Comments by ruth
1. Intelligent design: The God Lab
Comment #12926 by ruth on December 14, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I work 3 floors up from the Discovery Institute in downtown Seattle. Pardon my provinciality, but why HERE? The Seattle area is as secular as America gets and (incidentally) home to Richard's sponsor!
I'm worried the ID lunatics may have found among our zillion biochemists some sympathizers who've been hiding their religious convictions from colleagues and are now donating their time.
2. God's Inbox
Comment #11826 by ruth on December 7, 2006 at 1:24 pm
gwb@whitehouse.gov - Where the f*** were U on Nov 7th?!
(mark as unread)
3. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God
Comment #11811 by ruth on December 7, 2006 at 12:59 pm
A characteristic trick: pretending to temporarily concede a point in order to smuggle in a "fact" that's patently false:
"[T]he simple fact that Christianity has given us a moral code which has, to an extent, lasted 2,000 years is no reason to believe in a divinity."
Christianity clearly has NOT given us a moral code that has lasted 2,000 years. How many violations and reinterpretations of this code will it take to show that it has almost nothing to do with how people behave? And here's another one:
"By far the weakest part of The God Delusion is when Dawkins attempts to explain why atheistic regimes have far outdone religious regimes in their murderousness, their inhumanity."
On what grounds can he confidently assert that atheistic regimes have outdone religious ones in murderousness and inhumanity?
I am amazed at reviewers' failure to intelligently address what I think is the book's major weakness: its slipshod treatment of the distinction between atheistic and religious despotism. Even when reviewers have noted this, they've never contributed any substance to the debate. I wish Carl Sagan were around to review it.
Comment #10898 by Ruth on December 1, 2006 at 7:51 am
Blaine Simpson: '...they would obviously not label themselves Christian'.
I'm not sure where you live, Blaine, but I suspect that it isn't England (forgive me if I'm wrong about this).
The anomaly comes from the fact that we have a 'Church of England', of which the British monarch is titular head. This means that, to most English people, if you are English you are, by definition, C of E (Church of England), and that is the box that most people will tick on any form. In the perception of most English people, the Church of England has nothing to do with God or Jesus, but a lot to do with England and 'Englishness'.
Comment #9590 by Ruth on November 25, 2006 at 7:54 am
'Over time family and friends have accepted my wish to have neither a funeral nor a memorial.'
Isn't this a little selfish? Funerals/memorials are for the benefit of the living, not the dead, who are beyond caring. Many people find some kind of memorial helpful in coming to terms with their loss. Why do you wish to deprive your family and friends of this opportunity?
Comment #8743 by Ruth on November 22, 2006 at 6:36 am
Thank you!
http://hfkrjdva.com/oeev/lvqo.html | http://fkbuadxt.com/zfwr/enye.html
7. Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defence
Comment #8001 by Ruth on November 20, 2006 at 5:40 am
"I'm sure that it has nothing to do with Islam - do Atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs feel any less strongly if their partner has an affair?"
Why should anyone 'feel strongly' about their partner doing something that they themselves are doing? Surely they would be sympathetic?
8. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America
Comment #7101 by Ruth on November 17, 2006 at 6:56 am
"Yes, evil things are done in God's name, but that does not at all mean that they are countenanced by God."
Has any atheist said that God sanctions the evil done in his name? I would be very suprised, since atheists do not believe that 'God' actually exists. By definition, a non-existent entity cannot 'sanction' anything.
The problem is that this fictional 'God' can be used to excuse any evil, however abhorent.
"It DOES teach that any and all sins are forgiven automatically through Jesus' death and resurrection, but that they must be repented by the person who committed them. If you do not believe that Jesus was who he said he was, how can you repent?"
In other words, if you believe in a fiction you can escape any personal responsibility for your own evil deeds. And you don't understand why we have a problem with this?
9. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #6402 by Ruth on November 14, 2006 at 4:26 am
"I assume you will appreciate that even with 2400 words not every thing could be dealt with."
Maybe not, but I would have thought that 2,400 words would have been enough to deal with at least ONE thing. You did not present a single actual argument in that 2,400 words.
10. Religions don't deserve special treatment
Comment #5359 by Ruth on November 9, 2006 at 4:39 am
"The Children of Israel in bondage to Egypt"
'Bondage' for which the only evidence is a document written by the descendents of said 'children of Israel'. Independent archeological evidence has found no sign of any such 'bondage', or of any 'exodus'.
> and the Christians in the lion's den
Who were not put there by 'non-believers', but by believers in different gods.
11. Religions don't deserve special treatment
Comment #5358 by Ruth on November 9, 2006 at 4:30 am
Scott:"You are correct that religious belief is very personal. I said you have the right to believe what you wish about the existance of God, but that does not extend to the laws of the land."
Exactly!
Religious believers do not have the right to insist that the laws of the land be based on their personal religious beliefs. Glad you agree. A pity most religious believers don't, as shown by laws banning gay marriage.
12. Religions don't deserve special treatment
Comment #5357 by Ruth on November 9, 2006 at 4:22 am
"While we have no actual vaccine against religion, we can weaken its power to take hold of people's minds by fostering an atmosphere in which the point of view that holds religion to be utterly ridiculous and contemptible is continuously highly visible to all members of society, especially children."
I think that the most effective vaccine against religion is a multi-faith approach to religious education in schools, right from the start.
When you are presented with a multiplicity of conflicting belief systems, it's immediately obvious that they can't ALL be right. From that, it's a short step to entertaining the possibility that they're ALL wrong.
13. Hatred (of Gays) Unites Jerusalem's Feuding Faiths
Comment #5356 by Ruth on November 9, 2006 at 4:14 am
"However, Jerusalem is not. It is very much the ground zero of the "big three" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and the same displays that would be tolerated anywhere else in the world will not be tolerated there."
Did you not notice the part of the report which said that there had been Gay Pride marches in Jerusalem for the past five years, and that it was only last year that this kind of violence was seen?
Do you think women would have the vote if the original campaigners for it had accepted that women claiming equal rights 'would not be tolerated here'?
Comment #5220 by Ruth on November 8, 2006 at 5:28 am
"We restrain ourselves from saying bad things about religion, from talking about it at the dinner table. These guys want to talk about religion at the dinner table."
People used to restrain themselves from saying bad things about racism and sexism at the dinner table, too. Such 'civility' did little to help the plight of women or racial minorities.
Comment #4788 by Ruth on November 6, 2006 at 3:48 am
"Why does John Humphrys want to find god so badly?"
Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he, as an atheist, has just come up with an extremely effective vehicle for exposing the inadequacies of religion.
Comment #3883 by Ruth on November 1, 2006 at 9:41 am
Maryhelena:
-I think it really is delusion to think that religion is going to disappear. -
I don't think that anyone has said that religion is going to disappear. Only that it would be nice if it did.
Racism and sexism aren't likely to disappear anytime soon, either. Does that mean we have to pretend that we think they're OK?
Comment #3881 by Ruth on November 1, 2006 at 9:24 am
Bodhitharta: The highest number is also the lowest number which is 1.
I'll take your '1' and raise you '6'.
Or is 1 higher than 6? It wasn't when I went to school.
Comment #3849 by Ruth on November 1, 2006 at 4:52 am
"Or this: the love I have for my wife and children, which certainly has a biological component and evolutionary value, is more than that, is more than surges of serotonin or dopamine in the reward centers of my brain."
I trust you will never fall victim to a degenerative brain condition such as Alzheimers, which, by intefering with those brain chemicals you so cavalierly dismiss, would destroy your love for your wife and children. As many spouses and children of such unfortunate victims can testify.
Comment #3847 by Ruth on November 1, 2006 at 4:44 am
"Richard Dawkins is going to renounce atheism in 2007, so tell me what will you say when this happens?"
What will YOU say on 1st January 2008, when it hasn't?
Comment #3846 by Ruth on November 1, 2006 at 4:26 am
-Because the term God means The Possessor of The Highest Rank and since only one can possess the Highest Rank there can then be only one "God"-
I take it then that there is also only one 'highest number', because, of course, by this same logic, only one number can be the highest number. Can you tell me what that number is?
21. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us
Comment #3541 by Ruth on October 30, 2006 at 2:25 am
"I think Richard would put the final stake in the heart of religion if he were to illustrate the science behind belief and faith from an evolutionary perspective."
But Lewis Wolpert has already done this, in 'Six impossible things before breakfast: the evolutionary origins of belief', referenced in TGD. There's no point duplicating effort.
22. God only knows who's right or wrong
Comment #3201 by Ruth on October 26, 2006 at 9:46 am
"BTW who spells check – cheque? Oh, I forgot…….the brighty brights."
Actually, 'cheque' is the correct spelling in English, as opposed to the corrupted spelling of American English. I take it you are one of those Americans who thinks that the English language originated in the good old US of A.
23. God only knows who's right or wrong
Comment #3175 by Ruth on October 26, 2006 at 5:14 am
"He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense."
Surely the same can be said of anyone who says there IS a God, without defining just what he/she means by 'God'?
I am going to positively declare that 'Wibble' exists. However, I can't actually tell you what Wibble is, I just know that it exists. Since you don't know what 'Wibble' is either, then you cannot possibly tell me that it does not exist, and you have to accept my assertion that Wibble exists.
Oh, and by the way, 'Wibble' will punish you for all eternity if you don't give me all your money right now. Since you can't demonstrate that Wibble doesn't exist, you'd better get your chequebook out.
Comment #3170 by Ruth on October 26, 2006 at 4:33 am
"(Incidentally, I couldn’t help wondering, somewhat facetiously, when Dawkins used an anthropic argument from cosmology to argue against God, that, although indeed only very rare universes may harbour life, if an infinite number of universes exist, could not at least one then harbour what might pass for a divine being?)"
'What might pass for a divine being', certainly, in the same way that the Conquistadors 'passed for' divine beings to people who had never seen guns. That doesn't mean we should fall down and worship it, as the native South Americans did to the Conquistadors, which turned out to be the worst mistake they ever made.
How could a truly 'divine being', i.e. one who had created everything that exists, 'arise' by chance within his/her/its own creation?
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
