1. Creationism call divides Royal Society

Comment #247044 by equivocal20 on September 13, 2008 at 9:34 pm

It's good to see the Nobel laureates are taking a stand against this. I just wish they would have listened to Sir Harry Kroto a year ago. Good quote by Dawkins.

2. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #237977 by equivocal20 on August 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm

"When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?"

And what caused the supernatural being that caused that supernatural being? Does he not get this argument? How does anyone ever and anywhere not get this argument? Why are people so damn dumb? That is the real question.

3. Life Is Short...

Comment #234154 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Okay, I think that this worked.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=54732

If not, it is titled "Is being a vegetarian the morally correct position?"

Thanks to all that reply.

4. Life Is Short...

Comment #234146 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Yep, doing it right now. I'll post it in the forums and then I'll post the link (or tell you where to search). This is my first time posting, so give me a second to figure out what exactly needs to be done.

5. Life Is Short...

Comment #234142 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Ah, I've never been there (I'm still pretty new to this site). I'll go ahead and do that.

6. Life Is Short...

Comment #234138 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I didn't know where else to post this. I'll start it somewhere else if you have a suggestion.

7. Life Is Short...

Comment #234137 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Brain, that was a really good find. Thanks a lot for posting that. I REALLY LIKE EATING COW! However, I really like having a guilt free conscience. I hate trade-offs...

8. Life Is Short...

Comment #234132 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 10:55 pm

14, I was trying?

I suppose not...??? Sorry to respond, I guess.

Thanks for responding, Brian. I have not read Professor Singer's work. I'll look into that.

Gordon, that was a very thoughtful, cogent response. You brought up the one part of this debate that is so damn difficult. Since nature is just one big gradient, where do you draw the line?

Dawkins seems to argue (the article I'm talking about is called "Gaps in the Mind" from The Devil's Chaplain) that you don't have to draw a line. However, I think it is unavoidable here. Either you eat meat, or you don't. The line is already drawn for you, you just choose a side.

In regards to the vegetable question, I think the fact that vegetables do not have a nervous system is the main difference. Obviously, you'll go insane (and starve to death) if you say you shouldn't eat your distant cousin the tomato, but the tomato does not really suffer. The cow, on the other hand, suffers tremendously. Thus, if a side must be taken, I want to take the most ethical and moral side. It seems to me that this would be on the side with the least amount of suffering. That leads me to the vegetarian/vegan side. Why cause suffering if it is not necessary?

If you see this, would you be kind enough to weigh in on this Professor Dawkins? After all, it is your work that put me in this predicament.

9. Life Is Short...

Comment #234118 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 10:34 pm

No offense kkelly, but I don't think you really get the pith of my question. It is not a question of what I'd rather do. Obviously, since I was brought up in today's culture, I would rather eat the cow. There may be an evolutionary reason for this (I probably share more genes with Terri Schiavo than with the cow or any other creature), but does that still mean that it is fine to eat the cow?

To put it another way, if given the choice to eat you or my brother, I would eat you. However, does that make it morally correct? Of course not. Therefore, your question is not an answer to my question. Although, it was a pretty good try.

10. Life Is Short...

Comment #234109 by equivocal20 on August 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I have a very off topic question for all of you, but I'm really curious. I'm studying evolutionary biology and I recently read Dawkin's book The Devil's Chaplain. In it is an essay about the rights of animals (mainly the greater apes), and I can't help but wonder what Dawkin's (and all of those who deeply understand evolution) opinions are on being a vegetarian. It seems to me that if we are all cousins, and if we all have the option not to eat each other, then isn't it morally correct to decide NOT to eat your distant (albeit very distant cousin) if you have the choice?

For example, many people are appalled at the idea of humans killing other humans (thankfully), but shouldn't we be just as appalled at humans killing our other cousins (cows or insert animal here _____)?

I am currently not a vegan or vegetarian, but I have thought about it for a while since it seems to be the only morally correct thing to be with the knowledge I have of evolution.

My question is this: Are you a vegetarian/vegan, and do you believe that it is morally wrong to be anything other than vegetarian/vegan?

Also, is Dawkins a vegan/vegetarian?

P.S. Before you answer, think about whether your answer would also be correct if you inserted "humans" where you type "animals". We are all cousins, so the distinction between which type (species) of cousin should not matter.

11. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #233333 by equivocal20 on August 19, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Thanks a lot J Mac. I think I got it... I guess we'll see.

12. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232938 by equivocal20 on August 19, 2008 at 12:35 am

Hey, sorry about this extremely off-topic post in advance. I'm new to this site, and I cannot figure out how to do my avatar/picture thing. Can anyone tell me where to click? Do you need a certain status or something? Thanks (also in advance).

13. Breeding for God

Comment #221795 by equivocal20 on July 30, 2008 at 6:23 am

"Easy to make a flip comment - how about some suggestions instead?"

First of all, why so hostile? It's easy to be flippantly rude when you write something on a forum. Please, calm down, sir.

I did not make any suggestions, because I have no idea what you guys can do there. Islam is a force that seems inextinguishable. They breed unbelievably fast, they have few apostates, and they don't even seem to dilute their beliefs when they move to more liberal societies. It's like the perfect storm. The perfect religious meme.

Fast forward 150 years from now, and how do you see the UK? Do you see it as even more progressive as it is now, or will it go back to 18th century ideas? I fear that the latter may be the result if Islam's rise continues. How could it turn out any other way?

14. Breeding for God

Comment #221376 by equivocal20 on July 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm

You people in the UK need to do something about this rise of Islam... and fast.

15. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219555 by equivocal20 on July 27, 2008 at 5:42 am

Does anyone else think that maybe we should just stop talking to Village Idiot? Let him post whatever he wants and say whatever he wants. Let's just not give him the time of day. The best way to deal with a spoiled child is to not give him what s/he wants most- attention.

We should simply hold Dawkin's stance on creationists here with this guy. We won't debate them since we don't want to give them the light of day.

For now on, let's just make fun of the Pope or something and all agree that Village Idiot is aptly named and move on.

16. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219088 by equivocal20 on July 26, 2008 at 8:49 am

Dr. Doctor,

Why do you have to leave such a good post after me? Now mine just pales in comparison...

Well put, Doc.

17. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219071 by equivocal20 on July 26, 2008 at 8:27 am

I don't think anyone here is avoiding "the realities of the world." I just think that given the choice between seeing dead babies with charred skin and not seeing dead babies with charred skin... most of us would choose not to see it. However, I'll assure you that pretty much all of us know what is going on (we've probably all seen The Deer Hunter or some other war movie at the very least).

The main point here is this: if you want to post pictures of dead babies, then at least let us know they are pictures of dead babies. Why is that so much to ask?

18. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219010 by equivocal20 on July 26, 2008 at 3:46 am

Look, we are all reasonable people here. Village Idiot, just be kind enough to warn everyone next time there is something graphic on a website you want us to see. There is no way that is too much to ask.

19. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #210718 by equivocal20 on July 15, 2008 at 2:38 am

Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts.

I'm not so sure that Professor Dawkins would agree with this... I'd like to know, though.

20. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #197843 by equivocal20 on June 22, 2008 at 6:46 pm

TeraBrat,

Here is the Wikipedia link. Go to the problems and controversy section.

Keep in mind that occasionally, people will use theory in place of hypothesis. This is incorrect, but quite common. This occurs for the same reason as people will say they weigh so many pounds, but they should instead be measured in newtons. (Pounds is a measure of mass and the newton is a measure of force). The same principle applies here to the string hypothesis.