Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

Really, this guy's work and words are pointless and something people can figure out on their own.

He has written other books besides The God Delusion. He was a well renowned evolutionary biologist LOOOOOONG before he even became vocal about atheism. So unless you think the entire field of evolutionary biology is worthless you're just being purposefully ignorant about his contributions.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Ah, I see that the inevitable shift from substantiated debate to semantics and meta discussion has occurred. These threads seem to follow a formula.

 

[freenudemacusers]

And anyway right now I am of the belief that if njean777 posts in this thread 7 million people will get cancer. You better not disrespect my belief by posting in this thread dude! And don't tell me that my belief is unsubstantiated rubbish, because that would be totally rude and make me feel like a moron.

All we need to do is convince a couple million people this is true and we can finally get the respect we deserve.

 

[triplestation]

He has written other books besides The God Delusion. He was a well renowned evolutionary biologist LOOOOOONG before he even became vocal about atheism. So unless you think the entire field of evolutionary biology is worthless you're just being purposefully ignorant about his contributions.

Listen, everyone knows that his grand statement is basically 'religion is false'. If not, please tell me what it is. He wants to clear peoples minds and wants them to think critically, is it?

 

[Orayn]

Listen, everyone knows that his grand statement is basically 'religion is false'. If not, please tell me what it is. He wants to clear peoples minds and think critically, is it?

No, it's not. In the book immediately following The God Delusion, Dawkins goes out of his way to state that The Greatest Show on Earth is not about that topic at all. "Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt." in the man's own words.

 

[magicstop]

Listen, everyone knows that his grand statement is basically 'religion is false'. If not, please tell me what it is. He wants to clear peoples minds and think critically, is it?

His grand statement, to correct you, is that evolutionary biology exists and is responsible for the world around us. Thats it at the heart. Everything else is superfluous, but it's Christians who take exception to his claim, and therefore give him a debate. His position in response is "No, 'god' is not responsible for the world we live in; other processes which we can actually observe and test are . . ."

 

[F#A#Oo]

Some of you atheists need to take a leaf from Brian Cox and not Dawkins...

I met Cox this year when he opened the new science wing in Manchesters Museum of Science...and he laughed his head off when I asked him why the likes of Dawkins are on a crusade against religion...he called it "irrational and possibly attention seeking".

He did say though that even he gets annoyed by theists that say the earth is only a few thousand years old rather than 4 billion...and that if Dawkins and the like want to promote science they need to get more involved with the education in schools rather than pushing a political agendas for change. He also mentioned he has not yet met a single religious leader that has posed a barrier to science and that politicians if anything are the ones that cause obstacles (funding and grants) though he didn't have the time to elaborate as to specific obstacles...

EDIT: Found a good article and interview with Brian Cox. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8330863/Brian-Cox-Im-not-anti-religion.-Im-anti-maniac.html

 

[triplestation]

No, it's not. In the book immediately following The God Delusion, Dawkins goes out of his way to state that The Greatest Show on Earth is not about that topic at all. "Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt." in the man's own words. Dawkins' views on the subject are certainly touched upon in his other books, but they're far from the focal point.

Then what is the point?

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Listen, everyone knows that his grand statement is basically 'religion is false'. If not, please tell me what it is. He wants to clear peoples minds and wants them to think critically, is it?

That's Hitchens. I can't believe how many people confuse him with Dawkins. Dawkins wants more people to understand what evolution actually is because it's been bastardized to the point of absurdity. That's his point.

 

[magicstop]

Then what is the point?

See my post just above. Better yet, read his material and become familiar with it before discussing it authoritatively.

 

[Orayn]

Then what is the point?

The Greatest Show on Earth is about the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and an examination of just how revolutionary the theory was and still is today.

The Magic of Reality is about the way we acqurie knowledge through the scientific method, and how these thorough, intense explanations are often more fascinating and sublime than superstitous or magical ones.

Those don't have to be anti-religious topics unless you really, really want them to be.

 

[Amir0x]

Listen, everyone knows that his grand statement is basically 'religion is false'. If not, please tell me what it is. He wants to clear peoples minds and wants them to think critically, is it?

His grand statement is that it's highly improbable God exists, based on all evidence that we can substantiate today. He makes a pretty broad argument about why this is in The God Delusion (any being of sufficiently complex station to create the universe would himself have had to have come about by a process similar to evolution, and thus he doesn't answer the creation problem - only raises new questions) and, to quote a chapter heading, "Why there is almost certainly no God", but even he doesn't rank himself a "7" on his atheist scale - which is God 100% definitely does not exist.

His actual contribution to science, however, is fairly vast in the realm of evolutionary biology and was what he was known for before becoming a vocal proponent for atheism. So, trying to reject the man because one believes he is too 'arrogant' in this point really just proves his point that people want special protection for religion, that somehow it should be above the same criticism everything else is held to.

Why should we be any more respectful to religion than any other field worthy of criticism?

 

[triplestation]

His grand statement, to correct you, is that evolutionary biology exists and is responsible for the world around us. Thats it at the heart. Everything else is superfluous, but it's Christians who take exception to his claim, and therefore give him a debate. His position is "No, 'god' is not responsible for the world we live in; other processes which we can actually observe and test are . . ."

If so then what a goddamned waste of time. This entire thread.

Richard Dawkins is just having a childish debate with the faithful. lmfao if he thinks he has a chance to persuade them into atheism. Both are good, harmless people. But fuck me if that isn't just a childless and colossal waste of time.

 

[magicstop]

If so then what a goddamned waste of time. This entire thread.

Richard Dawkins is just having a childish debate with the faithful. lmfao if he thinks he has a chance to persuade them into atheism. Both are good, harmless people. But fuck me if that isn't just a childless and colossal waste of time.

Teaching people accurate histories of the world and about scientific methodology (and therefore how to engage the world in a repeatedly helpful and effective manner) are a waste of time? Well fuck, so is most of school then.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Why should we be any more respectful to religion than any other field worthy of criticism?

Hey my grandma is religious. Are you insulting my grandma!?!?!

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

If so then what a goddamned waste of time. This entire thread.

Richard Dawkins is just having a childish debate with the faithful. lmfao if he thinks he has a chance to persuade them into atheism. Both are good, harmless people. But fuck me if that isn't just a childless and colossal waste of time.

Nope, he's having a debate with a movement determined to inject creationism into the science classroom, which both undermines his profession and contributes to the public's already embarrassing understanding of the world in which they live.

 

[Amir0x]

He also mentioned he has not yet met a single religious leader that has posed a barrier to science

He may not have met them, but they exist. It is partly this advice that Bush got from religious leaders that he later cited led to his decision to put a stop to such ground breaking research into one of the most promising fields of medical science around. Now, this is a subject that religious leaders are (typically) divided on, but it's a clear case where religious retardation affects public policy and scientific freedom.

And there are, without exaggeration, thousands of such cases.

Please stop wearing kiddy gloves with these dangerous and poisonous organizations.

 

[CornBurrito]

Bangladesh continues to assert that nobody can ever have their mind changed so presenting evidence for scientific findings and showing people the scientific way of thinking about the world is useless.

Though I'm pretty sure some people posted evidence to the contrary. What evidence has he provided?

Spoiler

OMG I AM ASKING FOR EVIDENCE. SO DISRESPECTFUL!!!!

 

[Boss Doggie]

Why are they using the word "theory" so wrongly?

 

[Amir0x]

Bangladesh continues to assert that nobody can ever have their mind changed so presenting evidence for scientific findings and showing people the scientific way of thinking about the world is useless.

Though I'm pretty sure some people posted evidence to the contrary. What evidence has he provided?

Spoiler

OMG I AM ASKING FOR EVIDENCE. SO DISRESPECTFUL!!!!

the point is so obvious, do we really need to waste time? it's damn near self-evident.

DARWIN'S mind was changed by the evidence he found via his scientific methods.

 

[magicstop]

To further Amir0x's point, religious groups can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Religion has been used as a tool, historically, to do awful stuff like justify and enforce slavery and currently can be seen preventing loving people from entering into marraige and sharing equal rights based on their sexual orientation.

And how about these massive fundamentalist Christian groups that raise millions of dollars to support Isreal with because they believe in Isreal's biblical significance, and think that we are living in end times. They literally believe we are living through what will soon be armageddon, and believe that the earth must be ravaged and torn apart for biblical prophecy to be fulfilled. They are raising millions so they can see horrific violence and suffering carried out because of a fucking collection of books.

Fuck you, then. Fuck you if you are ok with this. Fuck you if you are blind to this. Fuck you if you think religion isn't extremely dangerous. It doesn't have to be, but it certainly can be, and because it's not based on reality as we observe it (like science is), it can be used for literally any horrific purpose that any individual or group sees fit.

You can seperate yourself from these people, as there are millions of them wearing the mantle of religion. You can try to, but it's just not doable. If you aren't ok with the rigorous application of testing, questioning, and scientific methodology to these important cultural elements, then you are ok when they run amok and cause horrific suffering and violence.

 

[msv]

Some of you atheists need to take a leaf from Brian Cox and not Dawkins...

All you have is Cox said? You sound like a kid, and your dad just said to you that the kids you don't like are wrong! He said he said, his arguments are rubbish, he didn't meet a single religious leader who was an obstacle? Well that proves it.

And calling Dawkins an attention seeker, yegh, pot meet kettle.

 

[Amir0x]

To further Amir0x's point, religious groups can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Religion has been used as a tool, historically, to do awful stuff like justify and enforce slavery and currently can be seen preventing loving people from entering into marraige and sharing equal rights based on their sexual orientation.
And how about these massive fundamentalist Christian groups that raise millions of dollars to support Isreal with because they believe in Isreal's biblical significance, and think that we are living in end times. They literally believe we are living through what will soon be armageddon, and believe that the earth must be ravaged and torn apart for biblical prophecy to be fulfilled. They are raising millions so they can see horrific violence and suffering carried out because of a fucking collection of books.
Fuck you, then. Fuck you if you are ok with this. Fuck you if you are blind to this. Fuck you if you think religion isn't extremely dangerous. It doesn't have to be, but it certainly can be, and because it's not based on reality as we observe it (like science is), it can be used for literally any horrific purpose that any individual or group sees fit.

To say nothing for

and places like it, which is basically systematic child abuse of the most egregious kind.

Religion poisons everything. Christopher Hitchens is right.

 

[Kinitari]

If so then what a goddamned waste of time. This entire thread.

Richard Dawkins is just having a childish debate with the faithful. lmfao if he thinks he has a chance to persuade them into atheism. Both are good, harmless people. But fuck me if that isn't just a childless and colossal waste of time.

I honestly am having trouble grasping your point. Let me ask you a question - you seem religious, do you believe that evolution presents an accurate explanation for the diversity on earth? If not, do you understand that the evidence is absolutely overwhelming?

With that said, people like Dawkins and other scientists who have devoted their lives to the field are constantly met with opposition and vitriol, from people in positions of power, born from ignorance and self delusion. This sort of thing is a direct threat on their livelihood - fighting this threat is something many take very seriously.

Let's say Rick Perry becomes president and decides that evolutionary biology doesn't need as much government funding as they are used to - is that so harmless to Scientists like Dawkins?

 

[F#A#Oo]

He may not have met them, but they exist. It is partly this advice that Bush got from religious leaders that he later cited led to his decision to put a stop to such ground breaking research into one of the most promising fields of medical science around. Now, this is a subject that religious leaders are (typically) divided on, but it's a clear case where religious retardation affects public policy and scientific freedom.

And there are, without exaggeration, thousands of such cases.

Please stop wearing kiddy gloves with these dangerous and poisonous organizations.

So he is right...politicians are the main problem.

The ultimate decision is not made by religious leaders in any of those articles and pieces...but rather a stupid politician.

 

[triplestation]

Obsessed, religious people are stubborn. It's the youth who are comfortable with questioning things.

Dawkins is debating with organizations that have been around forever. You am delusional if you think he is going to make the budge, friend. This is why I say his actions and words are pointless, again, for the millionth time. Because people discover this stuff on their own. Not a goddamned book.

This is 2011. Internet is around. Loads more educated people are around. And fuck me if Dawkins is going to take the credit in history for making people think more critically in the eventual future.

KINITARI: I am far from religious. I just think Dawkins is a man with too much time and too many impressionable fans.

 

[Amir0x]

So he is right...politicians are the main problem.

The ultimate decision is not made by religious leaders in any of those articles...but rather a stupid politician.

...

A politician whose perspective is DRIVEN BY HIS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM and also informed by actual religious leaders and who claims God told him to invade Iraq.

Are you trying to be disingenuous on purpose? Because it's not helping your point.

And fuck me if Dawkins is going to take the credit in history for making people think more critically in the eventual future.

Just in one case, Douglas Adams cited The Selfish Gene written by Richard Dawkins as why he started to stop believing. If you think they don't exist, that's fine - but it's yet another case of something not being supported by evidence.

 

[CornBurrito]

To say nothing for

Jesus Camp

What's the story behind that film? Was the camp presented in a negative light or a positive one?

Obsessed, religious people are stubborn. It's the youth who are comfortable with questioning things.

Dawkins is debating with organizations that have been around forever. You am delusional if you think he is going to make the budge, friend. This is why I say his actions and words are pointless, again, for the millionth time. Because people discover this stuff on their own. Not a goddamned book.

This is 2011. Internet is around. Loads more educated people are around. And fuck me if Dawkins is going to take the credit in history for making people think more critically in the eventual future.

People discover shit on their own by reading books... You can't just contemplate your navel and reach the conclusion that species change via natural selection. You'd have read or heard SOMETHING that got you thinking about it in the first place.

His books are basically evolution made easily accessible (not counting The God Delusion) for the average reader who doesn't want to study loads and loads of scientific papers which are often nonsensical jargon to the scientifically illiterate.

And... I don't think Dawkins is aiming to take personal credit.

 

[V_Arnold]

Religion poisons everything. Christopher Hitchens is right.

Greedy fuckers poison everything, not religion. Do not ever believe for a second that if ALL religions will be banned, these worms would not find a way to create "science camp for youth" with basically JUST THE SAME treatment and potential abuse of any kind.

 

[Hawkian]

What's the story behind that film? Was the camp presented in a negative light or a positive one?

It's actually presented neutrally.

Both those associated with the camp that think it is doing great things and those who find its existence abhorrent have claimed to enjoy the film.

 

[elrechazado]

What's the story behind that film? Was the camp presented in a negative light or a positive one?

It's presented in its reality. So negative.

 

[magicstop]

So he is right...politicians are the main problem.

The ultimate decision is not made by religious leaders in any of those articles and pieces...but rather a stupid politician.

Not true. There are countless examples. Religious leaders, first of all, have access to incredible amounts of money, and we KNOW that US politicians are beholden to money. Lobbyists and interest groups are the name of the game, and so we wind up seeing the agendas of those with money. That's what is happening here.

Secondly, even out of the realm of actual politicians, Chrisitians in the US fund "Gay camps" to shame people into lying about their sexual orientation, they fund middle eastern entities to encourage warfare and chaos in the region, believe that it signifies end times, and the list goes on and on. Religious figures betray their positions of trust and power, raping children, betraying families, etc. I mean, what kind of stuff do you need to hear to quite arguing that it's not the case.

And sure, this happens outside of religion. But in the US, at least, religion is a powerful force that has billions of dollars behind it, and a staggering amount of political clout. We are actually forced to think about teaching ID in schools, folks, which this is all about. Why should beliefs be taught in school?!? Teach them at home. Keep facts in the classroom, and let's distinguish them for what they are. And let's NOT pretend religion isn't particularly succeptable to horrific misuse and evils, and gets used as such.

 

[Amir0x]

What's the story behind that film? Was the camp presented in a negative light or a positive one?

I don't know how anyone can watch the film and come away in anything except abject horror, but I did read an article from a fundamentalist who believed it was showing a positive force for good influence on children.

But, in my opinion and judging from listening to the people who made the film and what their intent was, there is no doubt the film's intent was to show just how scary this shit is. It's absolutely horrifying to watch.

Do not ever believe for a second that if ALL religions will be banned, these worms would not find a way to create "science camp for youth" with basically JUST THE SAME treatment and potential abuse of any kind.

Yes, I can firmly say I do not believe there will ever be a "science camp for youth" that has "just the same treatment."

 

[TacticalFox88]

To say nothing for

and places like it, which is basically systematic child abuse of the most egregious kind.

Religion poisons everything. Christopher Hitchens is right.

That documentary scared the living shit out of me.

 

[V_Arnold]

I do not envy US people though. Here in Hungary, no teacher of ours was EVER allowed to even bring up religion or just suggest what we should/might believe in. In fact, when our history teacher was asked about his personal views on these matters, he simply refused to comment.

It should stay out of school.

 

[CornBurrito]

I do not envy US people though. Here in Hungary, no teacher of ours was EVER allowed to even bring up religion or just suggest what we should/might believe in. In fact, when our history teacher was asked about his personal views on these matters, he simply refused to comment.

It should stay out of school.

If only religious people in the US were like you.

 

[Air]

If only religious people in the US were like you.

This is quite the blanket statement. Not all religious people are fundamentalists.

I know you know that, just saying.

 

[Hawkian]

It's presented in its reality. So negative.

I mean, yeah, that's another way of putting it.

 

[soul creator]

Greedy fuckers poison everything, not religion. Do not ever believe for a second that if ALL religions will be banned, these worms would not find a way to create "science camp for youth" with basically JUST THE SAME treatment and potential abuse of any kind.

yeah man, what's up with these crazy people spending all this time and money trying to cure cancer? What's the point? People will just die of heart disease and AIDS anyway.

 

[magicstop]

Greedy fuckers poison everything, not religion. Do not ever believe for a second that if ALL religions will be banned, these worms would not find a way to create "science camp for youth" with basically JUST THE SAME treatment and potential abuse of any kind.

It WOULDN'T happen because science is necessary a skeptic's field. Science demands that all answers and ideas be questioned thoroughly, tested thoroughly, and never accepted until ample proofs exist. No trust is put in science without huge amounts of research first. And sure, it can go wrong, and sure science can TEMPORARILY be loaded with agendas, etc., but it quickly gets weeded out. It's not like religions, where people put blind faith into things. Faith isn't required of science . . . in fact, it's not wanted at all. Harder to get away with abuses when you are questioning everything.
But let's not get off topic here. This isn't about science's susceptability to corruption. This is about the known and huge corruption within religion, especially due to its nature. And it's about pretending that it has the ability to be justified like science. It necessarily doesn't have the backing, and therefore should yield to science where science has information and fact. And it should always yield in the political or academic realm.

 

[triplestation]

What's the story behind that film? Was the camp presented in a negative light or a positive one?




People discover shit on their own by reading books... You can't just contemplate your navel and reach the conclusion that species change via natural selection. You'd have read or heard SOMETHING that got you thinking about it in the first place.

His books are basically evolution made easily accessible (not counting The God Delusion) for the average reader who doesn't want to study loads and loads of scientific papers which are often nonsensical jargon to the scientifically illiterate.

And... I don't think Dawkins is aiming to take personal credit.

Or by analyzing the world around them and simply asking themselves 'why? and having the sense of plausibility especially in today's world where everything but churches are free of religious reference.

Don't know about that, he's made quite the image for himself.

 

[F#A#Oo]

...

A politician whose perspective is DRIVEN BY HIS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM and also informed by actual religious leaders and who claims God told him to invade Iraq.

Are you trying to be disingenuous on purpose? Because it's not helping your point.

Eh? You said you disagree with Cox that politicians impede the furthering of science (you cut out the statement)...the articles you posted though quite clearly back up his claim that it's governments and politicians that impede science...

It goes without saying that Bush is a religious fundementalist...but he makes his decision based on being president not pope of the catholic church...and it was short of the necessary two-thirds majority according to your article which points to other conflicted people too...

Lesson? Don't elect fundamentalists who you know will impede the furthering of civilization...

 

[magicstop]

Or by analyzing the world around them and simply asking themselves 'why? and having the sense of plausibility especially in today's world where everything but churches are free of religious reference.

You are joking, right?

And what IS science if not the act of looking around the world, asking why, and then finding plausible explainations based on direct observation? That's the fucking background that Dawkins is coming from! If you are arguing we shouldn't learned from the massed research of our elders, those before us, and people who have dedicated their lives to studying these things, you are being foolish. So I feel like you are coming up short a point.

Lesson? Don't elect fundamentalists who you know will impede the furthering of civilization...

Copout . . . A lot of us didn't, and were horrified to see it happen. Battling public perception of the world is one of the only ways to insure things like Bush getting elected DON'T happen, and that's what Dawkins, et al., are doing.

 

[triplestation]

You are joking, right?

And what IS science if not the act of looking around the world, asking why, and then finding plausible explainations based on direct observation? That's the fucking background that Dawkins is coming from! If you are arguing we shouldn't learned from the massed research of our elders, those before us, and people who have dedicated their lives to studying these things, you are being foolish. So I feel like you are coming up short a point.



Copout . . . A lot of us didn't, and were horrified to see it happen. Battling public perception of the world is one of the only ways to insure things like Bush getting elected DON'T happen, and that's what Dawkins, et al., are doing.

My point has always been that Dawkins' work has always been pointless because of this. If he chose to write his books a few centuries ago, it would've made more sense.

Today's world is too informative for someone to just come out of the blue and preach science.

 

[Cyan]

Lesson? Don't elect fundamentalists who you know will impede the furthering of civilization...

But we shouldn't publicly lobby against them? I'm not really following the logic here.

 

[Kinitari]

Or by analyzing the world around them and simply asking themselves 'why? and having the sense of plausibility especially in today's world where everything but churches are free of religious reference.

Don't know about that, he's made quite the image for himself.

You are fighting too hard - I think you know what you are saying is ridiculous, but you just don't want to admit it, there is no shame in saying "You know what, maybe what I said was a little unreasonable" - I do it all the time.

If you think that writing books is pointless, how do you explain that millions of people -buy- these books?

Eh? You said you disagree with Cox that politicians impede the furthering of science (you cut out the statement)...the articles you posted though quite clearly back up his claim that it's governments and politicians that impede science...

It goes without saying that Bush is a religious fundementalist...but he makes his decision based on being president not pope of the catholic church...and it was short of the necessary two-thirds majority according to your article which points to other conflicted people too...

Lesson? Don't elect fundamentalists who you know will impede the furthering of civilization...

Cool - so what you're saying is - that people who don't want a religious fundamentalist becoming president, they should do everything in their power to convince people that either A) being a religious fundamentalist is detrimental to the progression of their country and/or B) to not vote for him.

Glad you are encouraging people to continue fighting the religious every chance they get.

 

[Orayn]

My point has always been that Dawkins' work has always been pointless because of this. If he chose to write his books a few centuries ago, it would've made more sense.

Today's world is too informative for someone to just come out of the blue and preach science.

Are you saying that Dawkins' books have never changed anyone's mind?

 

[soul creator]

Eh? You said you disagree with Cox that politicians impede the furthering of science (you cut out the statement)...the articles you posted though quite clearly back up his claim that it's governments and politicians that impede science...

It goes without saying that Bush is a religious fundementalist...but he makes his decision based on being president not pope of the catholic church...and it was short of the necessary two-thirds majority according to your article which points to other conflicted people too...

Lesson? Don't elect fundamentalists who you know will impede the furthering of civilization...

so basically, your point is:

1) don't elect fundamentalists
2) it is wrong to try to debate and/or change the minds of people who elect fundamentalists

or, restated

1) don't elect Political Party A
2) it is wrong to try to debate and/or change the minds of people who are in Political Party A

or

1) you should stay hydrated
2) but don't drink water!

hey this is fun

1) You should make a left turn here while driving this car
2) don't use the steering wheel though!

 

[triplestation]

You are fighting too hard - I think you know what you are saying is ridiculous, but you just don't want to admit it, there is no shame in saying "You know what, maybe what I said was a little unreasonable" - I do it all the time.

If you think that writing books is pointless, how do you explain that millions of people -buy- these books?



Cool - so what you're saying is - that people who don't want a religious fundamentalist becoming president, they should do everything in their power to convince people that either A) being a religious fundamentalist is detrimental to the progression of their country and/or B) to not vote for him.

Glad you are encouraging people to continue fighting the religious every chance they get.

What I say is usually my genuine opinion.


Because people are consumers and want to root for someone who is 'saving' people from the evils of religion.

Are you saying that Dawkins' books have never changed anyone's mind?

Frankly, in this day and age, if someone needed to read that entire God Delusion text to convince them that the bible is a storybook, it would baffle me. But that is if a devout religious person picked it up.

I say most people who bought that book are the same people who praise him. And what they bought is a thorough explanation on what they already know.

 

[F#A#Oo]

All you have is Cox said? You sound like a kid, and your dad just said to you that the kids you don't like are wrong! He said he said, his arguments are rubbish, he didn't meet a single religious leader who was an obstacle? Well that proves it.

And calling Dawkins an attention seeker, yegh, pot meet kettle.

What are you talking about?

Cool - so what you're saying is - that people who don't want a religious fundamentalist becoming president, they should do everything in their power to convince people that either A) being a religious fundamentalist is detrimental to the progression of their country and/or B) to not vote for him.

Glad you are encouraging people to continue fighting the religious every chance they get.

Ofcourse...what else would I be saying?

I encourage what ever gets us moving forward...