1. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #31908 by rick on April 14, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Here's to hoping that this man can find it within himself to reject Christianity completely, if not all religion.

2. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #31907 by rick on April 14, 2007 at 11:04 pm

brilliant!

3. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10260 by Rick on November 27, 2006 at 3:24 pm

"……ancient Jews who gave us the Torah from which these values emanate."

Excuse, me. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the Torah the one that says it's okay to kill anyone that is not an Israelite"?

Once again, a theist lays claim to moral values. As if morals never existed before Moses.

That pisses me off.

4. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #9031 by Rick on November 23, 2006 at 8:48 am

I know for a fact that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant communicator for science, and yes as far as I can see (stupid little humanist(small h) that I am)Darwinism is as close to the truth as we can hope for at the moment for the emergence of life ecc.. However might I point you towards a career in journalism and the teaching of rhetoric since after reading your book only a sane person would leave it as an agnostic or reconfirmed believer since there are so many problems with regards to his philosphical reasonings and his use of logic and the lazy way he selectivly treats some sources (his history of christianity and some of the philosophy of science was painful to read) that if I wanted to find a bible of athiesm there is no way I could take it seriously. Creationists, as far as I can see are mad, Dawkins far less so but is some respects just as dangerous. I hate monolithic thinking of all kinds and that means you (your philosphy and historical reasoning not your science). I do not support ID and I hold three higher degrees (LSE/UCL/Oxford)- none of which are in theology. Yet how clever I am does not matter as it does to some of the people on this comments page. The corrolary of IQ with religiosity can extend to the corralory with other attributes which politeness prevents me from stating. The point I am making is if 'plebs' believe and the educated do not, what point are you trying to make? If Dawkins wants to be an elitist might I sugeest that he edits at least 40% of his book since it is opinion masquerading as fact. It does not matter what Darwin believed, but what he wrote, yet deep down it matters what Dawkins's believes, at least to those who religiously follow him. I think by virtue of his public school debating skills Rchard Dawkins masks his intelligence with wit and invective to give the impression of being the love child of Karl Popper and Einstein. You are standing on the shoulders of giants, yet you do not speak for all of them. I find you a lessening voice of reason and defender of science. I really hope you could stay in the USA, you deserve that bunch of nutters, there is something strange about hysterical evangelicals and latent protestants like yourself, if only you could see your similarities. Yet I sense this book was written with the US in mind. By the way what I believe in - and I believe in many things and change my opinions daily according to how I feel, what I read and who I talk to - is my own business so I do not need to tell you, and neither do you have to tell be pace Richard I know you do not believe in natural selection, it is a fact so you do not have to believe in it, I'm with you on that one. If I am a fence sitting constantly doubting agnostic christian (yes it's the way I was brought up, I wonder why I don't like my parents music?) that is how I feel today and maybe tomorrow. Just in case any fundamentalists think for one moment I am on their side can I tell them that they deserve Dawkins. I am offended by the way Dawkins is wasting his brain on purile name calling (in the book). Dawkins is about as controversial as a field with no grass in it, in that it matters only to sheep. I do not compartmentalize my brain, yet I'll give it to Dawkins the book made me think long and hard but I ended up embarrassed on his behalf. By the way here is secular Britain, demi-paradise that it is your books are not being hidden and there is a whole table dedicated to him at Blackwell's on the Charing Cross Road, though it is now half price a Waterstones. From now on debate with somebody your own size. Go to Harvard next time, give yourself some self-respect. Please excuse me for this rant as I needed to release some pressure and walk away with no ill feeling towards Richard Dawkins himself. I am dyslexic(is there a corresponing gene?) so my spelling is probably all over the place so try not to use that as a bat to hit me with less you feel you need to respond to this. Remember God loves you, and even if he doesn't, can't, won't or ontollogically a priori cannot since he isn't there by which way you cannot talk about him since that is in itself illogical whichever way you read it then I'll give you a kiss, go on don't take youselves too seriously. Some of you are so self righteous, so many egos flying about the place. Finally memes - looks ands sounds too much of a metaphorical device, if it belongs anywhere it belongs in social science, and sorry Richard I think this one is a non starter.

5. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #8754 by Rick on November 22, 2006 at 7:50 am

Comment # 7360 by Randy Ping

SO here's a question for you superstitionists:
Can you name ONE tangible benifit that religion has given to mankind that it could not have on it's own without superstition?
I ask this all the time and NEVER get a real answer.
So, come then, let's hear it.

We got rid of alot of witches.

6. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7657 by Rick on November 19, 2006 at 1:13 am

Re 273

>Mark twain's dismissal of the fear of death"I do not fear death.I had been dead for billions of years before I was born.

Dynamite quote. I have said exactly that many times, and am tickled because this was the first time I have read that quote. After all, it is "common sense".

Interesting that we don't consider people dead until they have first been alive, yet the state after "life" should be a lot like the state before "life".

I don't believe we die, I believe we evolve.

The whole game lies in our identity. What do we identify with? If we identify our personhood within the limits of our skin, then perhaps we die. If you identify with the Universe, then you don't die, you evolve.

If your goals and actions are entirely self-serving, then you die. If you live for greater good with recognition that you are one with the Universe, then you don't die, you evolve.

Identity is everything. Expand your compassion. And realize that in your life. That realization is more important than whether you say you believe in God or not. (God will be quite happy with your progress nevertheless). Ha Ha!

I reject the tendency to divide people on the basis of religious belief (or disbelief). I like atheists, and they are on their own path and can contribute much. Shout your beliefs from the rooftops if you will. But be a uniter, not a divider.

Good night, and good luck.

7. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7651 by Rick on November 19, 2006 at 12:45 am

Re 267
Mal,
I'm all for research in neuroscience. We need all the help we can get in maintaining a healthy brain and nervous system, and learning how it works. However I think that studies of the "mind" (not the brain/nervous system) are outside of science. Not that the study of "mind" isn't worth thinking about, I just feel that this is philosophy, not hard science.

Mind is by its nature abstract, not physical. Again, I am not saying "Mind" doesn't follow certain laws or patterns. And maybe even you could call study of the mind a science.

However, the kind of arguments that are put forward in discrediting belief in God comes from the the paradigms of the "hard" science camps, physics and biology. So for example, a lot of what passes for "reality" in the psychology/philosophy camps, wouldn't pass muster in the hard sciences.

And I believe that we are something beyond and above even our mind. i.e. we have a mind, we are not our mind. There is a ghost in the machine (IMHO).

We live in a multi-dimensional universe. Jesus summed it up nicely:

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's."

8. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7646 by Rick on November 19, 2006 at 12:15 am

Re 266:

Wars are fought for power and resources. Excuses for war include religion, nationality, and race. Remove those three, and I guarantee the warmongers will quickly cook up new reasons to go to war.

Besides most of the people who fought wars didn't have much of a choice. No thanks, I'll sit this war out! Yeah, right.

9. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7628 by Rick on November 18, 2006 at 11:12 pm

We live in a world of memories, emotion, sensations, a sense of identity, and ideas. Very little of the life which we exist in from moment to moment can be reproduced and measured in isolation from our subjective experience.

Science shows us how to manipulate matter and energy, and navigate space-time. Excellent.

But science has little to say about the interior life which we navigate daily. We can't say this biggest part of our life doesn't exist, or is inconsequential.

So why demean people whose sense of identity includes God? So noone can prove it anymore than they can prove a color. (BTW, while a wavelength of light may have some correlation with color, it is not color. I can trigger colors by pushing on my eyeball. What's the frequency there, Kenneth?)

I am often amused by the contortions and justifications that science apologists put forward in maintaining all the non-material "subjectives" in their own life, while blasting others for belief in God, on the basis of subjectivity. Reminds me a lot of the Bible literalists trying to hold to the Bible as scientific fact.

They commit the same error from different sides of the issue.

10. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7616 by Rick on November 18, 2006 at 10:27 pm

"blue" and"music" are found only in our minds, and in fact can exist there without any exterior input. And billions of people believe in God, but that shouldn't be enough in itself. I believe that people either sense God, or they don't.

Prove "blue" exists. Not by testimony, but by objective measurement. You can't, because color exists in our head. No one can prove we all see the same colors, and we probably don't. Some things are just outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I believe our brains are like FM radios, they receive and broadcast. But the real interesting stuff is going on at different levels, beyond the vacuum tubes or silicon chips or neural networks.

11. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7609 by Rick on November 18, 2006 at 10:02 pm

I am blind, but I believe blue exists. I am deaf, but I believe music exists. I have never seen God, but I believe He exists. Science is fine for building bridges, but is limited in building character.

12. Richard Dawkins on The God Delusion

Comment #2533 by Rick on October 21, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Also there is a book by Michael Shermer called "The Science of Good & Evil".

13. The Language of Ignorance

Comment #389 by Rick on September 27, 2006 at 7:06 pm

People like Mr. Harris will say or beleive anything just so they don't have to believe in a creator. In comparison It seems that Mr. Collins has seen the light.