design, holy shit (literally), they don't even have enough intelligence to realise the only people who will listen to them are weak-minded delusionists like themselves. I've said before we should be kind towards those who are deluded but seek to learn, creationists don't merit kindness, they should be shunned as outcasts because they are dangerous fools.

But things are improving, Ted Haggard has shown himself to be the lying hypocrite of the century, and sane American citizens will soon remove their god-befuddled, only partially-evolved leader from office. The danger of these religious maniacs getting their grubby fingers on the nuclear - or "newkular" as Bush says - trigger, still remains however.

All we can do is be patient and wait for Darwinian natural selection to do its unstoppable job of removing them from the gene pool, and give real Earth-bound humanity the chance to survive.

1060. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5988 by Yorker on November 12, 2006 at 5:14 am

Jack Sparrow,

If you come here trying to deny the fact of evolution, you must do a whole lot better than you're doing right now. You ask for evidence, it's all around you, just open your imperfectly designed eyes and you'll see it. Admittedly, your eyes are nowhere near as good as those of your feathered friends, but should still be adequate.

To defeat Darwinian evolution you'll have to provide stronger evidence to counter it, excessive use of expression symbols and uppercase bellowing, isn't going to cut it. It's simple, just present your superior evidence and we'll listen. You come across as an angry man, is there somthing stuck up your "beak" perhaps, or did someone "clip your wings" lately?

1061. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5815 by Yorker on November 11, 2006 at 8:21 am

G Bile,

Remarks 1 and 2 by the pastor are equally bad.

The first is an insult to the parents intelligence, the second is a slap on the wrist. Any pastor uttering words like that to me, would leave minus a few teeth!

1062. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5812 by Yorker on November 11, 2006 at 8:05 am

William,

I can understand what you say about your grandmother, but keep in mind that in her time, public consciousness about religion wasn't what it is today. She probably didn't think of her remarks as being harmful, she was just trying to 'keep you in line' as it were.

Yes, time is precious, and the older you get the more precious it becomes, using it wisely brings great self-satisfaction.

Incidentally, thanks for your kind words!

1063. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5802 by Yorker on November 11, 2006 at 6:29 am

Re Comment #5794.

Nice one Jared!

The 'Rev' was so full of shit he's probably glad your tore him a new asshole!

1064. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5799 by Yorker on November 11, 2006 at 6:13 am

Finlay,

Your impudence is remarkable. You blether about the bad logic of others while holding the most illogical stance of all, yourself! Is ignorance of Christian faith a flaw of some kind? Of course not, an atheist would perhaps consider your unwillingness to face reality, to be a serious mental aberration.

We atheists live in the real world; I don't personally know Richard Dawkins but I believe he exists because I've seen him, read writings he puts his name to, he has offspring and a wife that live here on Earth, and I visit his website. These and many other things lead me to accept his reality.

You, and others who suffer the same delusion, are prepared to not only accept but to worship an ephemeral entity simply because people (humans) told you to! What a waste of life, the only one you'll ever have. But let's say you're right, god exists and we atheists are a bunch of fools; well, after a microsecond's thought, I'm still glad I chose atheism because I've led a life of freedom, I use my time wisely because I know it's limited, and I don't have to waste time massaging the ego of a non-existent thing that pathetically needs worshipping. I cannot say for certain that your god doesn't exist and you cannot say for certain that he/she/it does; the difference is simple, I, logically admit I may be wrong, you illogically, can't.

Perhaps you sincerely think you have a personal relationship with your god, but without a shred of evidence, surely you can see why we sane people consider you deluded. Like the rest of us, you live your daily life based upon evidence, you live in a society with an evidence-based legal system, those who fail to make evidential decisions in daily life, don't live long! Of course when it suits you, and you know it will have no affect on your life, you just ignore the evidence.

All educated people know the real reason for the existence of religion, those who know it but won't admit it, are simply hypocrites. Unfortunately, there are many uneducated believers, who don't know the truth and use religion as a crutch because they simply can't face reality; religion encourages feeble minded people to avoid reality.

"Just listen to what the 'reverend' says and part with your cash!"

The very word 'reverend' reeks of egotistical superior-sounding bullshit! Why would any sane human being revere anyone who's no better than any other kind of charlatan? Dawkins is right, religion is mental abuse forced upon humans when they're too young to defend themselves. I consider it a despicable, cowardly act designed not to help the child, but to perpetuate the nonsense of religion for those who benefit from its continuation. Like the rest of us, you were born an atheist; sadly, you had parents who decided to abuse you.

The days of your belief system are numbered Finlay, the world is a dynamic place; that which does not change with the world dies, religion is an outdated static doctrine that cannot change without exposing its own folly; it will therefore expire. At this very moment, I think we may be witnessing the last futile writhing of religion before the unstoppable advance of human intellect consigns it to life's garbage can. But don't despair, all you have to do is renounce your god, the illness will be cured and we will make you welcome.

1065. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5732 by Yorker on November 10, 2006 at 5:38 pm

Friends,

Sometimes we have a tendency to be excessively harsh in dealing with religious commenter's here. I think there are broadly two types; the simplistic amateur believer and the professional pseudo-intellectual kind. Generally, I think it would be wise if we offered help and guidance to the simplistic type instead of ridiculing them and treating like idiots; I myself have been guilty of this but now see the error of my ways.

As for the semi-intellectuals, well, they are a different story; their writings indicate they have some education and intelligence but are prepared to throw both out the window on behalf of their god. Robertson and his ilk will lose heavily when religion is finally ditched, so it's easy to see why this kind is against us. This type of religite (rhymes with Israelite) deserves to be thoroughly lambasted and ridiculed even if only for their intellectual hypocrisy, and their silly attempts to argue against intelligent people without having a shred of evidence in their favour.

Personally, I feel that's all we need do, It's as Dawkins says; this is not a case where there are two closely matched proposals, atheists live in reality, religites live in fairyland, perhaps all we should do is keep reminding them of that simple fact.

1066. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5624 by Yorker on November 10, 2006 at 6:25 am

Slowly we're sinking into the mor-ass here...

1067. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5588 by Yorker on November 10, 2006 at 2:44 am

Charlene,

Atheism is "lack of belief in a god or gods", that is a simple statement that simply cannot be described as a religion. That's as reasonable as I can be.

You said to Ben that you KNOW God exists. An atheist would not say he/she KNOWS that God does not exist, therein is the difference. You may believe, you may feel, you may suspect, you may be convinced, but you cannot KNOW that God exists.

I had hoped that you may be open to reason but it seems you want to remain shackled, I won't lambaste you for it, I just feel a little sorry that you're wasting your precious life – the only one you'll ever have – on a what is almost certainly a falsehood.

1068. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5575 by Yorker on November 10, 2006 at 1:51 am

Charlene,

If you decide to voice your opinion on a largely atheistic website, then you'd be well advised to present an argument with some substance to it. This place is frequented by many intelligent people who will tear a weak argument to shreds, your characterisation of atheism as a religion; is one such example.

You make the mistake of existential false comparison between real living persons and a god of extreme unlikelihood, a fault I've found common amongst religious persons given to non-thinking and with a propensity to believe whatever someone has told them. An atheist is by nature, a person who has at least given some personal thought to gods and has decided against all of them.

Have you never noticed that atheists are generally better educated and more intelligent than religites? Education and intelligence gives rise to a tendency for independent thought, blind obedience gives rise to follow-my-leader, sheep-like tendencies. I think you have the latter characteristics, if I'm wrong, then please present me with a strong *original* argument why you personally have decided upon the existence of a god that you must worship and obey. If you can't do this, then at least try to think about what you say, if you open your mind you will find people here who will gladly help you to unshackle yourself from the mind-numbing grip of religion.

1069. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5483 by Yorker on November 9, 2006 at 4:45 pm

Yes, it appears that McGrath just read the cover of TGD and that was enough to prompt his erroneous blethering. Is it possible that jealousy of Dawkins literary success is really the driving force behind such an obviously flawed and ill-thought through attack? Maybe the fear that Dawkins arguments may hasten the demise of theology and put McGrath out of work, is another contributing factor.

Titling his own book "The Dawkins Delusion" is a cheap trick that perhaps McGrath thinks will boost sales; it's certainly a catchy title, catchy enough to remind me not to buy it anyway! Perhaps AC Grayling will publish a book titled "The McGrath Confusion" in response; that would be fun!

Please excuse me for using only his surname [McGrath], I can't bring myself to apply the word "professor" to any person whose only claim to academic distinction is based upon study of the world's longest-running fairy tale.

1070. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5237 by Yorker on November 8, 2006 at 8:30 am

As usual Grayling is spot on. I tried playing the role of rampant religite as I read it but could find nothing to attack. Indeed, how could anyone reasonably disagree with it?

1071. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4979 by Yorker on November 7, 2006 at 5:06 am

Is Liberty University the place where 'gapologists' are trained?

1072. Tony Blair on Science

Comment #4377 by Yorker on November 3, 2006 at 3:23 pm

Hugh,

The religious difference between Blair and Bush is that Blair is the better politician, he plays up religion when it suits him and plays it down when it doesn't!

1073. Philadelphia, PA Event Photos

Comment #4276 by Yorker on November 3, 2006 at 7:19 am

I hope you're right Nebularry!

1074. Homsap: Elixir of Holiness

Comment #3619 by Yorker on October 30, 2006 at 6:57 pm

Forgot to mention: my 'homsap' will not be an elixir of holiness; more like an essence of atheism!

1075. Homsap: Elixir of Holiness

Comment #3618 by Yorker on October 30, 2006 at 6:53 pm

Another great article Richard! I liked that word 'homsap', in fact liked it so much that I registered it as a domain! I have already built the discussion forums it will host and will make a start on the web site soon. Thanks for the name!

1076. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3471 by Yorker on October 29, 2006 at 5:21 am

Aren't we being a little harsh on Darwin here? I think the tragic death of his daughter and respect for his deeply religious wife, were strong factors in causing him to delay publication.

1077. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3295 by Yorker on October 27, 2006 at 7:56 am

Re comment #3284

William,

Here's my method of dealing with Mormons, JW's etc.

Unlike most people, I don’t make some excuse to get rid of them; I invite them in! They will be slightly taken aback by this - they’re expecting rejection - so you immediately gain the advantage in the coming mind war!

Before they launch into their spiel, tell them that you will give them 30 minutes to present their case but in all fairness they must then give you 30 minutes as you present yours. This will throw them for a further loop because they won’t be expecting to spend an hour with you and they’ll mutter something about it not taking that long. Agree with whatever they say but repeat that you will expect equal time no matter how long it takes (the battle is almost won before it starts).

After they stop talking, launch enthusiastically into your own spiel and do your utmost to convince them of their folly and the wisdom of your logic; most importantly, make sure that you try to take longer than they did. They’ll try to stop you because by then, escape will be uppermost in their minds, but courteously ignore their pleas and offer them tea or other refreshment, do whatever it takes to keep them imprisoned and you rambling on!

I almost forgot; it’s important that they are sitting and you are standing, in fact, pace up and down a little, adopt a lecturer-to-student posture, this will give you further advantage and makes it easier for you to see them squirm!

Pretty soon, one of them - they always come in twos - will stand up and try to terminate the torture. Allow this, but don’t let them escape yet; make them promise to return bringing more of their brethren with them (they never will). I came up with a nice closer the last time I played the game. I said I was somewhat disappointed that they wouldn’t let me finish my statement and asked them to invite me to the local Kingdom Hall on an evening of their choice, where I would present a talk on the virtues of atheism! Of course, I didn’t get an invitation; they almost fell over each other trying to get out the door!

Disappointingly, I haven’t had an evangelical visit for quite a while now; maybe the word is getting around, but it was great fun while it lasted.

Why don't you try it next time?

1078. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3232 by Yorker on October 26, 2006 at 5:03 pm

One of the most entertaining audio shows so far, good stuff!

1079. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2351 by Yorker on October 20, 2006 at 5:58 pm

Just a reply to Greywizard.

A joke, you know, humour. In somewhat dubious taste I’ll admit, but vulgarity has its occasional uses. If a statistical analysis of “Root of All Evil?” was conducted, I’d guess that the outcome would be that Richard was disrespectful to religion about 90% of the time, so I don’t think what I said was entirely out of order. Perhaps if you, like me, had suffered at the hands of religious fanatics, you would also harden your softly, softly approach.

Additionally, I find your tone mildly insulting, I don’t need a lecture on how Dawkins behaves; I can see that for myself! If you didn’t like my joke, one line would have sufficed. If the need to wax further in philosophical vein was irresistible to you (it seems clear it was) then perhaps a new post would have been a better option, instead of addressing the whole thing to me as if I’d disagreed with something you may have said earlier.

When I disagree with something you say, I’ll let you know; then you can attack me if you want.

1080. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2347 by Yorker on October 20, 2006 at 5:28 pm

Just a reply to Greywizard

A joke Greywizard, a joke, perhaps in somewhat dubious taste I'll admit, but vulgarity has its occasional uses. I've watched "Root of All Evil?" a few times and I have to say I don't see Richard showing much respect for religion.

Perhaps you, if like me, had suffered at the hands of religious fanatics you would take a slightly different view, indeed, you give me the impression that perhaps a fondness for religion still lurks within yourself.

Additionally, I find your tone mildly insulting, I don't need to be told how Dawkins behaves, I can see that for myself! If you didn't like my joke, that's all you had to say. If you had the desire to wax further in philosphical vein, perhaps another post would've been the best option.

1081. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2323 by Yorker on October 20, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Theology is like excrement: you don't need to understand it to dump it!

1082. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2319 by Yorker on October 20, 2006 at 2:47 pm

I think you may have the nub of it it there, Topmum!

1083. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2314 by Yorker on October 20, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Ref. #2287 and in general.

"the case is not helped if those believers see him only attacking weak versions of their argument"

Is there a strong version of their argument?

They don't have an argument, at best, they have an idea, an idea with nothing to substantiate it. This is the real world here, the only world we know. All sane people base their lives upon evidence, evidence is the key to all sensible legal systems. Believers have no evidence whatever for their claims, no matter how much you try to clothe an unsubstantiated claim in pseudo-intellectual balderdash and poppycock, the lack of any evidence will *always* be its downfall.

Any simple argument backed-up by evidence will eternally hold sway amongst honest and sensible persons whose capacity for rational thought is unimpaired by years of indoctrination. It amazes me that people who demonstrate a thin veneer of intelligence continue to attempt a defence of the indefensible, why do they waste their time? They don't seem to realize that they've lost before they pen the first word! Its as if they can't resist making fools of themselves to appease the wrath of their "sky daddy".

Maryhelena says religion will never go away, I think she's wrong; it has a fatal flaw that will *ensure* its eventual demise. If there is one thing we know about this world, the fact that it's a dynamic system is beyond doubt. Change is inevitable and inescapable, things change or die and therein lies the nemesis of religion. Its inventors didn't have the foresight to make it dynamic to match an ever-changing world. The tale is old and static, its too late to change it now, they'd have to rewrite their guide book which of course would make it even more of a nonsense than it is presently.

Eventually, more and more people will see it for what it really is and it will take on the status of any other fairy tale. Let's get real, it's only been around for a few thousand years - nothing, in the universal time scale, the merest blink of an eye. The sane amongst us just have to try to ensure that the static-thinking crazies are held at bay in the meantime. But no question, religion will sooner or later suffer a well-deserved extinction - death by sane human selection.

1084. Wide-eyed and Godless

Comment #2222 by Yorker on October 19, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Wow Stephanie, you either have a triple clicking mouse button or you're trying real hard to get your point across!

1085. University of Kansas Speech

Comment #2142 by Yorker on October 19, 2006 at 7:13 am

Richard seems to have went down very well in Lawrence! A video would be nice since he seemed to be using visual aids during the presentation.

His audience management and showmanship skills seem to be progressing well also, by the time he returns to the UK he'll be vying with big-time talk show hosts and stand up comedians!

1086. University of Kansas Speech

Comment #2136 by Yorker on October 19, 2006 at 5:32 am

Thanks for that link Josh, I'll take a crack at it also.

1087. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2024 by Yorker on October 18, 2006 at 8:40 am

Richard did well on the Colbert show but I don't go for that whiz-bang style much. I can see why it was a short interview, a longer one would have seen Dawkins silence the guy.

I don't believe 95% of Americans think God exists. I'm British, but lived and worked for ten years in the USA, most of my colleagues were atheists so I think it's likely that 95% of Americans *say* they believe in God because they have to for many reasons. Admittedly, I worked in an environment (software) where a fair degree of intelligence is a prerequisite but even so, it can't be that only 5% of Americans have a brain!

1088. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1164 by Yorker on October 10, 2006 at 9:00 am

Quinn seems to be the kind of person who has some intelligence but is unable to rid himself of the "god virus" that shackles his mind. This defect causes him to make silly statements like "matter was made by God" without even attempting to give any evidence for it.

Richard Dawkins must be getting bored with idiots who say atheism is a religion, you'd think they'd learn the basic meaning of words before spouting drivel.