1. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177748 by ricey on May 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I think Humphreys really would have liked more time to talk to Dawkins. Humphreys is a half-baked "failed atheist" agnostic (read "not quite sure but hedging my bets") type; the guy could have used a little one-to-one with the real deal.

2. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165936 by ricey on April 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

We need to have nonsense to believe in. Be it tarrot cards, astrology, christianity, islam, buddhism, reflexology, the eternal ether, et al. The writer has a point here.

We are dum, and we won't get smart even if this or that belief is conclusively proved wrong.

We'll just catch the next train back to dumville.

It's what makes us poorly evolved apes, sorry, "human".

3. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165920 by ricey on April 22, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Just "god of the gaps" arguments; some good points made by the contributors though.

Where science ends god begins for many people. If there is a god what religion is he?

(edit: he/she/it I should have said)

4. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153549 by ricey on April 1, 2008 at 2:51 pm

annabanana,

I'm not being sarcastic and I'm interested in the subject.

Hope that's clear

5. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153543 by ricey on April 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Any chance of dealing with the subject?

This isn't facebook and the patter is pretty dull.

6. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153531 by ricey on April 1, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Why is this film described as anti-muslim? It's just anti-stupid; anti-facist; anti-hate.

This muslim "faith" goes a long way towards explaining why atheisim is on the rise. Fundamentalist Islam represents the foulist, most abusive and most stupid face of humanity writ large and "moderate" Islam is its apologist.

Fundamentalist Chirstians take note - you're only a rousing sermon away from this bad craziness.

7. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #151567 by ricey on March 29, 2008 at 2:07 am

People love ghosts because they are exciting. Maybe it's a mis-firing of the evolutionary need to be wary of things that go bump in the night. An adrenalin rush, originally much-needed by our ancestors for fighting off sabre-toothed tigers and such, that stumbled into their caves at night!

Now we seek the fear-rush via ghost stories, horror flicks, etc - while knowing at a rational level that it's not real. The Demon-Haunted World (Carl Sagan) will be with us for a while yet.

8. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145755 by ricey on March 18, 2008 at 5:26 am

D'Souza is like many apologists for religion, citing the fact that we don't know how the universe began so science is flawed, therefore god exists, oh, and therefore Jesus was born of a virgin and turned water into wine and ... etc, just because we don't know, YET, how the universe began!

Before that it was something else - just a couple of generations ago we didn't have the germ theory of disease or know that all life evolves through natural seletion of random genetic mutation (some of them still don't get this); therefore god existed, also presumably, witches and elves, to provide the sickness.

This is really a juvenile level of debate - another dragging out of the "god of the gaps" routine. Science hasn't found answers to everything but it provides the only working framework for doing so, because it dosn't have a pre-supposed idea of what is "true" and it is prepared, even happy, to admit when it's got it wrong.

9. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143834 by ricey on March 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm

One caller asked "Why is Christianity the religion? How come it has survived and no-one has been able to usurp it?"

Glad Richard finally got the point across that religion is regional; like body colour and height, etc.

Dosen't say much for Fox's listening public - thought the host was good though, so listen if you haven't heard it yet.

10. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138626 by ricey on March 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm

If it's really necessary to have religion you could do worse than Buddhism. Since it looks like it's really necessary to have religion, Buddhism wins for me. It's just nuts to think people will abandon nonsense for fact. And it's probably not healthy for poorly evolved creatures like us to do so. So let the people eat Buddhism ...

11. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128274 by ricey on February 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Yeah,

What are we paying for here? A bunch of macho miss-fits to surround this girl? That's just too showbiz for me .. people like that; so called bouncers, are usually a bunch of insecure tossers, who's only claim to fame is their size, etc.

Certainly pay for refuge, but if Ayaan wants to stay in the public eye (and I think she wants to), she has to accept a level of personal risk - like the Queen or the Pope or Osama bin Laden ...

No number of beefy guards can protect anyone from a determined assassin - B Bhuto to wit. So what is it we are paying for here ... ?

12. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123193 by ricey on February 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Nice to see a sensible debate with a good antagonist for Hitchens - he really made CH work at times but it brought out his best.

Hitchens was right though; scotch is a vastly suprerior drink to bourbon ...

13. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117793 by ricey on January 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm

For those that don't know, Nicky Campbell is an attention-seeking wanker [sic] who's parents (hopefully) didn't love him. And an arsehole who thinks the camaras are put there specially for him.

He is tiresome, repetative, pretentious and unaware of all of the above - an ideal candidtate for BBC internal promotion (a la Jonathan Woss).

Dawkins should not have appeared with this set of clowns; compered by this "look at me" ringmaster, tosser and self-publicist who thinks he knows but dosn't - Nicky Campbell (pronounced "wanker")

As a reluctant BBC licence payer I demand better - and anything would be better.

14. Belief in Belief

Comment #117315 by ricey on January 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Thanks to Andr3w for the Hitchens links (comment 1). This speach was good the first time I heard it, but set to that visual background it was profoundly moving. I urge all readers to follow these links.

15. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106928 by ricey on January 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm

I agree this is obscure nonsence; but many people I know would relate very closely to it. I know a grammar school (posh-type school) biology teacher who, last time I checked, believed in the literal truth of the Bible's Creation account. It's not necessarily what he teaches. A nice, community-orientated guy he is too ...

What is more important; the truth, or keeping a lid on the oddball society we all live with?

(Completely incidentally, a good cure for hiccups is to re-absorb the CO2 you put out. Just use a plastic bag, tightly sealed around your mouth and breath it until you can't take any more - mirical cure! I only mention it as I've been afflicted during the last few hours. Hope this helps someone.)

16. A War On Science

Comment #106270 by ricey on January 2, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Wasn't Daid Attinborough good in this?

It was a fair and therefore damning indictment of ID.

When I was a kid, my local area had a few dis-used air-raid shelters (anti-Nazi). It was fun (once we conqured our fear) to hide in the recesses of those old, flooded shelters and spring surprises on the kids who dared to come through.

My pals and I were gods of the dark places - we shone a light where fear and superstition, etc kept the other kids out.

Because of my release from religious teathers, I feel a little like that now. I feel like I have some control again because no god is there to frighten me in the dark.

Let us fight to ensure that the US survives this irrational, emotionally driven attack on reason.

17. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #103231 by ricey on December 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm

castletonsnob

Shame you're leaving. I've always felt that if anything the site leans towards intellectual snobishness rather than political - its not "left" by modern European standards.

Cuba's a nice place, I hear.

Stick around and help the site diversify. Why subscribe to a site where everyone agrees with you?

18. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102242 by ricey on December 22, 2007 at 6:43 am

Rtambree & RHR,

Sorry I didn't give you a proper link before re the unusual Princess, try this:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-07/072707bashing.html#i5

Hope this works.

On the wider point; surely irrationality in all its forms should be resisted by the rational community. It is a fairly small step in my view from declaring you can speak with fairies to saying you believe you're "a sunbeam for Jesus" as Hitchens put it.

If you let the irrational foot in the door it tends to try to push it all the way, as many education boards across the US are now finding with ID interference in their science curriculums.

19. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102185 by ricey on December 22, 2007 at 1:13 am

RE: Rtambree Comment No. 1 & 6,

According to recent reports in James Randi's Swift newsletter, Norway in particular is in the grip of a pseudo-religious mania. Even a member of the Royal family thinks she can speak to angels and holds group-sessions with credulous Norwegians (for a fee).

You should be able to find links for this at www.randi.org for further information.

It's no good getting rid of Abrahamic religions only to replace them with woo woo. I'd say this stuff is more "thin end of the wedge" than a last hooray for irrationality.

(Edited 14.20 UK time)

20. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100413 by ricey on December 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

This interviewer has the eyes of a religous hysteric; southern baptist maybe, or jesuit. He'd looks like he'd be very happy with a rack and a big fork to teach "the truth".

Just watched "The Golden Compass", based on Pullman's excellent book, Northern Lights. At last a movie with an openly anti-religion slant aimed at kids. And a very good show to boot. I watched it with my youngest son (12) and he told me he "knew what they were getting at" when I asked him what he thought.

This nutjob interviewer is probably now standing outside Toronto cinemas with a big banner.

21. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99831 by ricey on December 17, 2007 at 4:09 pm

I admire the US Constitution. Surely it's the most rational and logical of all democratic constitutions; yet it's so often abused.

The founding fathers tried to encourage an enlightened and secular state. What would they make of the result?

Where did these "gawd" assholes spring from? (TexASS?.) Why weren't the views of the original, rational and inspirational founding fathers respected?

Religious nut-jobs are scewing up the fine fabric created by the educated and intelligent founders. Educated Americans should be concerned. Don't stand for this bronze-age inspired shit any more.

You know better than me that if it looks, smells and sounds like bullshit ... it's bullshit!

22. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #95206 by ricey on December 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm

This says it all ... What a wanker I was to bring my kids to the zoo to see "the animals"! What a shame the best we can do with these guys is lock'em up and stare at them.

What the hell do they make of us?

If it's a fake it's a good'un.

23. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94002 by ricey on December 4, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Past time Hitchens got his act together! Previously, he has let the side down badly with his obviously drunk interviews and "debates".

This was an easy-peasy interview where both sides let each other off lightly. There's a book to sell! Let's not rock anyone's boat.

The interviewer made a positive out of not allowing his sons to read ideas that might challenge their granmom's "southern Baptist views". Fuck her! (As a younger Hitchens might have said.) That's just juvenile; like saying "I wouldn't let my son see Playboy".

Hitchens needs to concentrate on learning the science he so eloquently quotes or he will continue to be exposed. Not every interview is an NBC love-in like this.

24. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91936 by ricey on November 29, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Can't see this article playing well with the US audience, even if the points are factually correct.

This will be seen as confirmation of atheist decadence among the broad US community - albeit a community in denial about its true morality.

As for me ... one wife is already too much!

25. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86929 by ricey on November 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm

FXR:

Well said re your environmental comments. We are all leading lives as though our actions will have no consequences; but I think Attenborough's comment about the birth of christ was just meant to give perspective to the general viewer. Jesus comes from a long time ago, as every school kid knows. So the tree Attenborough referred to was placed in "the olden times" in the minds of his viewers.

I don't think there's anything suspicious about it.

26. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85014 by ricey on November 4, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Flea books add an essential, balanced criticism to the debate and also confirm the superiority of the scientific discourse. It is a credit to this site, and to the proper scientific method that dissenting voices be aired and discussed.

Can anyone think of a similar stance being taken on a fundie Christian/Islam site? Can anyone imagine a Minister, Priest or Imam (sic?) address a congregation "Please, this week stop reading the Bible/Koran; read The God Delusion; God is Not Great: Demon Haunted World; End of Faith; Breaking the Spell: open your mind to the possibility that what you consider to be probable may all along have been nonsense"?

I can't see it. Why is that, if religion is a quest after truth? Why is scepticism so dangerous to the faithful? Why do these organisations suppress and stiffle views that contradict their perceived wisdom rather than air and discuss them?

As rationalists, we should applaud this site's attempt to open the debate by advertising conflicting views.

27. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75737 by ricey on October 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Some contributors sound as if they are saying, "look at me; I am too clever to believe what mere theists believe". These people are a bit "up themselves".

To just dismiss the beliefs of most of our fellow citizens as stupid, or "a load of crap" sounds angry. It's not true. It dosen't come across well.

Our fellow citizens who believe may be misinformed, but that's all we can say about them.

Misinformed people fall into two categories: those who are smart and haven't (yet) figured out they're being duped; and those who will beleive anything you say regardless of evidence.

Is the following statement true? Dumb people, the ones who believe everything they are told when children, will be equally dumb if they are raised as atheists. In future they will attack anyone who dismisses atheism. That knock on your door isn't the JWs or mormons, its the dreaded atheists!

Knock it off. Atheism as a philosophy is just as inscrutable as any religious dogma. Harris is spot on on this point. (His spiritualist side needs a little work or else I do; I didn't grasp that bit at all.)

28. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75655 by ricey on October 3, 2007 at 8:11 am

I agree with Harris here; let's get rid of the silly big capital "A" thing - it just gives religous people a rod to beat us with. Confrontational approaches rarely get results in thoughtful debates.

Concentrate on forcing the faithfull to explain the logical basis of their beliefs. That way smart ones might start to question the belief systems they grew up with. That's the way I got free of the God Delusion, now I think of it.

Dumb faithheads aren't going to respond to rational argument on any level. Forget them - they're gone.

29. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74799 by ricey on September 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Sorry to go off subject (just a little). But young people like the RRS are exactly what rationality needs when you hear something as daft as I just did.

I almost crashed!

There I was driving along in lovelly, scenic Co. Armagh (N. Ireland) when members of Lisburn Borough Council (local government political wannabes; everywhere has them) came on the local "Talkback" radio programme to say they were effectively lobbying the local education board to include the "theory" of Intelligent Design on equal power with evolution in our local community schools and colleges.

Ladies and gents, the Taliban is alive and well in my country and they are trying to subvert our youth. They are a quazi-political Jesus-based bunch of assholes led by a person who's name anyone familiar with UK politics would know. (I won't go there because I don't want to personalise it).

Thankfully, the BBC had Prof. R Dawkins lined up (this was Wednesday 25th September at around 12 noon: BBC Radio Ulster Talkback; please someone upload this - I don't know how to) and an excellent live exchange of views took place. I was whooping and yelling along with the Prof's arguments. My normally easy-going wife threatened divorce as the car swerved and stutterd along narrow country roads.

If you hear this discussion, you will understand why atheist youth, warts (or pimples) and all, should be allowed access to our airwaves and classrooms as often as possible.

It really was fantastic - the Prof even lost his temper! At the end of a "for the terminally hard of understanding" explanation of biological relationships RD yelled, "Got It???!!!". Hooray for the stupidity of my countrymen!! No such thing as bad publicity; it's a result of sorts.

30. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67488 by ricey on September 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm

It speaks volumes for the controllers of this site, that they are brave and sure enough to publicise views that differ from the site's declared ethos. I guess that is the proper method for a science-based organisation.

Perhaps faith-based sites will reciprocate, and offer Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens as alternative options to their subscribers?

Perhaps not. Perhaps they lack the courage of their convictions.

31. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66468 by ricey on August 30, 2007 at 3:55 am

What's this "an Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman speaks" stuff?

Didn't I read somewhere that Hitchens was born in Northern Ireland? And "catholic boy" Donahue dosen't sound like any Irishman I know.

32. The Out Campaign

Comment #60034 by ricey on July 31, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Re Henri (comment 189),

The Flea's belief is no more absurd than many others commenting on this issue. At least the Flea has individuality on his side.

33. The Out Campaign

Comment #60029 by ricey on July 31, 2007 at 2:42 pm

The "A" campaign takes atheism into the realm of the faithful in as far as it asserts its position as forcibly as any religious fundamentalist viewpoint. It smacks of a lack of confidence and is unnecessary.

I don't care, really, if not a single faithhead becomes an atheist because of what I think. I don't want to "teach" anybody anything, much less rob vulnerable people of their only (albeit imaginary) solice. Good luck to folk who are able to beleive it; I'm a little jealous that I can't.

What I don't want is a forced-march for any viewpoint - I had that enough from religious people when I was a kid. Atheism is a personal realm; if your'e all so keen to band together and form a "fellowship" by all means form the Church of Dawkins - but don't count me or any other independent minded atheist as a member.

Don't forget to say your communal prayer (in unison):

"Yes! We are all individuals!" (sorry Pythons).

34. The Out Campaign

Comment #59778 by ricey on July 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Are you uncomfortable with this "A" stuff?

As atheists we have the right to assert our opinions and a need to support one another in practical terms. However, I have misgivings about the net outcome of the "A" campaign (though it is infinately better than the "brights" idea).

Is the whole "out" thing becoming a little too politicised? Does it not run the risk of becoming a bit "cultish". Dosen't atheism abhore cults (I do)? Cults have the nasty habit of becomming "revered". Next thing you know, the texts of Dawkins et al become "the way" rather than the "out".

"The way" is individual self-examination based on reasoned contemplation. It is not cultish; not T-shirt wearing or manifested in any other form of flag-waving.

That said, if "A" draws attention to science and reason, perhaps there is a case to be made for it. But its dicey.

35. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59158 by ricey on July 27, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Hastey towelling (58933);

Couldn't agree more; it seems that some US humanists have been brow-beaten into asking the massive US faithfull majority if its OK to say, in a really round-about and "nice" way, that what the majority believe is nonesense.

US humanists need support (like free-thinkers everywhere, including those who are bound to exist in the "axis of evil" countries). It can't be easy in their situation, and the more tricky the circumstances, the more respect due for standing against the accepted norms.

Rant:
Isn't it bloody ridiculous in the 21st century to have to be coy and evassive about your considered opinion that there isn't a silent, invisible, invigilator in the sky, ready to condemn you to an eternity in "hell" because of some design flaw of his own "infallable" making?

Why do otherwise sentient people turn a blind eye to this elephant sitting in their lounge? Fear? Not wanting to offend their parents?

Goodbye to the holy ghost, yaweh, "the queen of heaven", jesus and the saints, angels, deamons, satan, etc, etc ... (thats a lot for a monotheocracy!)

Rant ends.

36. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58899 by ricey on July 26, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Its odd, isn't it, that humanists in the US are so quick to defend the untenable nonsense of the faithfull; albeit in a patronising way? They seem to require permission from the chuches before they contribute their views. Are they truely "liberated" at all?

This movement is clearly a repressed minority and they speak as such. The guy opposite Hitchens in this debate was afraid of his own shadow! "What if anyone hears what I really think?"??

This isn't a criticism of the individual - but of the overbearing attitude of the US right-wing religious brethern that force fear like that on non-confromist views.

gawd bless amer'ca

37. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57846 by ricey on July 21, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Adams was brilliant but he is dead! And we all buy into, and indeed sell the notion that he is not coming back! It's very sad, but probably true.

Dawkins "spoke" to Adams in the first person, in a memorable part from TGD. A theist might say this was evidence of Dawkins' innate belief in the afterlife, rather than a clever literary device.

Dosen't that rile you? It denegrates the honesty we bring, as atheists, to our dearly departed. We don't need to set ships ablaze, or bury unwilling virgins with our loved ones to express our joy and appreciation of their lives.

Because their decaying remains aren't going anywhere (at least not anywhere in a spiritual sense) and we will never see them again, dosn't mean their lives were wasted. But it makes it easier to see where the ranks of the faithful are coming from.

It is easier to believe a lie like life after death than to face the square reality ...

this massive universal millstone - grief, means, as "sellers" of reason, we have a very high mountain to climb.

38. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56392 by ricey on July 15, 2007 at 3:15 pm

OFF SUBJECT TO ABOVE DEBATE (SORRY)

Regarding Sam Harris and his possibly "Woo woo!" indulgence ...

Roach and PauJ,

Thanks for your comment and response, respectively.

I hope some folk followed the link PaulJ provided.

I just think Randi summed it up in his comment - (paraphrasing) why waste time and resources investigating nonsense? (Perhaps JR, of all people, would relate to this notion!)

OK - it is unscientific NOT to investigate say ... alien abductions.

Similarly, it is unscientific NOT to investigate the causes of, say, road traffic collisions.

But how to prioritise these two subjects in terms of usefulness? The sum of money available for investigation into unpredictable events is finite. Which of the above do we choose?

I just think it is strange and cumbersome for Sam Harris to insist that he treats every claim, patently ridiculous or otherwise, with equal respect. Life, where I live, ain't that long.

I trust eventually Sam will apply his discrimination, as we all do in our daily lives. It's not a dirty word. I'd like to see a little advance in human understanding before I pop off. For my kids' sake you understand?

Sam Harris has the intellectual and presentational skills to pull it off ...

SAM: Don't get bogged down with every little bit of "woo woo" that is cast in your direction.

39. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56242 by ricey on July 14, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Hitchens is too flowery; Dawkins is too dry ...

"And so between them they conspired to lick the platter clean"

There is room for everybody if the truth is being told, and the more divergent the authors' style, the more divergent the audience. Hurray for Dawkins and "the Hitch"; the best double-act since Peter and Paul.

I am worried about Harris. Please see recent correspondence on James Randi's excellent website (you are probably already a subscriber). Harris seems to have some rather "woo woo" ideas about spirituality.

I have Dennet's book "Breaking the Spell" which I will read in Turkey on my annual vacation in revenge for the dreaded "call to prayers"; that awful rackett that sings out, by recorded message, at sunrise from every ivory tower in every shithole in that otherwise marvellous country.

Why didn't they stick to cooking?.

Why do we (and "we" means us - you and I) allow religion to poison everything?

40. A force for good?

Comment #55095 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 2:27 am

Oh dear ... I think we have new-age religous man on our hands here.

Inane, risible, pseudo-psychological claptrap. Criticising him almost seems unfair - like shooting fish in a barrel or, much worse, laughing at the afflicted. However, I can't resist just one shot:

First we have:

God is not an "invisible being"...

God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself. God is a supreme moral ideal to be reverenced for its value not for its controlling power

41. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55086 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 1:47 am

What a true gentleman ... my faith in Americans is restored. What a pity brash, ignorant, bullying "pastors" seem to get most of the popular media attention in that great country.

I think Prof. Wilson is correct to be conciliatory towards religious moderates - so long as both parties stick to shared basic ethics and avoid metaphysical differences. The impending crisis requires cooperation between all parties and, unfortunately, most people in the world remain religious.

42. A force for evil?

Comment #55072 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 12:43 am

Ignoring the author's subtle "borrowings" from Dawkins' The God Delusion, (for the sake of a good cause); this was a well constructed knockdown of faith-based dogmatism.

Lets hope a few fundies, pumped up by an almighty faith-based rage, follow the Guardian link and join the debate on this site.

43. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54777 by ricey on July 9, 2007 at 12:35 am

If Hannity were British he would be a Sun columnist - too dum to know how dum he sounds.

44. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54529 by ricey on July 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Reference the material we are debating: activists, such as Hitchens motivate me.

The logic of Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc ...
Very true; but very dry?

Perhaps only "the Hitch" has the motivational qualities to pull this off?

Maybe you think the opposite - maybe popularists such as Hitch are what you are railing against.

I'm finding the subject over-bearing. Is Hitch the easy way out for intellectually challenged atheists, such as I?

45. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53117 by ricey on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Reassuring to note that Darwin was as disorganised as I am. There is hope for us all!

This was a well presented and critical appraisal of RD's personal hero by RD. Perhaps a biography is on the cards?

Also reassuring to note that during this series of presentations RD suffered from "middle-aged man dress code syndrome", Although a fellow sufferer, even I was taken aback by the shorts ... or rather, the legs, "like something you'd see hanging out of a nest" - as they say in this part of Ireland.

The green tropical shirt for the final "piece to camara" was the most sober in the series. In fact, I want one ...

(Sorry, I don't get much deeper than that after two 14 hr day shifts.)

46. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52410 by ricey on June 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

Reading some of the hysterical, nay, apocalyptic comments on this discussion, it is interesting to note that not all "rage-boys" are confined to the middle-east or to fundamentalist Islam.

And not all "nut bags" are religious.

47. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51740 by ricey on June 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Well said Linda,

What a scary thought that a guy who thinks that the Flintstones is a true story could join the socially dangerous crowd of religious fundamentalists that hold the top jobs in too many nations

48. In the name of the Father

Comment #51526 by ricey on June 23, 2007 at 9:17 am

Religion is rooted in our capacity to recognise and appreciate value; in our search for truth; in our recognition that some things are good in themselves

49. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50942 by ricey on June 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

The woman who "read about" the deathbed conversion of Darwin makes a salutary point; we all beleive things we read in books - text books, books by Richard Dawkins, etc ... .

The trick is to cross reference your sources; something I have been guilty of neglecting in the past.

All sources, even those that support our own opinions, need to be cross-referenced in this way to be validated.

50. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50697 by ricey on June 19, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Sam Harris showed more dignity and politeness than I would have done given the hopelessly partisan behaviour of the "moderator". This old fool always wanted to lead his own parade and, boy, did he!

Truthdig need to find a better moderator if they expect to retain credibility.

Interestingly, the old fool shot himself in the foot. His question re why, now, the koran should be undergoing such a populist resurgence in its literal interpretation was quite interesting and worthy of a reply. However, he proceeded to box Harris in, lending him the sympathy of the neutrals - Harris hardly needed to reply - and he didn't.

Harris is too easily drawn into other people's wars (literally in this case). Atheists didn't start the war in Iraq and it is peripheral to the subject being debated. Sam tried to put this point a few times but wasn't strong enough. He was too ready to respond to Hedges' rhetoric. That fight is not Sam's - or ours (I hope).

But, boy, that moderator ... "there's no fool like an old fool" as my mammy said