251. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29732 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Great plan - Let's also eliminate the study of the AIDS virus - apparently it "evolves" just like pokemon. This can't be real can it?

252. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29731 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Check out Collins' views just posted today on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Please add your comments...

253. The God Debate

Comment #29729 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Check out Collins' views at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html posted today, and add your comments...

254. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29709 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 9:10 am

Buddha...I went to that site you mentioned and dropped a comment. There were only 4 there. I did find the thoughts of the "moderates" there interesting and thoughtful, to a point.

255. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29698 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 8:05 am

7. Comment #29605 by ghostbuster on April 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm

If religous people insist on invading secular science classes with relgious views then I see no reason why secular science cannot invade religious institutions and give their scientific views on religious topics

256. Time in the Animal Mind

Comment #29697 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 7:49 am

@5. Comment #29500 by nancy2001:

Good point on dogs remembering painful experiences. One of the most remarkable things about a dog is how incredibly quickly and permanently, a puppy will learn to stay away from something that unexpectedly hurt him. Lasts a lifetime.

My dog was pulling on a toy attached to a tetherball pole and hurt himself. He never went near that pole again. I'm still not sure that shows that his memory is episodic, however. Although he readily learns, his planning is 100%piss-poor.

257. A History of Violence

Comment #29694 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 7:29 am

@Helian:

The claim that one group of human beings is "nobler" than another implies a value judgment. There must be some standard for making the judgment. The question is, what is it? What is that objective standard?

258. A History of Violence

Comment #29549 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 11:18 am

@Helian - You say:

"What, exactly, does Pinker mean by "nobler?" It is logically impossible for an atheist to make such a statement without qualification. It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings. Pinker has elevated a subjective moral judgment to a real thing. Dawkins, it seems to me, shows a similar tendency to transmute subjective morality, a construct of the human brain, into a real, objective good-in-itself, a "thing" independent of the human mind, in his recent discussions of the "moral Zeitgeist." He fallaciously perceives things as "really good" and "really bad."

Well, the adjective "nobler" isn't such an obscure or difficult concept in this context. It is commonly understood to mean "civilized," as in the phrase "Noble Savage" used since the early 1700's to describe man's contradictory (hence the oxymoron) nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's writings are influential in this area:.


"In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "artificial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man." -

And –

"Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is "The Social Contract" that describes the relationship of man with society. Contrary to his earlier work, Rousseau claimed that the state of nature is brutish condition without law or morality, and that there are good men only a result of society's presence. In the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men. Because he can be more successful facing threats by joining with other men, he has the impetus to do so. He joins together with his fellow men to form the collective human presence known as "society." "The Social Contract" is the "compact" agreed to among men that sets the conditions for membership in society. "(http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/rousseau.html)

So, I do not think there is anything to your objection that "It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings."

259. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29535 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 10:26 am

@148. Comment #29469 by Philip1978 on April 3, 2007 at 2:52 am

Yup. I can't add to that.

260. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29534 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

@50. Comment #29514 by rosswiley.

Yes the comments are far more interesting than the article, which is indeed useless.

And, no, the term "useless" is not a crutch of intellectual elitism anymore than my computer is. Ooops - Sarcasm!

Seems I've double "crutched."

261. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29531 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 9:56 am

Ellen: Thank you very much for contributing to this discussion. I read your post (to the end), and appreciated it.

September: Your posts started out useless, became tedious and irrelevant, and have turned the corner into annoying. And, no, please do NOT "show us [anymore of] your aces."

262. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29357 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

@Comment #29345 by Fishpeddler on April 2, 2007 at 3:46 pm .

OK - That was outright funny. Thanks for that.

263. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29351 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 3:49 pm

We don't know the real story, but you can see the reluctance to defend atheists as a "group."

Did you see the new newsweek poll on religion (and other things)? Atheists are only 1 in 10 in the US, and held in extremely low esteem. The good news was younger people were more tolerant.

Maybe there is hope. Keep putting up those posters and writing those books. I aim to buy Stengers book today.

264. Queerer Than We Can Suppose: The Strangeness of Science

Comment #29334 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm

No Comments?!?!?

This is maybe the best thing here!

265. The God Debate

Comment #29331 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

@Ozone -

Well said, and I remember the whole thing. It was the first I heard of Warren. If I am not mistaken, though, he is also doing some good on the anti-AIDS fight - I think he had Obama speak at a conference on the topic to the dismay of the typical right wing fundies.

Unfortunately, the whole thing was bathed in religion, a soak that Obama seems to put himself in these days.

266. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29329 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 3:05 pm

A pretty useless article I have to say.

267. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29319 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 2:52 pm

@Comment #29307 by september:

" …and i would appreciate no one using my name is quotes...its cruel."

What are you saying? Is your meaning suffering from a typo?

Or, to quote Guertin's article posted under "Is this another Sokal Hoax?":

"Anyone who understands the ways of native hypertext knows that the point is not to struggle against hypertext. Rather the act of reading in hypertext is constituted as struggle: a chapter of chances, a chain of detours, a series of revealing failures in commitment out of which come the pleasures of the text. We must understand hypertext as an information highway in which every lane is reserved for breakdowns, a demolition epic in which the vehicles always and constantly blow apart. ("Traveling" n.p.)"

268. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29309 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 2:31 pm

@ #29128 by tuibguy:

The quote is from Billy Madison. A moronic movie that gets better everytime you see it.

269. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29306 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Wow, September, you are kind of bitter don't you think? What's pissing you off so?

The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

270. The God Debate

Comment #29265 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 10:29 am

The dialog was fair enough. Sam spoke first, and Warren last. Meacham is an (the?) editor of newsweek. He is entitled to ask questions that will appear in his magazine which questions struck me as fair anyway. I say props to Meacham for giving Sam a voice in his magazine.

271. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29253 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 8:53 am

I just finished reading the Time magazine debate between Collins and Dawkins.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html

I see better how a leading scientist can also be a believer. It's about the "why" questions, apparently. He explains that is what God provides which science can't. Leaving aside whether that is even true, it reminds me of kids constantly needing to know why…and believing nearly whatever magical nonsense they are told (tooth fairy, Santa Claus, god wants you to). As adults, one needs to understand that sometimes there is no answer to the "why" question, and that the simplistic answers we got as kids don't add up.

And once Collins gets his "why" questions answered by his God, he delves into it, to the point that he is able to make bizarre leaps of logic like those below. (And Dawkins' response is excellent, but would have been better had he replied more to the insane logic):

"COLLINS: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?

DAWKINS: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil--I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.

COLLINS: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it."

Collins seems so pleased that he believes in God as the source of Good and Evil, apparently because morality "exists." Holier then thou on false assumptions and mistaken conclusions again. Sad really.

272. Planting the Mammalian Supertree

Comment #29246 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 8:14 am

Hmmm. On the 6th day, you say? Or was it 70 Million years ago or 50 Million? Well since I can't prove which, it must have been on the 6th day 4004 years ago. Now I remember.

273. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29244 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 8:04 am

Helian: It is always great to find your posts. Thank you.

You said "Oxes can be, and certainly have been, gored in spite of the fact that many of the victims are slow to grasp what is happening, or never get wise, for that matter. The fact that sane1 chooses to remain in denial about anti-Americanism saddens me, but it doesn't impress me."

Looking at everything through your dogmatic glasses of "anti- anti-Americanism," profoundly distorts your perception of the arguments people are making on this site, the people conversing with you, and back to the original point, whether RD's point regarding Rumsfeld viewed from a historical perspective shows his anti-Americanism.

To undercut my disagreement with you, you made the point that MY ox was not being gored. Having been proved flat out wrong in that assertion, you then argue that I am in denial. Sorry, Dr. Freud. Wrong, again.

You are so invested in your "anti- anti-Americanism," that you are convinced those who don't agree with you are Anti-American Europeans, Non-American Americans, or Americans in denial. Worthless line of argument.

Look, I am sure criticism of America exists - In fact, I understand and believe it is widespread. But calling it and those who do not agree with you names makes you look like a fool. Much of the criticism is at least rationally based, and is not just knee jerk "anti-Americanism," whether you agree with it or not. You might as well engage it on the merits instead of labeling those who do not agree with your points.

274. The God Debate

Comment #29237 by sane1 on April 2, 2007 at 7:23 am

"WARREN: One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case." Now, if that happened once in my life I'd say, "That is a coincidence." If it happened tens of thousands of times, that is not a coincidence."

Anyone who thinks this way will never ever ever understand how badly he has fooled himself. But it is still worth debating him in print. A reader who understands how we fool ourselves, may be able to understand how silly that artgument is.

275. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29032 by sane1 on April 1, 2007 at 8:57 am

Helian: Thank you for your response.

You have proved my point, and undercut yours. I am beginning to think you are half-hysterical.

You quite clearly misunderstand Dawkins' comment regarding Rumsfeld, or are determined to make hay where there is only roses. And, continuing your misinterpretation of what others are saying, you missed the clear point of my question: "Anyhow - Which ox of yours is being gored that I do not share?" Or did you intentionally avoid it because the truth is uncomfortable for you?

As Jonathan Dore points out above, I too am a citizen of the US, which you seem to have missed, while declaring I can not understand your point because I am not American (e.g., my ox is not being gored). In fact, I understand your point, am not incapable of understanding your point, and have shown it to be nonsense.

276. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29016 by sane1 on April 1, 2007 at 7:29 am

I just googled her and found:
http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/about.html

It appears she actually exists and has a job!

277. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29014 by sane1 on April 1, 2007 at 7:26 am

Carolyn G. Guertin:

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

278. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29004 by sane1 on April 1, 2007 at 6:26 am

Helian does seem to be better at evading or avoiding questions than answering them. He has certainly ignored mine.

See for example: Comment #28858 by sane1 where I responded directly to his post respopnding to me, and posed to him a simple yet still unanswered question.

279. A History of Violence

Comment #28926 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Hey, Teapot. OK - religion is not the cause of ALL wars. You happy now?

280. A History of Violence

Comment #28922 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Of course violence and grotesque behaviour has decreased over time, due to the socializing effects of society. Atilla the Hun, anyone? Visogoths, Vikings?

Ok, now I'll read the article.

281. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28858 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 9:59 am

Helian - you wrote:

"The problem is not that I missed Prof. Dawkins' point, but that you missed mine. The salient fact here is that he chose an American politician who happens to be an icon of evil to the left to illustrate his point. He could have made his point in countless other ways, illustrating it with countless other individuals. Of course, the fact that "evil" Americans are constantly chosen to illustrate such "points" is of no significance to you, and it doesn't surprise me that you don't get the point. After all, your ox isn't being gored."

Odd that you should take such offense to making the point that Rumsfeld's views are NOT offensive from a historical perspective.

Anyhow - Which ox of yours is being gored that I do not share?

282. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28849 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 8:19 am

86. Comment #28800 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer - you wrote: "It is a pity Geneticist Francis Collins' interview has not been made accessible in this website! I wonder why!"

It IS accesible from the same page at NPR that this site's link takes you to. I wonder why?

283. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28844 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 8:04 am

Comment #28796 by The Wee Flea – stated:

"Your views are shot through with logical and moral contradictions. For example you state that you are individualistic and you grant no one authority to dictate to you. One assumes that you will grant this individual autonomy to others. What if one of those others has a different view of morality to you and considers that it is ok to have sex with children or to discriminate against people because of their colour? Do you (or 'society') have a right to impose your morality on them?"

First, I did not state that I: "grant no one authority to dictate to [me]." You got off entirely on the wrong foot, criticizing something I did not say or mean. I stated that I grant no one the authority to dictate my morals to me. Big difference. While I contend that I am entirely responsible for my morals (and have derived them from the sources I summarized earlier) I do also grant to my government the right to dictate laws to me for the benefit of society.

So, there are no "logical and moral contradictions" in balancing the rights of individuals against the rights of society. So, to take up your example, I have no problem legislating against sex with children on the grounds that it is harmful to children. And of course there is a balancing that is done here – one has to make distinctions about what ages are involved, what punishments are meted out for what level of "crime," etc.

Similarly for your other example, laws against discrimination, I do indeed think they are appropriate. Of course, all sorts of discrimination are not against the law, only those that the legislature has seen fit to proscribe. In other words, I can choose not to invite whomever I wish to my home on whatever basis I choose, including one that is racially discriminatory.)

I may think the balancing has been perfectly accomplished or has missed the mark, but in either case, the enterprise of passing laws that limit individual behavior is justified and accomplished by weighing the needs of society against individual freedoms. Are you suggesting there is a moral code that does not include balancing such as this?

You said: "I am simply asking what are morals? How do we know what right and wrong is?"

Profound philosophical questions, I agree, but the answer is simpler than you may think. I suspect morals boil down to a sense of what is appropriate and important about the way we act in our culture and organize our society. And we know what is moral by thinking.

It is easy to see that different people have different morals, that society's morals seem to change over time, and that different societies have different morals. Mine are more founded on a rational balancing act with goals for society (harmony, mutual benefit, greatest good, order, etc.) and goals for individuals (freedom, happiness, prosperity, etc.) in tension with one another.

284. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #28834 by sane1 on March 31, 2007 at 6:51 am

When will Sullivan post again...perhaps he is so punch drunk just has nothing left to say. BTW, this is the most interesting thread on the RD site, with some of the most eloquent arguments. Well done.

285. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28726 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 2:08 pm

The Wee Flea is - Rev David Robertson, right?

And the Wee Flea he is right, 2btrue does indeed exhibit the characteristics of a closed-minded fundamentalist. Just don't paint me with that brush.

286. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28724 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Comment #28690 by The Wee Flea on March 30, 2007 at 12:03 pm :

"So the question still remains – what values and where do you get them from? And why do you think you can speak for all atheists?"

This question comes up so often and really seems to captivate the believers, and to justify their "holier than thou" philosophy.

The answer, of course, is that there are many sources. Some are in print or can be found on the internet. Many are oral, like our family teachings, or the ideas we are exposed to in school, and then in life. Many are absorbed from the culture more generally. Integrity, honesty, and kindness and other morally laudable characteristics, are concepts available to everyone who wants to live well in a society.

But, you are right that we atheists don't have one source, or One Book (or compilations of books) we all flock to. Nor do we limit ourselves to certain sacred texts and reject those of competing faiths. Nor do we appeal to an imaginary "incomprehensible" supernatural single source. We are too individualistic. And we grant no one the authority to dictate this sort of things to us. We think for ourselves and draw on our reason.

So, in answer to the second part of your question –

Speaking for myself, mine came initially and significantly from my atheist but culturally Jewish father. Later writings by various humanists influenced me. Classes in philosophy contributed. Other ideas that inform my morals came from college classes in logic, in the classics, and from college professors of all disciplines. But I can tell you, I will not take a back seat to anyone on my understanding what is "moral." I do not lie, cheat or steal. I think killing people is wrong except in only the most extreme circumstances – heck, I believe that intentionally causing harm to anyone is rarely justified. I could go on, but the point is – I and other very moral people get their morals not from any sacred book, but from the world of ideas around us, all without a shred of belief in the god of the bible or any other god.

287. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28712 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Professor:

As for Wee Flea, he needs to look at Hawking's talk more closely. Hawking did not say anything like the universe sprung from nothing due to an outside "force" a la Genesis He said there was no time before it, and nothing existed before it, which would also mean that there was no god there to "create it from nothing."

Or perhaps Wee Flea is telling us that god is "nothing" too - which I would accept.

288. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28677 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 11:09 am

You know, it is such a shame that the pope didn't cure himself before he died...

289. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28659 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 9:34 am

I give props too to Helian for suggesting the book by Meslier. I started reading it this morning.

290. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28646 by sane1 on March 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

Helian: I read your article too.

You say of RD that "He is a true believer in the new cult of anti-Americanism" What "Cult?" I am not in Germany, but I am in Colorado. There is no such cult here, or anywhere else I have witnessed, including this site which must be reasonably representative of his most ardent supporters.

None of us agree with everything he says, but his points are well taken, and he is correct about the recent influence of religion on american politics.

And you grossly mischaracterize what RD writes. For example you wrote:
"It's true that, when it comes to the past, he mentions such well known bad guys as Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan, but when it comes to our own time we read, "Donald Rumsfeld, who sounds so callous and odious today, would have sounded like a bleeding-heart liberal if he had said the same things during the Second World War." Forget about Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Donald Rumsfeld trumps them all. "

RD's point was what he wrote. It seems you missed it. His point clearly was not that Rumsfeld was worse than the dictators you mention. But that, despite his hawkishness, he was not as destructive as those waging the Second World War.

I find most of your assertions and criticisms silly - some are sleight of hand.

291. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28568 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm

From The Collins Interview on that same NPR page:

"Do you think it was inappropriate to bring god into the public announcement of the completion of the genome project?" ... Great question, he gave the wrong answer.

He understands that we and yeast have a common ancestor, yet seems to think its about god's handiwork. What god is he talking about?

He thinks God exists ...because we have a sense of "right and wrong"... Wow!

...Because we exist in this universe....? Compelling!

And - Because god exists "outside of nature," science can't find god - you have to use your "spiritual sense." Oh.

Such annoying logic and self delusion makes me want to cry. But now I see how this bizarre compartmentalization sounds from a serious scientist.

292. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28556 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Well...I did just post a question in the forum "post your questions" asking if we could arrange such an interview with questions from users of this site...

293. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28553 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:22 pm

rtambree, interesting questions all!

I hope this idea will catch on, and more questions will be submitted, and edited into an interesting interview that can be recorded and posted. Maybe a forum topic on this site on this idea would be worthwhile. I wonder if RD would be interested…? I haven't spent much time in the forums, but may do so later…

I must be an RD junkie, though, because I have heard him address some of these, and might even be able tell you where on at least one of them, if memory serves. I have heard him respond to Question 2 several times, or at least to the charge that his approach is politically or strategically unwise. One of the most interesting was at the Beyond Belief conference (mentioned on the home page), where he was engaged by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, among others. I'm sure that some of the other debates or discussions available in the archives also get at this topic.

294. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28544 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm

What a naive question she asked, paraphrasing: "Why haven't we evolved more morally? I mean there is still violence and rape and wars and decapitation."

This would be, what, "evolution by UNnatural selection?" "by moral selection?"

295. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28543 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I suppose this is what Jenin was referring to:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

296. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28539 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:41 pm

davec - what is it you find amusing? I don't get your point...

297. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28538 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm

rtambree - you say "...Perhaps if RD can hand prospective interviewers the top ten questions he's already been asked >100 times..."

Problem is, of course, many folks listening to the random interviews are presumably hearing him for the first time, unlike those of us who spend time here, and check out the new postings in the archives here regularly. How about a question and answer session designed for those of us who are well familiar with his interviews?

I'm sure there is a questioner well qualified to present new and interesting questions. Or we could submit questions in advance...just a thought...

298. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28533 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm

I gotta admit it, seems I too have heard the same questions and same answers from RD over and over again. Nonetheless, I still tune in to listen to him every time I can. It all is still so great to hear these views publicly aired. And, there is always a different twist or thought that comes through as a pearl of wisdom.

299. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28464 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

Paraphrasing: "Most of the good comes from human capacity for the good, desire for connectedness, not from some alleged supernatural source." Of course. No wonder minds appear to have been changed. The religious apologists' arguments seem weaker and weaker the more they repeat them.

300. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28456 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 8:55 am

"Religion debauches education." So True. Training kids to not listen to evidence by "the firewall of faith." Gets the blood flowing. Right on Richard!