1651. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12771 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:29 pm

"He is the un-Whitehead,..."
________

Such an odd literary style. Is Golda Meir the un-Marilyn Monroe? Is Bush the un-Einstein? However, one could say that bloomers are un-Derpants.

1652. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12740 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Steven Mading, I agree wholeheartedly.

1653. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12738 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm

NoLongerHaveBelief, yes, each country has wonderful and not so wonderful people, and America is no exception. I have not been back to my homeland in about 16 years--one of the reasons is because it is so possible to discuss interesting topics with so many people of different nationalities via the web, including Americans, and that exposure is enough for me to keep connected to my birthplace.

However, in the last 5 years, the erosion of constitutional integrity and human rights (American has violated human rights on the world scale, and also in its own country in the past), but now, as a loved one said recently, he feels about America now like he felt about Russia ten years ago--that he has no confidence as a non-American that he would not be picked up, put away, and never be seen again. So, he has decided not to physically plant his feet on American soil at present, and does all his work via the Web if he does need to work with Americans, or suggests that they come to Europe to meet him.

1654. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12735 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Perhaps the producer, BBC, will send you a transcipt if you request one, and you also can do a search on the net, adding the word transcript to crawley, etc.

1655. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12734 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Frans, there are as many ways to grieve as there are atheists. Thanks for sharing yours.

Anyone can still converse with godismybody via the troll comment discussion, it is not closed to non-trolls. So it has not been removed entirely, more like segregated so his inconsiderate postings does not clog up the very sincere discussion going on among other posters, and cause well meaning posters to stop reading or posting because of the annoyance one can feel at such trollish behavior. As I said, godismy hobby responded to your last response to him and you can read it and reply if so desired via that troll discussion thread--just click it on.

1656. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12658 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:08 am

Another page from the site I linked in my No. 16 comment: http://objectiveministries.org/members/#AMILLER

I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING, PLEASE SOMEBODY HELP ME!

1657. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12656 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:40 am

A poster from another thread listed this link:

http://objectiveministries.org/pastorscorner/

He had said that for months he thought the site was serious, and I can see for myself why that would have been. It is really a damning satire of supporters of religious superstitions, in all their gullible displendour.

Humans all have some degree of gullibility but suggesting that atheists--the free thinkers, the skeptics--are more so than those batty, religious delusionists is humor in itself!

1658. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12651 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:20 am

Frans, I submitted Godismyhobby's posts for removal to the troll comment thread (you can click on the view troll comment discussion just above the top of each comment page for this thread--go take a look, it is pretty gratifying!) to which site management agreed. Also Godismyhobby replied to your post on that thread. You can continue to discuss whatever with him via that troll thread.

Note the troll, spam, and offensive flags that are at the bottom of each comment now. I encourage all of us to be troll vigilant and use the flags as required. And if anybody needs a lesson in what constitutes trolling check out the troll comment discussion for this thread.

1659. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12632 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:31 am

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to block the financing. The school promised to use government money only for secular expenses, and federal financing resumed last May..."
________

Oh well, I for one can sleep comfortably at night, because I know addicts, whether their drug is religion or alcohol or compulsive sexual behavior, can be trusted when they make promises.

1660. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12627 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:15 am

In France, where I live, Scientology is labeled as a dangerous cult and is treated as such. Would the European Court of Human Rights have the power to overwhelm France's decision to deny Scientology being regarded as a bona fide church hence a charity?

I do not understand why any church, both the traditional ones like the Catholic church or the more recent ones, can escape paying taxes that other business have to or why they are referred to as charities.

They sell products and services, especially in scientology's case, and in the case of the more traditional churches, donations are squeezed out of the pockets of many who can not afford to but do anyway because of feeling that it is their religious duty to so--a definite religious abuse. Their profits are used to swell their coffers. Corporate businesses also donate to charity and use their time and energy to do community good, but their profits are taxed while their charitable contributions are not, or to a lesser degree.

As RD as pointed out in TGD, the double standards that churches and religion enjoy are unfair and needs to be addressed and changed.

1661. Julia Sweeney on The Late Show with Craig Ferguson

Comment #12624 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 am

I knew about Sweeney from her mention in TGD and from her blog but this is the first time that I have seen Sweeney talking.

As a poster has said on another thread here, that he is 'jealous' of the calmness in which RD addresses inanity, I am just as 'jealous' of Sweeney's firm but infectiously friendly stance on her 'dreaded' condition of atheism. I certainly need to buff up both my calmness and friendliness!

1662. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12622 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:33 am

A 'moral slave' that I know lives by this creed: I only want what I can have. Huh?

How do you know what you want without trying a lot of things? How do know that in your quest of fulfilling yourself, that you will not find surprises, that you will not learn valuable skills, knowledge, etc. in your search, though it was not these surprises in themselves which you were looking for? And some of these skills and knowledge will include learning how to have proportion and balance in your life. The search for fulfillment does not mean that the searcher is greedy and insatiable, it simply means that the searcher is willing to work and RISK the rocking of his little, stationary boat set in a stagnate pond.

And what is with this 'I can have.' Sounds more like what I can have that others have decided I can have.

1663. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12617 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:16 am

Sancus, thank you for your brilliantly insightful analysis.

As a poster on another thread said, sometimes he just wants to sit back and have a good old read because of the quality of the comments on this site.

To the hard-working posters who contribute their time and energy to this site by generating high-quality content in the form of comments, I thank you all.

And now, we have a means to rid insightful threads of trollish behavior. I hope this will encourage others to read and comment.

1664. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12616 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 12:54 am

Yorker, My comment concerning that we should not be allowed to die in pain, that includes that someone needs to be with us while we are dying. Cancer specialists, and the like, despicably desert their patient for the most part when death is near.

I remember when my 46-yr-old sister was on her breast-cancer hospice death bed, the 'death specialist' at the hospice, checked in and out during her dying, and then finally said, I can see that she will not die alone, as you are always here, if there is anything I can do for you I'll be in my office. And I did take her up on it, and she assisted me psychologically how to assist my sister to let go of her life during her last 48 hours.

In response to the question concerning what will replace religion in its role as a consolation in the face of the death of a loved one, especially children, someone answered simply, grieving.

When I was quite young, my 21 yr-old sister and my mother both died within 13 months of each other. Honestly, the most pain was caused by others that refused me the right to grieve properly, who wanted me to go along with their hypocritical nonsense, their 3 day wakes, their funeral breakfast, etc. In sharp contrast, my other sister's death was significantly less of a painful experience for me, because I knew that my sister was not feeling any pain (as I was running out to get a nurse to give her pain medication every hour, and then every half a hour when the end was very near), and that I was getting psychological support from the death specialist. Also, that sister was cremated per her request so no silly 3 day long wake to endure so people who never cared about her would have the time to make the socially accepted journey to her wake.

As I have said, I think that it is very positive for atheists to discuss these aspects, and though this thread may not be the most appropriate spot to discuss these aspects, I am glad that you did.

1665. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12602 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm

...Cliff Richard believes in God, and has had more than a dozen No. 1 hits in a pop career that has lasted nearly half a century.
_______

Hmmm, god botherers believe in Mephistopheles also--did Richard make a Faustian pact?

Very funny satire!

1666. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12598 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:35 pm

He is the un-Whitehead, a man who will never (barring divine intervention) appreciate this sublime comment by my philosophical mentor: "In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."
______

Dastardly Dawkins, abominably 'un-Whitehead', keeps on insisting being himself--a man who uses all of his being, his energy, his time so we do not have to grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions. Wait a minute, does that mean Dawkins is more Whiteheadish then Whitehead himself?

1667. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12596 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:15 pm

...including numerous quotes from that popular author, atheist, and graduate student, Sam Harris.
_____

A graduate student of what discipline and from what university and at what level?

Per Harris' bio at his site: He is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. Mr. Harris is now completing a doctorate in neuroscience.

1668. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12593 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:07 pm

(The depth of Dawkins' political thought is shown by his failure to ponder for one second the implications of a government that can tell parents what beliefs they can and cannot transmit to their offspring.)
______

Again, science and critical thinking are not beliefs, based on faith. One of Dawkin's commandments is to encourage your child to disagree with you.

I once said this to an elderly lady with 4 grown children, and she said, well, in that case I would not have had any children.

Children are not parental property, they are full fledged human beings, and their marvelous mental capacities need to be encouraged and nourished by their caretakers, and not stifled.

1669. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12592 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:00 pm

how religious beliefs are given undue social deference, why Einstein's references to God aren't religious, why eastern religions aren't religions, why religion developed (socio-biologically), how the Bible is a jumble of historical trash, how religion promotes intolerance and undermines science, how Hitler may have been Catholic, why Stalin's atheism doesn't matter, why society doesn't need religion to be moral, why Jefferson was probably an atheist (the non-mentioned God-statements on the Jefferson Memorial to the contrary notwithstanding), why studying religion to understand literary references is okay, and why parents indoctrinating their children with religious beliefs are guilty of child abuse.
_______

Such fluff Dawkins concerns himself with--did he actually fill up an entire book with these unimportant points?

1670. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12591 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:55 pm

To simplify, both the Reformation and modern science arose out of a "movement of thought" that, in the case of science, rebelled against final causes. Yet, ironically, the confidence that modern science displays in its intellectual project rests upon an unconscious faith in the universe's detailed rationality that was derived from medieval theology.

Don't look for anything like this kind of subtle analysis in The God Delusion.
______

Wonder if Kirk could also appreciate the 'subtle' irony of evolution giving us brains so we can imagine and increase our understanding of the natural world, and then we just go along and diss the importance of evolution anyway?

_______

1671. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12589 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:48 pm

I do not think...that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope.... My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivation from medieval theology.
________

Since Kirk has been so intellectually dishonest concerning the focus of TGD, and since I have not read any original writings of Alfred North Whitehead, I cannot know at this point if Kirk has taken his words out of context also.

But as the quote in itself reads, this what I can make out: human curiousity--that evolution has shaped so we can survive by asking questions and solving problems--is not the reason why science has advanced. It has advanced because of 'faith' in the possibility of science which has been given to us 'unconsciously' from medieval theology. If it is unconscious then how can Whitehead know about it?

1672. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12583 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:23 pm

15. Comment #12579 by prelevent on December 12, 2006 at 3:56 pm

Just a little clear up. When I say, "I see relatively little substantial difference between the two quotes" I mean to say that they are several hundred years removed from each other, but that the central "awe" is found in both. One comes with several hundred years of refinement though... and this means that the other lacks the new framework with which to approach that awe.
_________

Unlike Pascal, Kirk in living at present, so what is his excuse to choose to blind himself to a few centuries of scientific achievment that has occurred since Pascal died?

1673. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12580 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:57 pm

In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought.
________

Though I agree with prevlevent's post, about how this pascal quote actually does show an affinity with Dawkin's and Sagan's awe of the beauty and immenseness of the natural world, Kirk is using that viewpoint in his unrigorous way to say that one cannot question this sublimeness, and certainly not in a tendentious manner, by pointing out evidence supporting the improbability of a God just because of this immenseness that we must all just worship.

1674. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12576 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:47 pm

As trite and useless as this kind of writing is, I do think it is important to include this type here. In researching Jung on the net, I came across a reference to this article on a blog called repaired reason--just check out that blog to see how much bile against Dawkins is being released because of this spineless mush.

1675. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12571 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:39 pm

I, too, my dear Kirk, am bemused why Dawkins did not fill every page in his TGD with more writings by Pascal. Does Dawkins think that he can write what he decides to in his own words in his own book? What a charlatan Dawkins is! Why does he not become besotted with Pascal and write much more about him? I mean after all, one can never get enough of Pascal, since his original writings were so meagre.

(yes, I am being sarcastic, of course)

1676. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12569 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:34 pm

In Pascal's words, "The whole visible world is only an imperceptible atom in the ample bosom of nature. No idea approaches it. We may enlarge our conceptions beyond all imaginable space; we only produce atoms in comparison with the reality of things. It is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere. In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought."
______

Oh right Kirk, that is so much stronger than Pascal's wager.

1677. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12566 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:28 pm

"Dawkins' treatment of that mathematical genius and 17th century philosopher, Blaise Pascal, is typical of his general approach. Dawkins seizes on Pascal's weakest argument, the wager, and ridicules its obvious flaws."
_____

Despite that arguement of Pascal's being weak, it is still commonly presented as a reason that one may just as well believe as not to (speaking of lack of rigor). Is it Dawkin's fault that such weak arguements are embraced and used with sickening repetition? Should he then not focus on dismantling the weakness of that wager just because it is weak?

1678. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12556 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:00 pm

"This lameness, I should add, comports nicely with the pleasure-based ethical system to which Dawkins appeals with no particular rigor."
________

Dawkins respects other individuals to decide what gives them pleasure, he does not tell others what is ethical or not regarding that subject other than listing his four commandments (p 264):

1) Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

2) Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

3) Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

4) Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

Though Dawkins has thoughtfully compiled a useful guideline to which we can all refer, the 'rigor' in which we apply these principles are our own business and our own choice.

1679. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12548 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Re: comment 12266 by seals

"but would it necessarily follow that, having lived a full lifespan, we should still see death as being "not right"
_________

I had read awhile back that grandparents significantly increase the chances that their grandchildren will not only survive but thrive if they are alive and can contribute to their grandchildren's upbringing and care.

1680. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12496 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:40 am

Also, thanks, Josh, for the editing/delete feature for our posts after we publish them that was started awhile back.

1681. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12495 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:38 am

BTW, Yorker, have you notice the clever addition of the troll,spam, and offensive flags at the bottom of our posts? I had a delirously delightful time this morning 'detrollizing' the thread for the Dawkins debate with Casey on Kenny's show from last night. For a belly laugh, just read that segregated troll list of comments at that thread (just above the beginning of the thread of comments you will see 'view the troll comment thread').

We'll see how it works out, but this may be the ticket to providing a supportive environment for decent discussion and not be elitist or divisive. I think it is just brilliant.

Thanks, Josh, for this great feature!

1682. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12492 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 7:19 am

Yorker, I lived and worked in Great Britain for around four years, and I did enjoy shows starring Fry very much at that time. I have lived in Europe for around the last 15 years, in France at present. I enjoy The Guignols here in France very much--great satire.

1683. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12475 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:39 am

During the light-hearted banter, RD was able to elaborate some very important points, especially regarding labeling children as being members of various faiths as constituting child abuse. The power of humor when it relaxes and gives pleasure must not be underestimated in its prowess as an educating tool. Why can't we have fun while we are learning?

It was interesting to hear the audience's reaction to certain of his comments, as if they were shocked to hear such honesty and forthrightness regarding the sacred cow of religion--the cow that says it is beyond rational criticism. The initial shock quickly wore off and was replaced with appreciative applause.

It was a treat seeing young people enjoying themselves, and also a very special treat seeing RD not only adding to the merriment but having fun himself.

I appreciated that charming, young man on the extreme right saying that evolution has been good to us, and despite that, we deny its existence!

The Irish can be so witty and charming.

1684. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12449 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:05 am

I thank god that Noah and his folks had terrible head colds with pronounced nasal congestion and could not smell, else Noah would have passed out from the pervasive aromatic richness of the ark's interior during those long days and nights, and not been able to do god's will and I would not be here!

1685. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12445 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 2:51 am

84. Comment #12372 by BandonD on December 11, 2006 at 3:54 pm

This website is similar to the video. It took me months to realise it was a joke.

http://objectiveministries.org/

_______

Thank you so much for that link, it is now duly bookmarked. Wow! hysterically and brilliantly satirical.

1686. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12426 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 1:18 am

188. Comment #12422 by Niels Thorsen on December 11, 2006 at 10:52 pm

It's agonizingly obvious that the message must be simplified by several orders of magnitude if it is ever going to get through to the masses.
_________

I do agree with you that the atheistic presentation needs to be powerfully penetrating in its clarity, and that this challenge increases tremendously when the atheistic viewpoint is presented in certain venues. However, I do not think that in such presentations the atheist should ever stoop to the level of her/his opposition and take the easy way out.

Educating is never easy to do as brainwashing is because brainwashing is involved in the lazy business of spreading existing and very potent memes. Obviously, atheistic presentations will be nitpicked over and over and over again, simply because the substance of it cannot be. This approach is used here at this site during discussion threads. Various and ineffective tricks are used like being silly, focusing on misspellings, introducing discord by dwelling on nationality differences, and even more pathetically slowing down the discussion by having a poster on your god team to sow miscontent with our 'God' Dawkins because he has not deconverted millions in a blink of an eye.

Faith is not far simpler and therefore easy to understand. It is impossible to understand for it has nothing related to understanding as it stridently asks you to suspend understanding. Critically thinking is not impossible for the masses to do. We, as a species have been doing it for ages, and all of us, including the god botherers, do at least a little bit of it each and every day. Regardless of IQ--whatever that does measure--most of us can be taught how to think critically and to hone continually such mental skills. Our public school systems do not focus on developing and sustaining critical thinking. Why?

I agree wholeheartedly with RD in TGD when he wrote that he finds it condescending and patronizing when god apologists say and I am paraphasing here, give the poor deluded creatures a bone to chew on as they are not capable of doing anything else.

As evolution slowly climbed Mount Improbable, and gave our world diversity and complexity out of simplicity, atheists armed with critical thinking and compassion for their fellow humans will slowly and surely--as they are ably doing at present--climb a similar Mount Improbable in the god botherers' realm and achieve our goal via the gradual and steady attrition from blind belief to rational thinking. The scientific advances in neuroscience, brain fitness, and evolutionary psychology which are increasing our understanding of cognitive thinking and how to improve it will help in this regard also.

The tide has turned, and this tide is powerful and effective.

1687. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12403 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Oh my, Vardu, godisshabby, I really like that one! Cutesy and all. Thanks.

My comment No. 110 responded to your musing about the connection of our fear of death and the invention of an afterlife--it is somewhat buried in the slush of posts on this thread, and I really would like your feedback on it.

Time for beddie bye, good night.

1688. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12398 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:48 pm

Vardu, TGD was/is a joy to read from start to finish.

1689. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12395 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:36 pm

137. Comment #12352 by Algebratheist on December 11, 2006 at 3:38 pm

logicel, in the God Delusion he calls it Einsteinian Pantheism (p.19) and says "pantheism is sexed-up atheism" (p.18)
_____

Thanks, Algebratheist. Here's the excerpt that includes deism also: Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

1690. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12376 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 4:02 pm

126. Comment #12340 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:20 pm/Logicel: I have often wondered to what extent man's deep psychological need for security and self-preservation has played in the invention of God and the notion of life after death.
_________

Pascal Boyer, the anthropologist, when he was interviewed by J. Miller on one those tapes on youtube, said that primitive religions do not have a focus on afterlife. If I remember correctly, those religions focused more about tribal power and control of the tribal members.

Why do the world's 3 'great' religions have this focus on an afterlife? Perhaps, the degree of civilization is the link. In highly structured societies comprising of people that are not just your kin, in order to control these masses, you need a bigger wallop to pack, like the burning pit of hell to control their behavior.

If we were able to provide death with dignity, and aid our fellow humans in dying without pain, I think that much of the fear would be removed. Not surprisingly, the supporters of religious superstitions certainly are frightened of this possibility and are doing their best to prevent it from becoming a reality for us all in our time of need, when our death approaches.

As RD said in TGD, humans refuse this decency to only their own species, while they shower 'the milk of kindness' upon other species, like dogs, horses, cats, etc.

RD in TGD quoted some clever person--whose name I cannot remember--as saying, since he did not feel anything prior to his birth and did not have a craving to be born, then once he is dead, he will not miss life, and there is no pain. It is the dying that needs to be addressed much better than it has been in human history.

1691. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12357 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:41 pm

I read a long time ago, that the dissection of Einstein's brain revealed a pronounced and strikingly uncommon development of the corpus callosum, the connecting fibers between the two hemispheres. So Einstein's formidable brain was firing on two cylinders.

1692. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12349 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Algebratheist, Dawkins referred to that as deism, an appreciation and awe of the wonder of the natural universe. If you check out Jonathan Miller's "In a Shadow of a Doubt" on youtube, you will see a very interesting history of atheism, with a nice focus on deism. It is suspected that deists were often atheists, but had to avoid that label, as being atheist until rather recently was not appreciated.

I also recommend seeing the other Miller's tapes, Noughts and Crosses and The Atheist tapes--all excellent.

1693. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12332 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 2:58 pm

60. Comment #12266 by seals on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Having said that, although the afterlife sounds an interesting idea, if it doesn't exist, there is nothing to regret. It's dying, not death, which is the problem!

___________

RD says in TGD the religious minions are the ones that seem to postpone dying as long as they can. They are against hastening death in terminally ill patients. Dawkins wondered if this reluctance meant that they were really frightened of what was waiting for them after death. While atheists champion dying with dignity. As RD said in TGD, these so-called compassionate supporters of religious superstitions support suffering and pain.

1694. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12293 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:57 pm

I agree, Frans. Thanks.

1695. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12288 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:52 pm

good stuff, thanks Vardu.

1696. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12280 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Vardu, unlike godisawhitethinwafer (though I do like your godismyshoddy), I am reading your posts with interest.

1697. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12274 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:37 pm

No.63. Your making me laugh so hard hence my saying that you must love atheists--you are giving one great joy and pleasure. If my posts are giving you as much joy and laughter, then I am per my definition a lover of a supporter of religious superstitions but not a lover of Jesus.

1698. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12268 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:30 pm

hotandspicymeltdown loves atheists.

1699. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12259 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 1:21 pm

No. 53/He's slipping a bit I think, it annoys me when he's slack and allows people to pics obvious holes. He needs to be water-tight.
__________

Thanks for the belly laugh. I would adore to be slack as you regard RD as being!!!!!!!!!

All RD needs to do is to continue the excellent work that he does.

If it annoys you that he is not water-tight then why don't you stick a pin in yourself and let out some of the putrid pool of nonesense in which you have been drowning per your last several posts. I think the stagnate water is pressing on your nerves and causing the annoyance.

"pics?" In your case use a 'icepic' in bursting your sac of putrid nonsense

1700. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12251 by Logicel on December 11, 2006 at 12:45 pm

No. 43/Doesn't one have a right to be wrong?
_________

Huh?

A scientist who is wrong does not practice correct science.

A medical doctor who is wrong and causes harm is liable--his defense is not that he has a right to be wrong.