1451. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241882 by Wosret on September 3, 2008 at 7:19 am

I also deeply fear that this cynical, and unscrupulous move on the part of McCain will win him lots of votes. The man wants to be president so badly that he seems to be willing to do, or say just about anything.

His famed "straight talk express" has long since taken the scenic root down bullshit drive.

Obama may not be perfect, or live up to his hype, but at least he seems willing to listen to experts, isn't a crazy person, and is not likely to start or perpetuate any unnecessary wars.

You can't expect a Nietzchenian ubermeister to be on the ticket. You only have mere mortals to choose from.

1452. Gaming Evolves

Comment #241741 by Wosret on September 3, 2008 at 2:55 am

24. Comment #241591 by Rational_G

No!

25. Comment #241593 by mordacious1

As my brother told me when I sent him the trailer, "so, you're essentially Jesus of the catholic church".

If you watch the ted talk he clearly describes players as gods. This is directed evolution. Evolution without Darwinian mechanisms.

1453. Gaming Evolves

Comment #241325 by Wosret on September 2, 2008 at 5:42 am

7. Comment #241220 by shemp333

u wish u cood be leet son but teh world noes dat i pwn ur face.

1454. Gaming Evolves

Comment #241270 by Wosret on September 2, 2008 at 4:21 am

11. Comment #241260 by Godfree Gordon

I agree. It's when evolution becomes second nature to everything that involves life, that people will get used to it, to expect it, and to not even think about it. As it says in the article, to just accept it like they do gravity. It won't be an alien concept only for scientists.

I see this more and more, and I like it. Everything that has life in it, and discusses species, and origins should always include evolution.

1455. Gaming Evolves

Comment #241187 by Wosret on September 2, 2008 at 1:35 am

I think this is excellent, and I can't wait to play it. Personally, I think that anyone who criticizes this for not being accurate, or thinks it ought to be accurate or it will be confusing, doesn't play video games. I really don't think many gamers play video games thinking that what they are seeing accurately describes reality.

I wonder if you have the option of staying in the water, and evolving into an intelligent society in the water. They seemed to imply no, but I hope you can.

1456. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240744 by Wosret on September 1, 2008 at 1:57 am

182. Comment #240737 by Donald

No, it isn't fine, because it is inaccurate. Religions need not involve gods, they only need involve dogmas and tenets. You are wrongly equating theism with religion.

183. Comment #240741 by Apemanblues

It is quite an obvious joke to make. It is hardly better explained through theft, than mere coincidence.

184. Comment #240742 by John Locke

More specifically, he is parodying Bill O'Reilly.

1457. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240729 by Wosret on September 1, 2008 at 1:19 am

It isn't an atheist lobby, that's absurd. An atheist doesn't need to be anti-religious. As I mentioned, there is nothing that says an atheist can't be pro-religion, or even be religious, as atheist Jews demonstrate. A secular lobby however says that it is for non-religious goals. It is for something. Atheism is not, it is merely a single position on a single proposition.

1458. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240712 by Wosret on September 1, 2008 at 12:24 am

I agree with MPhil on his tastes. I am an anime and manga fantastic, so that is where I get my entertainment. The only western entertainment I watch is The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Family guy. I don't mind American Dad, but it is no family guy, and I stopped watching south park years ago. I like the Daily Show better than the Colbert Report, but they are both laugh out loud hilarious. Perhaps not every episode, or on everything they say, and I find the interviews to be the least funny parts, but the shows as a whole I enjoy deeply.

I find accusation of a mob mentality to be unfounded, and seemly based on your own tastes and opinions, which makes you appear rather egotistical. Comedies, and comedians are of course suppose to be funny, and are of course trying to be funny. They aren't serious and funny by accident, or coincidentally. That goes without saying.

I'll give you that people are generally more charitable with the laughs when in public, but that is out of politeness.

Being that I have exceptionally weird tastes, that are in deep minorities, I'm quite used to being told that the things I like are strange, unfunny, disturbing, terrible or not entertaining. I couldn't care less if people share my tastes or not. I will continue to do, watch, and read the things I enjoy, regardless of whether I'm the only one on the planet that does.

161. Comment #240700 by David A Robertson

I would agree with everything you say there, if it wasn't for your obvious bait and switch. It isn't an atheist lobby, Such I would completely agree is incredibly absurd. Although I've seen some people speak as if there ought to be one, it takes for granted that all atheists agree on everything, when there is no reason to assume this. All of the disagreements about everything that crops up on this site should illustrate that we don't to anyone. A secular lobby however is not an atheist lobby, although any atheist is almost certainly a secularist. Not guaranteed, some are likely unscrupulous televangelist swindlers, or those that fear that even though religion is false, it yields a required pragmatic benefit to the world, that society would implode without. Baring the crazies, and the cynical, it is safe to assume that all atheists are secularists. This would mean that a lobby would work in our benefit in that it tries to keep religion out of politics, and public life. What would secular sex education be? Well she specifically said in the interview...scientifically informed education. Non-religious. It is disingenuous of you, and intellectually-dishonest to pretend as if she didn't answer your question in the interview, when she clearly did. Though through my experience, you either have to be intellectually-dishonest, or fantastically uneducated to be a theist.

1459. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240158 by Wosret on August 31, 2008 at 1:55 am

138. Comment #240156 by Diacanu

Or...or! You could vote anyway, and you know, for the people that don't think you'll be going to hell for your re-enacting of my avatar.

1460. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240154 by Wosret on August 31, 2008 at 1:47 am

I think that, at least for this election, it is of paramount importance that all secularist americans (I'm not american, so I don't get a vote) vote democrat. You cannot afford to risk having the supreme court judge that is in his later eighties die or retire with a republican president in power, and have and have another right wing conservative christian in the supreme court. Giving them a 5/4 majority. If this happens then it is going to be damn hard, if not impossible to continue to keep religion out of schools, and secular life.

I would think that if one is irreligious, than keeping church and state separate is of paramount importance, and I really don't think that it is arguable who is more likely to do that.

1461. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240147 by Wosret on August 31, 2008 at 1:32 am

101. Comment #240072 by Broshiesq

Actually my post said nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you could get that idea. McCain picked her a VP to try to tap into some of those eighteen million votes that Clinton had, under the hopes that they were just voting for her because of her gender. This is a an insult to those voters intellects, and the female gender. It is not at all expecting women to change their vote from McCain to Obama for this reason (I'm still stunned you could assume this) but for those eighteen million voters that were voting democrat, to change to conservative solely because of a female VP. This is what McCain expects some of those voters to do, and Sarah Palin specifically said as much in her acceptance speech.

...I mean...quite obviously? How else would it help him if he didn't expect to get people that weren't already voting for him?

1462. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240067 by Wosret on August 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm

I was surprised by this. I knew McCain really, REALLY wants to be president, but I didn't think he would sink so low. I'm sure his only regret is that he had no black women to choose from.

I really and truly hope that women voters of the states see this as the slap in the face to their intelligence, and to their gender that it is.

1463. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239600 by Wosret on August 30, 2008 at 2:03 am

I avoid Tera like the plague. Not only because he's weird, and insane, but almost entirely because I don't want to spend four hours reading each of his posts.

For a guy that acts like he is so considerate to people, and the world, you would think he would try to be a hell of a lot more concise. Doesn't he realize how much time he wastes, both typing those exhaustively long winded posts, and the potential time of anyone crazy enough to actually read them?

I don't know about him, but I gots shit to do. If he has a point to make, he should be able to do it in less than ten thousand words. Or at least throw an interesting plot in them. "Oh, the neighbor was the murdered".

1464. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238439 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 6:57 am

58. Comment #238434 by ColdFusionLazarus

Nah, I'm ghetto as fuck. My mother is a stay at home mom with a sixth grade education, and my father was a truck driver with an eighth grade education. He got his high school equivalency after I did. I was the first person in my immediate family to get through high school. I have six siblings too, though I'm the third oldest. I quite school at sixteen, and went for an "adult high school diploma" (which is an equivalency which is better than a GED) when I was nineteen. I went with my father, who decided to do the same, though it took him two years to get his, while it took me one year to get mine. He became a nurse, and has been one now for a couple months.

My younger brother graduated high-school the proper way, and is working on his bachelor of arts. So my position as the most educated was short lived.

Most of what I know, and my education has been quite informal. It is all thanks to this miraculous thing we call the internet, which is just brimming with brilliant, and educated minds, for laymen like me to scurry about, and feast on the crumbs that fall from their high tables.

1465. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238431 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 6:37 am

55. Comment #238424 by ColdFusionLazarus

Not rude to ask. I was called "Mitchell Gilks" my entire life, but my parents are highly under-educated, and my father is heavily dyslexic. Both my parents blame the other (they separated when I was twelve) but when I got hold of my birth certificate it said "Michael Alan Gilks". All of my other identification said "Mitchell", as that is what I've always gone by, but when I went to get a provincial ID made (so I needed one before the government would give me a student loan), they refused to put "Mitchell" as my name, so I had to get it legally changed, which cost me $200. They left out my middle name the first time, and I had to fight with them to add it without having to pay for it again.

I've always been "Mitchell Gilks" but it just wasn't technically my name until I was twenty.

1466. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238404 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 5:36 am

47. Comment #238400 by ColdFusionLazarus

You don't have to agree with someone on every single point to admire them. I admire plenty of people that I either don't know what they believe when it comes to religion, or that are religious.

They will lose some of my respect if they start spouting anti-scientific rhetoric, or something of that nature, but when what they believe about reality is not relevant to why I respect them, then I don't even consider it.

Almost all of the people I do admire, I am ignorant of their views on religion. It isn't hugely important to me.

1467. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238392 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 4:27 am

44. Comment #238385 by Peacebeuponme

I did.

1468. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238376 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 4:02 am

36. Comment #238372 by Raiko

I didn't bother to mention it to you because it doesn't really matter. I've used dozens of pictures and animations on here, I change my avatar frequently, so it only stands to reason that someone will use something similar to me, or I'll use something similar to someone else eventually.

Though even if that were not true, it isn't as if I own the rights to the picture, or have created it. I am in fact very happy to see any one appreciating yuri, which is my favorite thing in the world.

Of course the crack at homophobes is also quite pleasant.

Also, one good way to tell me and you apart, is that we definitely articulate ourselves quite differently, but most prominently (I hope I'm remembering correctly) you're German, and I'm sadly unilingual.

1469. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238371 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 3:49 am

I personally think that this that this letter delivers a powerful left and right blow to the whole idea of NOMA. I completely concur that the idea is nonsense until religion retracts all of its claims about how reality operates, and the origins of reality. These are inherently scientific questions, and religion is very much infringing on science's domain when it makes its bald assertions.

When religion can resign itself to ritualistic, historical, and cultural gatherings and celebrations, then and only then will NOMA be viable. I suppose they can even have myth making as long as they are accompanied with a disclaimer that explicitly states that their stories are just that, stories, not to be taken as any more reflecting the workings of reality than "Star Wars".

(*Edit*) Changed "article" to "letter".

1470. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238365 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 3:32 am

11. Comment #238307 by Diacanu

No, I used to be, Mitchell Gilks, I'm currently, Mitchell Gilks, and if all goes well, in the future I will continue to be, Mitchell Gilks. (Though technically I've actually only been "Mitchell Gilks" for about four years. I changed my name when I was twenty.) I did use that same picture as an avatar, minus the animation, at one point though. It was ages ago however, and I believe it was before Raiko was even a member. Personally I think she is crazy to cut out the rest of the picture. It is a beautiful picture. Natsuki and Shizuru, one of my favorite couples.

23. Comment #238349 by Peacebeuponme

Lol...dude, you can't answer a multiple choice question with "yes"...

1471. B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

Comment #238302 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 12:39 am

Inflamed testicles ftw!

1472. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238175 by Wosret on August 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm

This is all vacuous rhetoric, posturing, and arm-failing. There is absolutely no substance.

We get articles like this all the time, but where are all the atheistic articles entitled "why theists are all idiots" or "how come theists are such morons?" It seems to me that it is 100% of the time theists that write long exhaustive ad hominem attacks.

You'd think he all those atheistic arguments were so weak, his rebuttal would consist of more than ad hominem and assertions. You would think it would be trivial for him to refute them.

1473. Monkeys Enjoy Giving To Others, Study Finds

Comment #237937 by Wosret on August 27, 2008 at 12:42 pm

30. Comment #237843 by Sciros

You do realize that they are not giving a monkey a grape, and then trying to give them a cucumber for the same task later, right? The monkey they expect the reaction from has gotten cucumber consistently. The subject only ever observes other monkeys getting grapes for the same task the subject has been receiving cucumber for, or even no task at all. This is when the subject begins to protest, and presumably the subject has had drapes in the past, in order to know that it likes grapes more.

If it were merely protesting because it liked grapes more, then it should have protested from the get go, why only begin to protest when it sees others getting grapes? While before this point it was completely content with cucumbers?

1474. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237489 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm

54. Comment #237460 by 8teist

Be happy, all he did was demonstrate his knowledge of slurs towards gay men.

1475. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237419 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm

8. Comment #237196 by Cartomancer

While I agree with all of your sentiments, I didn't know that "we know that sexual orientation has biological origins". I haven't heard this, I've only heard it speculated or argued for. Could you direct me to some material that demonstrates this?

1476. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237396 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm

519. Comment #237332 by Quine

Simply put, then I contend that Jesus never existed. Any historical figure that he may be based on does not change this.

Also, the whole thing about the time period is irrelevant. It may be an explanation for why there is no historical evidence for Jesus, but it isn't an excuse. Also, John the baptist was contemporaneous with Jesus, and he warranted recognition and discussion by historians of the day. As did several other characters in Palestine at the time. Jesus would have had to have been far less influential than any of them, in order to be so thoroughly ignored.

1477. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237272 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 9:32 am

514. Comment #237258 by isthatclear

Why do you beat your wife and molest your children?

1478. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237068 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 9:22 pm

511. Comment #237059 by secondsoprano

Prove it!

1479. Michael Coren: Stéphane Dion finds God

Comment #237044 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Dion is my man. Can't say that I like him. I find him too timid, and his inability to properly articulate himself in English leaves him saying things that are used as sound bites to make him look bad later. Beyond that he is definitely the best available guy we have, and I'm more interested in the party's political stances and goals than anything else. He's got my vote, though I doubt he'll beat Harper, in fact, I'm quite sure he won't.

1480. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #237042 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Baka! Hontou ni baka, zenzen.

1481. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236799 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

499. Comment #236777 by Quine

I think you didn't quite catch my point. Joseph Smith, and Muhammad and such are historical figures, that we have records of, that are not limited to pure myth. Being loosely based on a real person, and being a real person are not the same thing. Do you not agree?

Do you not agree that any mythical figure or god is also probably loosely based on someone? Or even more than one person. Do you not agree that this hardly makes those mythical figures real?

Jesus is not like Joseph Smith, of whom we have records of that are not limited to exaggerated myths.

If the character that Jesus is based on was not from the same place as Jesus, did not share the same parents, or relations, did not say the same things, and did not live the same life, then in what sense are they the same person?

Ah, he also definitely wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. So there would be no physical resemblance either.

1482. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236748 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 9:14 am

487. Comment #236629 by Quine

In what sense would such a person really be Jesus? Even if loosely based on someone, it was written between 40-70 years after the fact, by anonymous individuals who never knew him personally. Any fictional character is likely loosely based on someone, including novel characters and so forth. I don't find it at all improbable that Zues is based on someone too. Though could you then say that Zues existed?

I think that it is trivial to say that a man born in Nazareth to a virgin, that did the things described in the new testament, said the things quoted, and met the end described did not exist. This character being loosely based on some charismatic rabbi is irrelevant. Surely that guys life parallels with the biblical Jesus' on only the most trivial of details.

A Yeshua Ben Yosef probably did exist, but I think that it is inaccurate and misleading to then say that therefore Jesus of Nazareth (as prior mentioned, there is no record of a Nazareth until the third centery, when people gave up looking for the place, and renamed a pre-existing village that was rumored to be the place, archeology has found no evidence that the place existed before the second centery. The name "Nazareth" is probably a mistranslation of the political and social reform group that were called by their opposition "the Nazarene" meaning "branch". It is clear from other examples that the gospel writers had a limited knowledge of Palestinian geography) did.

1483. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236565 by Wosret on August 24, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Father Rungi, a moral theologian with his own blog,

1484. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235845 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 7:47 pm

369. Comment #235824 by cerebate

And since i only said that leave it at People believe X , there is no fallacious reasoning, simply a statement which is true. I did explicitly say that you need not make any comment on whether it is true or you could add that you dont believe it is the case.

what is the science teacher's job, Isn't it ensuring that the students understand science and embrace it?

1485. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235789 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

357. Comment #235771 by cerebate

Some people believe just about anything. I fail to see the relevance. "People belief X, therefore it's coherent, true, or makes sense" is just fallacious reasoning.

Telling kids that is promoting invalid reasoning. Science teachers are not theology teachers. It isn't up to them to try to square theological circles.

Encouraging kids to makes appeals to authority, tradition, the people, or anything remotely like that for damn sure is not a science teacher's job.

1486. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235597 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 8:53 am

335. Comment #235589 by njwong

Seems to me that you're the one that is trying to infringe on freedom of speech. Who has said that he isn't allowed to speak? Or say what he wants?

You appear to be saying that no one should be saying anything against him, or disagreeing? OR saying whatever the hell they want to?

I fail to see what you mean by "freedom of speech". Everyone else shut up and let him talk?

1487. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235593 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 8:50 am

330. Comment #235570 by njwong

I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect RD to enter a classroom full of creationists, and have them all accepting evolution when he leaves. Especially to say that he's a bad teacher if he can't. What does that make their regular teachers?

RD may be an excellent educator, but he isn't a Jedi.

1488. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235584 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 8:46 am

332. Comment #235572 by decius

I didn't get the impression of sock-puppetry, though it was quite clear from the beginning that he is just one of Meadon's friends. He shows up having no prior account here, and having past experience with Meadon, and his blog. Clearly his appearance is for the sole purpose of supporting his friend, offering for evidence of how great a guy Meadon is with his word alone. I rolled by eyes and moved on when he started accusing people of being biased.

I really don't think that Meadon's character has been on trial here, so I don't require his buddies to come in as character witnesses.

1489. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235571 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

329. Comment #235557 by asyouwere

Thanks, that was quite informative. The majority of them are quite moderate. Even 17% being agnostic or atheist. 85% of them don't even believe their religion to be the only one that's true...two bad that feeling isn't mutual with most other religions eh? World might be a happier place to live.

1490. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235543 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 7:51 am

325. Comment #235537 by asyouwere

Yeah but Hindus are more cultural, and don't believe that those gods and magic stuff is literally true, generally. Don't they? At least the educated ones, right? From what I've seen of them that seems to be the case.

1491. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235512 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 6:58 am

301. Comment #235501 by Brian English

No, I agree, Darwinian mechanisms and theism is not compatible. Evolution and theism is, you just must reject Darwinian mechanisms.

1492. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235500 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 6:34 am

295. Comment #235495 by Steve Zara

I know, it's a sad and laughable hypocrisy. Because if one's views of religion involve a literalist interpretation such as that, then Meadon is really just saying "abandon your religious views and adopt mine" and then scathing RD for not promoting views of religion that he agrees with.

Pointing out that the Pope accepts evolution (although an appeal to authority and irrelevant in the first place) says nothing to non-catholics. Saying "hey these religious people believe in God and evolution" says nothing to people that don't subscribe to such views.

If the children maintain that view then it would be pointless, Steve, but I think that pointing out flaws in their reasoning, and promoting critical thinking, and reason will go along way to softening, if not changing such views. Which is what RD did.

1493. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235478 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 5:58 am

278. Comment #235474 by Meadon

My criticism is hard fought, and probably impossible to get you to concede, so I'll adopt Steve's far more contextual criticism, and ask you to address his.

Any compatibly you think exists between Darwinism, and religion (and I'll leash my disagreement with this view for the sake of context and precision) you must agree that science and religion are different things, and it is not up to Dawkins to support or promote a theological position on a scientific theory in a science class room? He is a scientist, not a theologian.

1494. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235470 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 5:33 am

269. Comment #235465 by Meadon

Both lines of reasoning were heavily criticized, and I don't see you addressing those criticisms.

1495. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235466 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

265. Comment #235454 by Meadon

I'm still not clear. Are you merely saying "sorry you didn't like my comments" or "sorry for making unfair, inaccurate, unsupported, and slanderous accusations about your person"?

Because all I see is the former. Saying "sorry I offended you" seems disingenuous, and is not at all the same as apologizing for the wrongness of what you said.

I also think that it is unfair to say that we are all assuming malice here, if that were the case then attempting to show you you're wrong, and argue for why this is would be a fools errand. You'd already know, and would be doing it out of malice.

Don't worry, Meadon, I'm confident that the vast majority of us are attributing your mistakes to stupidity and not malice.

1496. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235441 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 4:15 am

259. Comment #235439 by Dr Doctor

Well s/he never admitted fault in the first place. S/he made bald slanderous unsupported accusations, and then when challenged, gave her/his word that s/he was certain, and when pushed quoted some of the transcript and quibbled over what "it" meant, despite it being irrelevant if it did mean what s/he thought it did.

That is not an apology. An apology admits fault, and refrains from doing the thing you have apologized for in the future. S/he did neither.

1497. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235433 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 3:57 am

250. Comment #235429 by Sargeist

I'd say it's the difference between understanding that it's right, and understanding why it's right. Which I think are different things.

1498. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235424 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 3:08 am

225. Comment #235386 by cerebate

Yes, it very much is unscrupulous knowing that that is not valid reasoning. You are asking teaches to promote appeals to logical fallacies. Again it seems that critical thinking is what theists really fear.

It is cowardly and mendacious, and it is just giving them fish, it isn't teaching them to fish for themselves (got fish on the brain now).

I have a weird fantasy that education teaches kids how to think for themselves, and not just a list of facts to regurgitate on command. A teacher promoting invalid forms of reasoning, and knowingly doing this, is exactly what is criminally bad pedagogy. Not what RD was doing...heaven forbid (it seems theists damn well think it should) promoting proper forms of reasoning, and thinking for one's self.

1499. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235421 by Wosret on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 am

230. Comment #235395 by Shuggy

You need a far better grasp of evolution...I am baffled that you could accept it when you think it states that specific animals sprout ad hoc limbs...

Flying fish have adapted already existing appendages over thousands of generations to preform an additional function. Their fins that have been reshaped by natural selection were already in existence. Anything that is shaped by natural selection necessarily must already be in existence in order to be shaped.

1500. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235358 by Wosret on August 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm

203. Comment #235354 by Don_Quix

It definitely sounds like it, doesn't it? RD is accused of "promoting atheism" because he points out that some reasoning is flawed. It really does seem like they themselves are equating critical analysis with atheism.

I'm flattered.