Comment

Comment by Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco on December 2, 2010 at 7:21pm

It is manifestly appeared by what Richard Dawkins says in the God Delusion, that he tries to understand metaphysical arguments for the existence of God from the scientific viewpoint. Even his ecstatic about nature and the universe does not lead him outside the framework of evolutionary biology. That’s why Dawkins is so terribly upset when he’s described of being a deeply religious man. (See the God Delusion, page 11 – 27) I cannot be a religious man, he says, because being religious is a matter of worship, of believing in a supernatural creator.

Comment by Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco on November 18, 2010 at 1:57pm

If you had to describe yourself using just one of the following, which would it be? You are …

a. A no-religious person.

b. A person with no belief in a supernatural being.

c. A righteous person.

We bet you’re thinking: Hey, wait a minute; can’t I be all of these things? According to a religious freak I just met, God is love, if you don’t believe in God, you are incapable of feeling love; therefore, you are not a righteous person. Crazy logic!

Comment by Nathan Hevenstone on November 13, 2010 at 1:43pm

BTW everyone... here's the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/get-richard-dawkins-on-tv-in-the-s...

PLEASE sign it. If I can get 100,000 signatures by January 12, that would amazing! American Atheists agreed to advertise it, so that's exciting... :D

Comment by Linda Turnipseed on November 13, 2010 at 9:32am

I would.

Comment by Nathan Hevenstone on November 12, 2010 at 12:02pm

Just wondering... if I were to write a petition asking the channels History, Discovery, Science, and National Geographic to air Richard Dawkins' stuff here in the States, how many of you would sign it?

Comment by Elizabeth Peart on November 4, 2010 at 5:28pm

Richard Dawkins is possibly one of the few people who make me proud to be British.

Comment by Nathan Hevenstone on November 4, 2010 at 4:05pm

Yeah, I know that...

For some reason I'm starting to wonder if it was in one the Intelligence Squared debates he took part in...

Comment by Nathan Hevenstone on November 4, 2010 at 3:16pm

PLEASE HELP! I don't remember if it was during his God Delusion book tour or press conferences on the Atheist Bus Campaign, but someone asked Richard something like "by saying 'there's probably no God', doesn't that make you an agnostic?" or something like that.

I know it's on video because I clearly remember watching it. However, all Google and Bing searches have not just not helped, but have turned up results that have connection whatsoever to what I'm looking for, and it's getting me kind of angry. Please help... thank you...

Comment by Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco on October 29, 2010 at 4:10pm

Extracted from the Atheist Rabbi:

Jonathon Moseley is a Virginia lawyer and creationist who worked for Christine O’Donnell’s primary campaign. In an article on Christian News Wire, he attacks the separation of church and state and then moves on to the necessity of teaching “intelligent design” in schools.
Moseley also charged: "Coons [O’Donnell’s opponent] also showed appalling ignorance about science as well. The heart and soul of science is questioning established thinking, challenging assumptions, challenging conventional wisdom, and debating both sides of every issue. It is not possible to prepare students to be competent in science without preparing them to look at scientific questions from different angles, examine assumptions, and ask questions outside the box. What Coons would have our schools teach is not science at all, but superstition. Presenting only one point of view without debate never has been and never can be called science. Even if Intelligent Design is taught only as a foil or teaching tool, one cannot teach science by offering only one view."

First of all, this yokel wouldn’t know science if it came up to him and said, “Hi, I’m Science” and then bit him in his ass. What really gets me is that these primitives have taken to using the language of science and reason to attack the scientific and reasonable. What is this crap about teaching from “different angles” and calling evolution “superstition?” Is he serious with this? Are he and his ilk really so stupid? “Intelligent design” is based on a story book. It’s as scientific as Humpty-Dumpty. There is no debate about evolution. It’s a fact.


http://www.theatheistrabbi.com/

Comment by Sophia Kousiakis on October 20, 2010 at 5:47pm

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page