Comments by BicycleRepairMan

Comment #58785 by BicycleRepairMan on July 26, 2007 at 5:57 am

Nail soup, thats what Hedges cooks here. Nails make great soup, you just have to add ham, potatoes, oatmeal and everthing else to it, and still claim its a soup made entirely from boiling a 6-inch nail.

Wherever Chris Hedges got his verb-God from, he didnt pull it out of the bible.

Any society based on the good book alone, is an intolerant, racist hell-hole. Only when confronted with 3000 years of science and common sense, can you pull this moderate wishy-washy stuff out of the bible.

God is not a moderate. God is man-made, as is the bible, as is Hedges "faith", so lets just not play with words: You are not a Christian, Chris Hedges, and that makes you a better person.

152. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58538 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:25 am

Interesting to hear Hitchens say he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus. I wonder why and when he came to this view.

Jesus if fairly badly documented outside the bible, and most research have been done by people who really,really wants him to be real..

My understanding is that he is a composed character, put together by one or more actual personalities, and mixed up with common myths and rumors, as well as a strong wish to believe he fulfilled the promises of the old testament Nothing was written down until long after Jesus was dead..

153. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58533 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:16 am

Moderate Christians reminds me of an old folk tale we have here in Norway, entitled Nail Soup. the story goes like this:

The bum in the story is looking for a free meal, so he tells the farmers wife he knows how to cook soup on a nail, and nothing more.

Unconvinced, the woman agrees to let him show her, so he cooks up some water and throws in a nail. -It's nearly done, he says, It'd be even better if we had some oatmeal, but this'll do.. Wait!, says the woman, I do have some oatmeal.. And the man keeps going, "You know, some potatoes and beef would REALLY do the trick..."

And it turns out to be a terrific soup, all cooked on a single nail...

Anyway, to a moderate Christian, Christianity is like this nail! "I get all my morality from a nail!" "The nail is always right!" and so on, so when Christopher Hitchens comes along, and says "Here, eat this nail then, if its so great" then suddenly its all "I wont eat my nails without the oatmeal..."

154. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58037 by BicycleRepairMan on July 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

First he claims Paley is irrelevant with this whole silly "design" argument..

Then he attacks Dawkins for seeing design as the only God-argument , a direct lie, since Dawkins address all the known arguments, atleast 8 different ones, (ontological, scripture,bayesian etc..) That all of these arguments are rather silly and/or variations of the same, doesnt exactly make Dawkins position weaker..

Then comes the exciting moment when the Rev. prepares to present his argument, presumably a new, good one.. And it turns out to be Paley all-over. intermixed with evolution and God hiding in the gaps, badly re-phrased and he even mentions beauty.

He also shows a lack of understanding of evolution, which not only works without God, but it works precisely BECAUSE there is no God, no "guide" to it, had there been one, the process would not work, and the fossil records etc would look all together different, and less wasteful, for instance. Because of the sheer amount of "waste", non-surivors, failed and extinct species, we KNOW that evolution works without Gods interference. At best God is a wishful addition, at worst, he destroys the process itself..

Then, as a last act of complete ignorance, he attacks science for its ability to change its mind, which of course, to the reverend, mean that what you think is true is more uncertain.

For instance, if I say that "I dont think there will be a war here in Norway in the next five years, it seems extremely improbable given the current peaceful situation here now, but of course, I could turn out to be wrong" VS "I know, for sure there WILL be a war in 5 years, and even if the situation is just as stable and peaceful in 4 years and 11 months, there is no way in hell I will change my mind!"

It seems obvious to me, that the first method is almost infinitely superior, and atleast as likely to be true.

He also, as all theists, disregard the difference in certainty that exist within science, there is no way that evolution by natural selection can be wholly disregarded for instance, the evidence is in, and we know it like we know the earth is sphere-shaped. New evidence wont make the earth banana-shaped.

155. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57481 by BicycleRepairMan on July 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory

Its again interesting to note that until-now somewhat plausable, or atleast interesting ideas are discarded with such a "final blow", and obviously no scientist would raise an eyebrow. By the same standard, when will the "final blow" to religious ideas finally show up?

Oh, wait..

156. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57380 by BicycleRepairMan on July 19, 2007 at 4:30 am

1. Lots of people are not exposed to an alternative to faith. Muslims even like to outright deny the fact that atheism even exists, just like they deny that homosexuality is real. Its not just that its wrong, it doesnt even exist to them. So nobody will get converted by a forum post, or a youtube video, or an atheist website, or a book, or five, but atleast they are shown people that seems perfectly happy with their atheist lives, and I guarantee that that has some influence on some people.

2.In a world with 21st century weapons mixed with 1st century ideology, we dont have time to "live and let live" to the extent that apologists wants us to.

157. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56753 by BicycleRepairMan on July 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

My mother (and most people) seriously thought *capitalists* were all atheists.

Interesting fact for those Americans who keeps viewing communists as the godless heathens.

Seems we atheists are the ultimate bad guys for both sides :)

158. Darwin or Design

Comment #56720 by BicycleRepairMan on July 17, 2007 at 3:34 am

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically....

BEEEP!

The difference between his held opinions, is that , unlike you, he can change his mind. All he asks for is the evidence.

People like you cant, almost by definition, change your minds, even if we gave you a video of evolution happening in real-time(Which is impossible because it takes thousands of years) you would come up with some phony way to "disprove" it, and thus, by default of course, making your extremely unlikely thesis instantly The Truth As Predicted By The Bible

That, you see, is dogma, PZ Myers holds his views based on the evidence available. And the evidence for evolution by natural selection happens to be so strong, it would simply take an idiot to deny it. PZ Myers isnt any more dogmatic then you are a spherical-earth-dogmatist, if some idiot comes an claims its banana-shaped, he should be happy if you even respond to him at all.

159. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56323 by BicycleRepairMan on July 15, 2007 at 2:50 am

Peacebeuponme I totally agree, I've always thought of the "There must be some ultimate right or wrong" as a complete non-argument, along with the "We are not perfect so someone or something must be.." How these argument were ever any better than "My car is a rusty old shit, that couldnt do 60mph if hell froze over, therefore, it follows that the perfect car, capable of moving at the speed of light, must exist" But even if it ever was, evolution destroys any credibility this thinking once had, because it explains where we got "right from wrong" from in the first place, and ofcourse how our "near-but-not-perfect" bodies and minds came about.

160. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56317 by BicycleRepairMan on July 15, 2007 at 1:39 am

I wish to disagree with the idea that science is the answer to everything. In my view, it's more important to say that reasoned inquiry of the provable and demonstrable are more important, and I don't see this and science as the same things. If the scientific method is useful in that process, then good, but that method is only a subset of the act of rational discourse based on sound reasoning and verifiable facts.

Well, this is really play with words, "reasoned inquiry of the provable and demonstrable" is really what Dawkins/Atheists promotes, and it really is a basic description of the "scientific method". And the "scientific method" really is the only option on the table worth considering in my opinion, as opposed to the "Spin the bottle method" that I think is a fitting description of religion.

The problem with these faith-defenders view is that they think the "scientific method" is one that reduces everything down to cynical robotery and white people in coats. The scientific method can be applied to all walks of life, and in every thinkable case, we'd be better off for it. Anyone who can come up with a situation were "Its better if we are unreasonable right now" or "Its better if we dont think or investigate this stuff" is just flatout wrong, yet this is exactly what religion is, suspension of reason.

"I assume, without evidence, that a Palestinian virgin primate gave birth to Gods son, savior of the universe, some 2000 years ago"

Anyone who takes up completely unreasonable positions like this, is an insult to human intelligence.

161. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55730 by BicycleRepairMan on July 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

You recieve 10 internetpoints from me for that analogy, Konradius :)

162. Pakistan Mosque Leader Vows a Fight to the Death

Comment #55254 by BicycleRepairMan on July 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

Well, admist all the tragedy, atleast one more asshole is dead: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/pakistan.mosque/index.html

Praise be to the FSM.

163. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55103 by BicycleRepairMan on July 10, 2007 at 3:10 am

A great man, his gentle descriptions and passion is nothing short of moving to listen to. This interview is really good.

164. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52587 by BicycleRepairMan on June 27, 2007 at 11:17 am

I know [brackets] are common courtesy when changing quoted text, but somehow they make it impossible for me to read this fluently, I think this one time, they could be excluded to better make the point, as the brackets sort of imply that "here I replaced something reasonable with something whacky"

Heres my version, I also re-replaced some of it, to attempt to make it better:

"What's really bothersome is the suggestion that witch-burners rarely question themselves while deniers of witchcraft ask all the hard questions.... The great warlock Michael Novak's book "Belief and Unbelief" is a classic in self-interrogation. "How does one know that one's belief is truly in witchcraft," he asks at one point, "not merely in some habitual emotion or pattern of response?" The problem with the neo-witchdeniers is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn... But as Novak argued--in one of the best critiques of neo-witchdenying--in the March 19 issue of National Review, "Questions have been the heart and soul of conjuring and divination for millennia."

This was fun, we should do this to every little flea that pops up :D

165. UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

Comment #52174 by BicycleRepairMan on June 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Thank you for defending the planet, UK.

166. God Hates the World

Comment #52147 by BicycleRepairMan on June 26, 2007 at 10:52 am

No - it is not faith.

Is this not faith? then what is it? is it just evil intent

And it is not an example of what religion does to the brain

Oh, really? and your evidence of this? oh, right, your not that type. Perhaps you could dig up a biblical quote proving what I'm saying is wrong?

Only a lunatic, and yes, I mean WBC-level lunatic could look at this video and conclude it has nothing to do with faith and religion, it has everything to dow with faith and religion, infact, its got no other even remotely plausable explanation, I dare you, I double-fucking dare you, to come up with ONE possible explanation for why these people sings "God Hates Fags" with big'ol Jesus-smiles on their faces?

Were they all raped and beaten by raving mad gangs of homosexuals as children, or did they read something in the origin of species that triggered this hatred perhaps?

Come on, just ONE other POSSIBLE influence that turned these smiling people into monsters.

167. God Hates the World

Comment #51899 by BicycleRepairMan on June 25, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I am really angry and disgusted with you for doing this. It is the worst thing you have done on this website yet and deserves an immediate apology and retraction.

Well, obviously, as everyone knows WBC goes against most, if not all other Christians currently on the planet, but its still religion. its still people reading the bible and interpreting the wrong way, its still "faith", and nowhere was it implied that this was some kind of "christianity exposed" article, its another sad example of what irrational faith is capable of doing to the human brain.

168. In the name of the Father

Comment #51461 by BicycleRepairMan on June 23, 2007 at 2:22 am

"The evils perpetrated in the name of religion are real enough [...] But...

Find the superfluous word!

The problem with religious crimes is that they really are religious, you really NEED religion to justify them. The same cannot be said about all the good thats been done "In the name of religion" . In every single case, EVERY SINGLE CASE, we can say with certainty that the good was the only decent, moral, and thus rational thing to do.

Find ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION, where you can say that "If this person didnt believe this quite ridiculously supernatural thing about the universe, there is no way he/she could "justify" this Good Thing". Just writing that sentence makes my brain hurt because it would never become even remotely true.

169. His word

Comment #51445 by BicycleRepairMan on June 23, 2007 at 1:24 am

"(so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) "

This is exactly what Dawkins argues AGAINST. This writer completely evades the point, that religion is a survival machine in its own right, it doesnt survive by benefiting us, it survives by benefiting itself, (the selfish meme)

Well, to be fair , now that I re-read the sentence, Dawkins does imply that religion is a by-product of something that is helpful to our survival. (like listening to your parents) But the way he says it, it does sound like he doesnt get the meme concept

170. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51090 by BicycleRepairMan on June 21, 2007 at 12:32 pm

What a moron, whats really sad is that this probably sounds convincing to faith-heads.

171. In the know

Comment #50246 by BicycleRepairMan on June 16, 2007 at 2:26 am

"Albert Einstein, another agnostic, is forcibly recruited to Dawkins' cause"

Moron. Einstein was not an agnostic, nor was he an atheist, nor a personal god believer. He was rather a pretty firm believer in what _he_ called "God" and "The God Delusion" explores this concept excellently, at no point that I can remember is Einstein "accused" of supporting RD's views, he is rather treated as a believer, albeit a different kind of believer than the lot Dawkins attacks.

172. In the know

Comment #50240 by BicycleRepairMan on June 16, 2007 at 1:28 am

"One of the new militants, Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, is so triumphant that he contemplates the possibility of nuking Muslims: although it would kill millions of innocent people, he argues it might be the only option "we" have, in the face of the threat "they" and their faith represent. If this sounds like the rhetoric of Jerry Falwall in perverse reverse it's because that is exactly what it is."

This is a complete out-of-context distortion of what Harris actually writes, I'd say it borderlines a crime to throw a false accusation like this at him.

173. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47420 by BicycleRepairMan on June 4, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Nothing new here

Well, atleast not for those who have read "The End Of Faith", anyways.. But it cant hurt to put these things into a shorter, more accessible context, if nothing else as a teaser for this Must-read book. TEOF is a shockingly brilliant book, it really nails it in just about every sentence

174. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47346 by BicycleRepairMan on June 4, 2007 at 6:44 am

Yup, thats what you get from all this preaching-to-the-choir-nonsense, Richard :)

All these de-conversion stories are a delight to read, such a satisfying little poke in the eye/groin-kick combo to all The God Delusion critics

175. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47011 by BicycleRepairMan on June 2, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Mostly good, but I do object to the "T" in Truth, truth is important alright, but its still written truth, if its written with a capital t, it implies some sort of scriptural truth, which has got to be the opposite of Dawkins views.

176. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46404 by BicycleRepairMan on May 31, 2007 at 6:13 am

"What about the dinosaurs?" LOL!
Perhaps it wasnt meant to be funny, and I realize that the escape from indoctrination is a very serious subject and all(As this blog is living proof) But that story really cracked me up, shemp333, grown people outsmarted by a 6-year old, and they happily just ignore it. Such a desperately ironic moment.

177. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46129 by BicycleRepairMan on May 30, 2007 at 9:50 am

"Why does RD shy away from calling the Archbishop deluded?"

Its obvious, people in the media are looking for controversial statements, they want headlines like "Dawkins says all Bishops are deluded" They try to corner him to present the bishops as deluded in the crazy sense, while the meaning of the word in the book is the scientific usage of the word, which is more "You are wrong" than "You are crazy"

178. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45834 by BicycleRepairMan on May 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

"Perhaps we should develop cows that can talk and want to be eaten! Perhaps I should patent that idea."

Too late, you need to see this video:
http://richarddawkins.net/video/growingUpClip2all.mov

179. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45831 by BicycleRepairMan on May 29, 2007 at 11:10 am

"In short, religions aren't the source of ALL evil, but broadening the concept to "doctrines" gets much nearer to covering most."

I completely agree, the problem is, say that to a theist and he goes, "See, I told you religion isnt bad!" and he then thinks he has won the argument. The only way I know is to say, "forget stalin for 2 seconds, this is how YOUR religion fucks shit up, and thats a problem"

180. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45599 by BicycleRepairMan on May 28, 2007 at 12:20 pm

I refuse to infect my computer with any software from RealNetworks.

I couldnt agree more, however, there are alternatives, or, atleast one: Real Alternative, also known as Media Player Classic, it works fine on this one:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

181. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44707 by BicycleRepairMan on May 25, 2007 at 7:43 am

he doesn't understand the history between sport and churches in this country.

Whats that got to do with anything? Isnt this 2007 and christianity should be allowed to rot in church where its bigotry and ignorance belongs?

182. Jerry Falwell Deconverted on Deathbed!

Comment #44634 by BicycleRepairMan on May 25, 2007 at 5:59 am

Well I wrote that exact thing on this website! I had the same thought as Dawkins! WHO WANTS TO TOUCH ME??!
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=223060#223060

183. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #44556 by BicycleRepairMan on May 25, 2007 at 4:27 am

"This is great satire"

After reading the previous article about the "Strong opinion" on atheists, I dont think I'm able to separate satire from religion anymore. Religion isnt just stranger than fiction, its stranger than the most non-subtle satire out there.

184. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44039 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:08 am

Yup. After reading it once more,an taking a look at his other articles, this is definitely meant as sarcasm/parody

185. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44036 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:01 am

As I said in my previous post, I think he might be sarcastic, by pretending to be overly materialistic in his darwinian thinking, that everything is just plain survival, and he is poking fun at the evolutionists for "waking up" to see this.. but I'¨m not sure, maybe he is somewhat genuinely excited about evolution. At any rate, he fails to note in this article atleast, that an understanding of evolution doesnt mean you need to scrap the non-survival related activities in your own life.

186. Busted Halo

Comment #43929 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 4:17 am

http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/RichardDawkinsTheGodDelusionandTheCasualEvolutionist.htm

This article was quite good, It sort of sums up my own feelings when reading Dawkins, but I cant help but thinking that the whole thing almost sounds like sarcasm at times, atleast I'm sure some religous people will think so..

I still believe in applying a meaning to my own life, loving music, arts, science etc, (Things that I consider goes beyond simply surviving) even tho I'm strictly speaking "a survival machine for my genes". It seems the author of this article almost goes overboard on the Darwinism, but, I can sympathize, because as I said, I felt much the same way after reading Dawkins.. and Darwinism really is sort-of all-engrossing when you think about it.

187. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43878 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 3:16 am

"did this man not do his research?"

Apparantly she did almost as bad as you ;)

188. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43874 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 3:13 am

Except ofcourse that the jews where hated and stigmatized as a direct result of centuries of superstitions and religious dogma and indoctrination which resulted in a europe with a subconsciousness that believed they were baby-eating blood-sucking little devils that threatened the Christian life. Praise Jesus my ass.

189. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #43751 by BicycleRepairMan on May 22, 2007 at 12:40 pm

konquererz: If you like the evolution bits in TGD, you'll love Dawkins other books, Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker and so on.

190. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #43432 by BicycleRepairMan on May 21, 2007 at 11:39 am

[quote]Time for us atheists and agnostics to demand our own homeland methinks.

No bible punchers allowed.[/quote]
http://www.sealandgov.org/
Buy Sealand? Although we'd have to allow an exception for religions that require pirate costumes ARRRRGH!

191. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41782 by BicycleRepairMan on May 17, 2007 at 1:44 am

Dawkins used the term "militant atheism" at TEDTalks, if not exactly tongue-in-cheek it was used to get a laugh from the crowd, and to express the point of his talk, which was not to be "so damn tolerant" of religion, referring to 9/11.

192. State Darwin museum

Comment #40995 by BicycleRepairMan on May 15, 2007 at 9:56 am

Thats what you get for rejecting communism, you silly capitalists.

193. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40940 by BicycleRepairMan on May 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

It seems Hithcens wont even bother rebutting the usual arguments for Gods existence..

Just strikes me how the religious mind copes with criticism, Its like when Dawkins is on its "Ok, so I read your book, there is no god, where does our morals come from? explain in a soundbite please"

And when its against Hitchens, its: "Ok, I sort-of agree its morally appalling to believe in god, but I still think God exists, now prove me wrong in a soundbite"

*sigh*

194. Bill Maher interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40867 by BicycleRepairMan on May 15, 2007 at 6:05 am

"I've about reached the limit on what I can take or what I can read on atheism. How many times can you state the same old ideas over and over again and not get any result."

Well, I sometimes feel the same way, having read several books on it lately, seen videos like this etc. But I, and I expect you too, actually seek out this stuff, we visit RD.net, discuss it, see it on YT and so on. someone not into it like I am will not get exposed to just about every interview dawkins or hitchens is in. When they do see stuff like this, the chances are that its completely new information to them.. They might never have seen someone speak so openly out against Gods publicly.

Theres just too many channels, papers, books etc out there for everyone to continually stumble over atheism.

With the recent crop of anti-faith books, atleast the collective coverage of all of it might qualify it as "mainstream".

The tragic truth is that britneys haircuts gets hundred times the coverage of all the recent atheism books combined.

Go out on the street and ask anyone. Everyone will have heard of britneys shaved head, only a select few will have heard of any books by Harris,Dawkins,Dennet or Hitchens

195. One side can be wrong

Comment #40815 by BicycleRepairMan on May 15, 2007 at 3:21 am

"Let's start with how life got started."

Why dont we? The answer is simple: Simple.

However complex the first self-replicating organism was, a Creator would be MORE COMPLEX. in other words you complicate the problem.

Life started with something very, very simple. That simple thing may still have been rather complex for it to "just happen", but it has an eternity of time to allow it to happen. You might bet the lottery every week your entire life, and the chances of winning are still small, but had your life had a geological timespan, say 30 million years, you'd probably win several times, perhaps even 5 weeks in a row on some occasions. This allows for the first replicator to be a very, very improbable thing indeed, but its still plausible, because it has such a long time to happen.

If scientist would follow your standard they could say Where did this first bacteria come from? A higher-order bacteria evolved into one. Obviously as you can see that would explain nothing. Life evolves from simple to complex, not vice-versa, that is why "God did it" is NO EXPLANATION AT ALL.

196. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40615 by BicycleRepairMan on May 14, 2007 at 3:32 pm

"No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree."

Deuteronomy 13:7-11:
"If your brother ... or your daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to ... seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknow to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the people surrounding you, whether near to you or far away, anywhere throughout the world ... you must not listen to him; you must show no pity, you must not spare him ... No, you must kill him, your hand must stike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he tried to divert you from Yahweh your God." -

You are quite right, no head-chopping mentioned, that would be outright barbaric. No, STONING, thats the true Christian way.

197. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40593 by BicycleRepairMan on May 14, 2007 at 2:55 pm

"Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

No, he does not. He starts by looking at the evidence, The first half of the God Delusion, for instance, is dealing with the question "Is there a God?" And when you shove that question into the grinder of critical thinking, and its quickly shredded to pieces, just like the tooth fairy, and completely unlike things like evolution and other scientific theories that exists solely because they withstand criticism and investigation.

Once you have established that, Dawkins sees no reason to delve into deeply theological discussion about why and how god works, simply because there is no premise for those discussions once god is gone.. Why, for instance do you reject Lord Xenu without paying the required 100,000$ worth of self-improvement classes to the church of scientology, which is required to get to level 3 and learn the full story of how aliens were flown to earth millions of years ago in DC9's, dumped into volcanos and blown up with nuclear bombs.

Because you have established that its all bullshit.

And unlike Dawkins, who spent half a book debunking an equally silly myth, you probably havent even thought twice about it.

198. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39562 by BicycleRepairMan on May 11, 2007 at 6:15 am

I dont see how the remark was "bigoted" really, it was more an opinion on someone else's opinion. If I say If he said the same thing about Romneys republican stance, such as "those with proper policies, (as opposed to a republican one) will vote him out anyways" the statement might have been seen as slightly arrogant, but not "Bigoted". Bigoted would be : "Throw this rich, stupid, cracker-ass out of politics."

199. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39380 by BicycleRepairMan on May 10, 2007 at 12:57 pm

<>

LOL ,Arafat Said that??!!

If true, then irony truly has no limits.

200. Massive explosion is brightest-ever supernova

Comment #38516 by BicycleRepairMan on May 8, 2007 at 12:57 pm

best guess is that it will pop within 100K years.

Is there any chance it could happen in our lifetime, ie: its already happened?, or is the closest estimate only close in the cosmological sense of time?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next