351. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3664 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 4:19 am

Paul. Comment 443.

On page 26,27 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea Daniel Dennett summarises John Locke's argument that mere matter and motion cannot produce thought or a mind but, rather, a mind or thought can only be created by a mind.

Dennett refutes this by asking "Wouldn't this rule out the prospect of robots....the very idea of Artificial Intelligence".

However, Dennett's point is irrelevant and Locke's still stands. Locke asserted that intelligence or thought or mind is by necessity the product of intelligence/thought/mind.
Artificial Intelligence IS THE PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENCE/THOUGHT/MIND IE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. THEREFORE, MIND STILL PRECEDES MATTER.

There you go thats one Dennett argument down.

Dawkin's writes, "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? the answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.....But the whole sequence of cumalative steps constitutes anything but a chance process when you consider the complexity of the final end product relative to the original starting point" Ch 3, p43 Blind Watchmaker.

Dawkins acknowledges in his first sentence that living organisms could never have arisen by chance. he then tries to draw a distincytion between single step selection and cumalative selection the first of which he defines as chance the second of which he defines as non-randomhe essentially argues that if a hedgehog comes into existence in one step thats chance. But if it does so through a million chance steps thats not chance. This is just rhetoric believed only by the gullible. If each step in the process is a chance step as Dawkins admits then the process as a whole is a chance process. It should also be noticed that the final sentence "when you consider the complexity of the final end product relative to the original starting point" is only what Dawkins himself refers to as "empty rhetoric". Think about it. How does the complexity of the final end product relative to the start demonstrate that evolution is not a process of chance. His argument is a ILLUSION.

He writes, "The theory of evolution by cumalative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organised complexity" p317.

But if it is a process of chance which despite his rhetorical arguments it clearly is then it doesn't explain anything. Chance is symptomatic of a lack of an explanatrion.

He also writes, "even if the evidence di9d not favor it it would still be the best theory available"p 317. In other words it is unfalsifiable and non-science. If the evidence favours it, it is true. If the evidence doesn't favour it it is still true.

352. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3641 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 2:07 am

"Religious fundamentalism is, to a very large extent, a blighted growth of religion not a true blossoming."


Actually, I think it's more the other way round.

Fundamentalism is the true, original, form of religion. 'Moderate' religion with its 'love and peace' mantras is the attempt to deal with the obvious mis-match between religious beliefs and reality.

353. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #3566 by Anonymous on October 30, 2006 at 9:10 am

this is coming from dawkins freaks who are urged on this website to print up "imagine no god"flyers, how
vain is that.Merely a way for dawkins to sell more books and a pure disgrace at that.

354. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #3562 by Anonymous on October 30, 2006 at 8:30 am

please mr pacifier show me the connection,or is it just in your nature to be diversive?

355. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #3558 by Anonymous on October 30, 2006 at 8:06 am

to me you all sound like a bunch of blithering twats with nothing better to do than ceaselessly argue with the occasional intellectualy retarded religious bigot who makes the mistake of taking the bait.Would you argue with me about the existence of leprechauns?.probably not because no right mind believes such things.So if God is such a fiction then why argue with fools?Because you all enjoy it,you thrive on ripping to shreds someone considered less intelligent than yourselves.A form of bullying.I think its clear to anyone that this site is hostile to the theistically minded,like a radical feminist meeting can seem hostile to the lone male.Or a nazi gathering that seems damn right dangerous to the jew.
Every group is a lonely group
And the message is stick to your own group

356. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #3508 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 3:38 pm

The
problem with reviewers like Michael Houston is simple: it would not
matter what Albert Mohler wrote, as a whole, the reviewer is going to
disagree with it, as he has not read the review in an "objective
manner" - indeed his position prevents him from reading the review in
an objective manner. Objectivity,i am afraid to say,is something we
fail to possess.Being not the sum of the universe, all our
doctrines,opinions,theories and of course beliefs are merely subjective
in nature.
As Mr Dawkins feels that the variety of life-forms are like unto
branches on the evolutionary tree,so i feel that that the branches of
science and religion find their source in we know not what.
In our babblings let us continue to pour from the empty into the void

357. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3480 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 7:31 am

Some people making comments here seem to be a bit confused. to find a catholic that believes in evolution and pokes fun at 'fundamentals' is not unusual. Dont be surprised in finding out that Colbert is a catholic. They dont mind 'becoming all to all men' as Paul the apostle said. they merly take the view "If you cant beat them, lead them". Why do you think most anti religous shows is comedy? And not usually treated with any seriousness? Its like alcohol to the natives, drugs to the slaves, religion to the poor. christian leaders can justify that , they can justify comedy to the atheist/agnostics. What ever keeps you amused, and makes the money in the process.
I still love the Colbert show, but am completely aware it is not really taking the nonreligous side seriously, on purpose.

358. Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists

Comment #3477 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 6:12 am

I am also fully aware that ZEBTTY109 EXPOSER really stands for -

ZEE PRETTY BOXS

with the ~109~ alien eyeballs you have hidden inside them.

***Just waiting for Halloween Night, in order to secretly unleash them into the outersphere so that they can spy on Earth and send signals with visual information back to the 'home' planet.

359. Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists

Comment #3475 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 6:02 am

And that the word anagram is just an anagram for:

a granma

360. Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists

Comment #3474 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 5:59 am

To ZEBTTY109 EXPOSER :

I am sure that you have also noted that the commonly used phrase-

DO YA DRAW SKIN TO WIN U A DAMN HORNEY DOG?!

Is simply an anagram for-

OH MY GOD ! YOU ARE NOT DAWKINS AND DARWIN ?


Frightening, isn't it?
And so the evil conspiracy continues...

361. Pasadena, CA Event

Comment #3454 by Anonymous on October 29, 2006 at 1:57 am

WAS THAT JANE FONDA??

362. I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

Comment #3412 by Anonymous on October 28, 2006 at 11:30 am

toni, to take the Middle East as an example, both the Zionists behind the formation of the state of Israel and the Palestinians organisations that subsequently formed to reclaim their lands were largely secular and left-wing in orientation. The Orthodox Jews who are nowing laying a religious claim to "Greater Israel" initially opposed the Zionists on religious grounds, and thus did not become a significant force until after 1967. And Hamas did not really emerge as a serious Palestinian organisation until the first intifada, with an important factor in its success being the wrong-headed support of the US, which was seeking a counter to Fatah and Arafat. One might add that Bin Laden and his cronies would probably have never existed if the US had not massively supported (indeed the CIA virtually created) the mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The point of all this is that religious strife has not primarily been the cause but a consequence of failed big-power policies in the Middle East.

Political illiteracy is probably the weakest point of TGD. Admittedly Dawkins would probably admit to lacking expertise in this area, but unfortunately that did not stop him making some very unfortunate generalisations, which do indeed make him seem somewhat like a "happy clapper believer" when talking of the benefits of a secular world.

363. Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists

Comment #3390 by Anonymous on October 28, 2006 at 7:57 am

By the same logic, a fertilised egg should not develop into an adult. But it does! Put that in your theistic pipe and smoke it

364. I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

Comment #3338 by Anonymous on October 27, 2006 at 2:16 pm

365. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3219 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Dr Krauss,
I do believe that your review was overall a positive one, and I don't think Professor Dawkins would mind some constructive criticism. However, I very much disagree that belief in god and Santa are on the same footing. If I tell some one I don't believe in God I will be asked to justify myself(ironically, as they should be the one to). I do not think I will be confronted similarly about Santa.

366. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #3213 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 1:27 pm

367. Reply to a Christian

Comment #3181 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 7:05 am

Nick, all those site veiw the world through faith tinted spectacles and are basically preaching to the converted. Take away faith and they have no real content of any merit (not that faith gives them any merit anyway)
Here are a few sites of my own for you to read that refutes many biblical events
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/index.shtml

Read also the bible unearthed for more on the events in the bible that never took place

have fun!

368. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3155 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 1:55 am

Richard,
Unlike the bible there are not 2 contradictory accounts of "creation". That is true religious faith, belief in something despite evidence to the contrary (or contradictions eg were birds created from the land or the sea? (Gen1 vs gen2))

369. Beyond Belief

Comment #3122 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 7:13 pm

I wonder if Jim Holt is a Jew.

There are a lot of Jews over there at the New York Times...

We all know how proud the Jews are of their religion and God.

370. God only knows who's right or wrong

Comment #3117 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 6:27 pm

Brian,

RD's clarion call runs the risk of (mis-)leading people into thinking that belief in God per se is incompatible with a rational and secular society. This is worse than wrong, it is politically dangerous, particularly in the US. The battle there is for public policy, and the most powerful weapon available is the separation of Church and State enshrined in their Constitution, which of course presupposes the existence of beliefs that need to be separated.

The reason organisation such as the US National Academy of Sciences carefully spell out that science and religious belief are not incompatible is not the result of some limp-wristed pragmatism but an important statement of fact. Methodological naturalism does not imply ontological naturalism, whatever RD might say. This is not simply a philosophical position, it is a historical fact as anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the history of science should know.

So while people may greatly enjoy TGD as crystallising and reinforcing their personal views, it is most definitely not a recipe for engagement with the real world we share with believers of all stripes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the somewhat more nuanced position of Karl Marx :-)

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

371. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3083 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 12:11 pm

"Leon Lederman, the physicist and Nobel laureate, once half-jokingly remarked that the real goal of physics was to come up with an equation that could explain the universe but still be small enough to fit on a T-shirt. In that spirit, Dawkins offered up his own T-shirt slogan for the ongoing evolution revolution:
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."


Richard Dawkins



_______________________________________


Sup Billy?

Hey I got my own T-Shirt slogan.......


Front: Jesus Loves You

Back: He's just not IN love with you

372. God only knows who's right or wrong

Comment #3082 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 12:09 pm

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then why is it so mean and unwilling or unable to manifest itself other than to truck stop trixies?

I am so fed up with being bullied by fans of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who leave books of superstition in hotel rooms that I've decided to fight back by putting the God Delusion flyer into the Gideons.

373. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3062 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 10:02 am

Opps, the above statement was brought to you by ThePacifier Inc.

Sorry, I forgot to enter my Name.

(got get credit where credit is due) :)

BTW, I do apologize if I come across a little crass; I'm not a big proponent of being "Politically Correct"

But I love you guys just the same.....

374. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3059 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 9:53 am

The Flat earth verse (I'm sure it's matt. 4:12) is the one where satan takes jesus to the top of a mountain, where he can see all the kingdoms of the world. To do this, the earth would have to be flat.
Comment #3045 by Billy Sands on October 25, 2006 at 8:59 am

_____________

You guys crack me up. Even if the earth was flat; do you think you could clearly see all the kingdoms of the world from atop a mountain?

Since a right angle is formed by the line of sight and the plane of the acuity chart, then simple trigonometry can be used:
2.5' of arc ÷ 60 = 0.04167°
tangent 0.04167° = h ÷ d = h ÷ 20 feet
0.0007272 = h ÷ 6,096 millimeters
h = 4.433 millimeters
2h = total height of a 20/20 letter at 20 feet = 8.87 millimeters
In general, the size of a 20/20 letter (in millimeters) is .4433 × d (where d is the viewing distance in feet).

What if Jesus was near sighted? Did Satan have some glasses he could use to “check out the kingdoms?”

Indeed, if you take any written word literally, the bible or any other script……. You’re probably going to get yourself in trouble……given the nature of our (mankind’s) ability, or lack thereof, to interpret what is written; considering that your interpretation will be biased based on your own personal experiences, no doubt a wide and varying consensus will be taken on any given written text. Just look at how difficult it is to interpret what the posters on this site are truly trying to convey.

So the Bible was never intended to be a literal interpretation; just look at the trouble we have gotten into by taking such an approach.

No, the bible is a “guide”, a manual of sorts…. It represents the “big picture”. For example; you ever try putting together a 1000 piece puzzle without looking at the picture on the box? Clearly, without the “big picture” your efforts to put the pieces together become monstrously more difficult.

So, believe what you will…….. and please, as the brighty bright moonybat movement grows; don’t make the mistake that most religions have by spreading your “beliefs” in a contemptuous manner……… thanks…..

375. Montreal / NYC Event Photos

Comment #2980 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 4:32 am

376. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #2973 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 3:42 am

"In many cases, people act worse in the name of faith ie. Westboro Baptist Church. Where did they get the idea to hate gays so much? Christians will be quick to point out the atrocities of Stalin, but I don't see the book on atheism that advocated killing people."

"The problem is that evils commited in the name of religion don't need any justification other than God wills it."


What I was trying to explain in my previous post was that removing religion would not remove the majority of atrocities in this world. The roots of great crimes lie far deeper than the doctrines people use to justify them. As I said above it is humanity’s passions which if not controlled and restricted which result in the evils of the world.

Also as a Protestant Christian, I feel it is important to apply hermeneutics and exegesis to Biblical passages in order to gain insight into the moral and philosophical views of the authors. Most Christians I know do not take the Bible literally - it is not inerrant since it was written by fallible, human authors. Every individual has the right to read the Bible, and interpret it in their own way, according to their own conscience and reason! However, what the scriptures say regarding spiritual issues is ultimately very useful.

-

"However, it does not follow that just because a story contains some sound moral lessons that the story is *true*"


Well, this is where faith is important. For example, a Christian believer must hold the belief that the story of Jesus and his resurrection is true. However, this does not make faith irrational or merely 'blind trust' - St. Augustine viewed faith as prior to reason and the way to truth: ‘I believe in order to understand.’

-

"Dawkins is far from an Atheist fundamentalist. His views are expressed in the most unbiased way possible."


I must clarify what I meant by Dawkins being a fundamentalist atheist - it was the wrong term to use. However, I find it interesting how confident Dawkins is in his atheism; as if it is the only conclusion - my dad who is also an atheist shares the same certainty. Yet science is deductive in its methods and it results in statements which are never certain. I find it difficult to see how Dawkins can view God and religion as the enemies of rationality. Everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions on the matter of the existence of God, yet this does not make their decisions irrational -(Though, Dawkins is right to be horrified at Biblical fundamentalism).

377. ACTION ITEM: Charities Bill (UK)

Comment #2968 by Anonymous on October 25, 2006 at 2:34 am

Cheers, Dave.

378. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #2910 by Anonymous on October 24, 2006 at 3:23 pm

In response to Nicola:
I think the arguement is full of holes. But I will take on just one of them.
So, what exactly does acting is accordance with Jesus' teachings mean, anyway? Because, you know, it is no secret that different denominations can have very different opinions regarding those teachings. To the point that some churches call the papacy AntiChrist.(Islam is precisely the same, by the way).
And this is all based on the book that says the whole world is 6 thousand years old.
So couldn't the good lord have been a little clearer in his message, so that people wouldn't die over rival interpretations of it?
So, if every one acted according to the teachings of God, we would have a happier world. However, the abortion clinics would have to close down, homosexuals would have to disappear, and we still would have no stem cell research.

379. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2909 by Anonymous on October 24, 2006 at 3:22 pm

I am a tremendous fan of his, but I found almost nothing in this book that Dawkins hadn't already written more eloquently and powerfully somewhere else. He declines on several occasions to go into depth about fascinating topics that would give his fans the intellectual challenge they expect from him. His thesis works, of course, but the book is disappointingly thin and much less powerful than I thought it would be.

As for the reviewer, his certainty that atheism is unnatural is lame and uninspired, but I have to agree that The God Delusion has a some gaping holes where evidence and better argument should be supplied. Dawkins's claim that atheists don't do evil things in the name of atheism absolutely must be corroborated. It is by no means obviously true, and I hope he will treat it more profoundly in a second edition. Another hole exists in the claim that the universe would be a very different one if there were an intelligent designer in it. Dawkins should pay us the compliment of spelling out what he thinks a designed universe would look like. I felt cheated out of a good read by an author I have always loved.

380. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #2823 by Anonymous on October 23, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Tray Donovan wrote:
"The problem with reasonable people with faith, even ambigous faith is that they are, to use an addiction term, enablers. ... if that faith is acknowledged to someone with extremist tendencies, it creates the extreme 'nutters' we're dealing with today."

How does that happen? Are all people of faith enablers of extremism?

Do you think there would be fewer extremists if more people said "you're crazy to believe that"? We're all immune to that influence else we wouldn't be atheists in a country full of Christians.

I like Dawkins and I think Gary Wolf has missed the point, but I think the problem is that this isn't, in the end, just an argument with only two sides, theist versus atheist, it's an argument with several hundred sides -- every different version of God and even different kinds of atheists.

I honestly don't know if Barak Obama or Andrew Sullivan are enablers. If you think they are can you explain how that works?

Don't all those different sides and versions of God create doubt about God?

381. Richard Dawkins on The God Delusion

Comment #2807 by Anonymous on October 23, 2006 at 5:38 pm

The "Chamberlainists" are worried that confronting religion head on will alienate the faithful and they'll only respond defensively.

But all free thinkers needn't use the same tactics in this debate. I'm grateful for the straight up approach of writers Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Moyers and the liberal/spiritual folks can try catching flies with honey.

382. Atheists' delusions about God

Comment #2732 by Anonymous on October 23, 2006 at 6:13 am

Lust for certainty??

LOL. No.

I think most atheists are happy with fairly probable. As is covered in the book.

As is the "we dont believe in the god you dont believe in" arguement.

More straw man arguements and rebranding of the opposition from the religious.

Funny, lust is a sin apparently. Didnt say thirst...or even need...chose a word with religuous resonance...lust.

383. Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good?

Comment #2728 by Anonymous on October 23, 2006 at 5:32 am

sorry, somehow I posted twice - once after i thought I was only editing...

384. Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good?

Comment #2615 by Anonymous on October 22, 2006 at 6:33 am

Patrick McCann - whole industries have arisen by people turning other humans to gods like Mohammed and Jesus for e.g. - They were messianic politicians remember.

385. Photo shows the dangers of brainwashing children

Comment #2611 by Anonymous on October 22, 2006 at 6:02 am

For those who see spooking kids as a good thing there are Hell Houses: "A Hell House consists of a group of horrific scenes within a type of haunted house. The customer walks through a sequence of tableaus designed to create terror and revulsion. The last scene is different; it is typically a portrayal of heaven. The visitors are then asked to accept salvation by repenting of their sins and trusting Jesus as Lord and Savior."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm

Those who promote religion are essentially immoral and cruel.

386. Photo shows the dangers of brainwashing children

Comment #2567 by Anonymous on October 21, 2006 at 10:39 pm

387. Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists

Comment #2424 by Anonymous on October 21, 2006 at 8:23 am

Just a quick note to William because he makes some valid points. I think your questions can be answered easily by religious folk as either the "use the God argument only when convenient theory" or the "God works in mysterious ways theory". Either way I believe that the exact same thing that makes religion seem attractive to some (ie. it appears to explain just about anything) is the exact same thing that makes it appear weak to people like me.

Brent http://haversine.spaces.live.com

388. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2384 by Anonymous on October 21, 2006 at 3:36 am

That caller towards the end ("No WAY!!") was hilarious!

People just don't get the evolution thing do they, though it's no surprise: our respective education systems are a pile of pants. I did A-level biology and evolution was hardly mentioned - no wonder there are so many people are so desperately ignorant about the world around them.

389. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #2252 by Anonymous on October 20, 2006 at 6:04 am

Te example I used with "Origin of Species: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life" was to show the racist title in Darwins book. This book contains none of the listed races below the example.
It was to highlight where the idea clearly leads to in relation to race.

390. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2234 by Anonymous on October 20, 2006 at 1:57 am

After the interviewer had pushed that guy to admit he would kill his neighbour if there were no God and Richard commented (in perfect comic deadpan) "Well, you're not a very good advertisement for religion then", well, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

Brilliant.

391. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2206 by Anonymous on October 19, 2006 at 4:47 pm

"even though he sounded awestruck by Dawkins, he also sounded the most intelligent."

I would sound awestruck as well. It would be an honor to chat with him.

392. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #2072 by Anonymous on October 18, 2006 at 2:08 pm

No one knows what Jesus said or if the guy really existed. Most of the material is modern produced in the Common Era by those with a political agenda. Poets like Bob Dylan offer contemporary insights that are meaningful to all of us.
"Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/highway61.html

393. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2066 by Anonymous on October 18, 2006 at 1:16 pm

A few people won't get that my comment #38 is a spoof in precisely the same humorous tradition as Colbert. If I remove it, it will not be because I think comment #79 is correct. I don't. There is Stephen Colbert, the real person, who gave us a wonderful gift last night: Stephen Colbert, the character -- an idiot, a buffoon, etc. for Richard to play off of. Colbert was neither speechless nor stumped. He wanted his character to be defeated. He sacrifices himself regularly on the altar of comedy for us. However it takes a quick and clever person like Dawkins to seize the opportunity effectively. Be thankful for both Dawkins & Colbert. The real biography & views of the real Colbert are not something you will readily find (unlike the orchestrated bio of the character Colbert, Sunday school teacher). He is master of the spoof. Perhaps it's just as well that people misunderstand. Once everyone is in on the joke, it will cease to be such an effective tool & he will have to move on to another format.

What I'm not sure of -- and it may be that one had to be in the audience to be sure -- is the alleged "boos". A few times I thought I heard "oohs" rather than "boos", in recognition that Richard was trouncing the character Colbert, & an affirming "yeah" right after Richard said "one god further". Did anyone else hear 'oohs'?

394. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1956 by Anonymous on October 18, 2006 at 5:27 am

Yeah, Stephen Colbert is always "on" on the show, so even though I have little doubt he's actually an atheist himself (and a liberal, and highly critical of non-thinkers), he's cultivated a celebrity personality that's decidedly American neo-conservative and supernaturalist-friendly. You'll notice he doesn't come "out" of character much, and certainly not on the show. But then you have stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOprXKpuVRc

(Colbert's roast of Bush at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.)

395. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #1906 by Anonymous on October 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm

Patric Watson is not a moron, he was head of the CBC etc. He most likely lives in Rosedale and attends St. Marys of All Minks and All Sables. It's too bad that atheist Pierre Burtonv is dead as he was a fine writer and would have taken Watson down a peg or two for his infantile remarks.

Even the Anglicans are threatened by Dawkins. One ex friend who's husband is a priest asked what would they do to for employment if he lost his job preaching?

396. There is no God, sayeth Dawkins

Comment #1857 by Anonymous on October 17, 2006 at 8:47 am

"But given the millions spent on the attempt to do just that over the last half century -- and given Dawkins's general disdain for persons of faith -- I am tempted to say, "Not enough evidence, Dawkins. Not enough evidence.""

Wow, an absolute and utterly unimaginable understanding of science, yet again...


I would like to ask them, what has the Trillions of dollars spent on religion done to add to our understanding of the world, promote peace, or stop violence?


Yea, don't expect a response on that...shameful review...why are they failing?

397. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1809 by Anonymous on October 17, 2006 at 2:34 am

"I don't have to prove my belief is valid"

Yet you admit this is science? And science dosnt rely on faith but facts?

You are muddled.

398. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1806 by Anonymous on October 17, 2006 at 2:10 am

"Martin, can I ask you openly where you came from and your evidence to not only support your claim but to prove it as a fact."

Which claim would you like me to prove?

"I haven’t attacked anyone personally here[...]"

You, sir, are mistaken. If you will scroll up a couple of pages I will quote your own writing:

"Hell have you guys have been busy although you do realise you are a bunch of religious fanatics don’t you."

Since I have posted here, and my view is contrary to your own, I must be a "religious fanatic". I take that as a personal attack, more so because you lump me in with a group of people to whom I am vehemently opposed.

I'll admit for the most part your posts have been rather tame, compared to many other religious apologists I've come across, but it seems that the more people refuse to accept your opinions, and they are just that, the more aggressive and angry you get.

You are distinctly muddled in your responses. Is it no wonder people don't pay your arguements much weight if you don't even clearly indicate the difference between a quote and your own writings?

If your unacknowledge use of anothers work in support of your argument was a mistake, then I apologise for any implications I might have made in that regard.

I believe though that it was never your intention to give credit to others. I'm fortunate in this regard, in that, like religion, I don't have to prove my belief is valid. It is what I believe and, as such, it is immutable. I would like to thank you for helping me prove my point.

399. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1696 by Anonymous on October 15, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Whoa, whoa--

"Rational argument raises the monotheistic faiths above the muddled world of superstition."

Really? How does that work?

And--

"God is not a matter of blind faith."

Really? How so?

Lord!!

400. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1684 by Anonymous on October 15, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Yeah a wolf a coyote and a fox are all from the dog family.

Conclusion, there all dog KINDS. Where’s your dog with feathers or lizard scales? Six fully funtional legs? Where’s the dog that shots acid and has eight eyes?

There is nothing like that at all in the fossil record regarding other animals. You use the same kind of animal but label it a different species then throw (sorry) a lot of time into the equation. You can’t see this religious humanist view do you? Remember I admit mine is religious