This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Dawkins v God - stop the fight - Comments

Phil's Avatar Comment 1 by Phil

I'm not sure what the point of this is- but, again, we hear one of the single most ridiculous ideas of the agnostic or religion-as-bet-hedging crowd:

"In the unlikely event that there is a region of the hereafter reserved for us infidels, hearing them again at full volume without end would be one more reason for penitence."

Apparently the author believes his omnipotent God can be fooled.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:22:00 UTC | #6774

Martin's Avatar Comment 2 by Martin

Well... of course God can be fooled. Whoever he got to write the Bible, the Koran and all other works fooled god really well into believing that they could do him justice. Instead nothing but contradictory nonsense came out. So either god is a gullible fool or he doesn't exist.

Nice to see you're still around Phil... let's hope the longer you stay here the more open your mind gets. Of course.. that's almost as forlorn a hope as expecting god to show up and say "see.. I exist".

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:08:00 UTC | #6776

Brian's Avatar Comment 3 by Brian

"giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh."

I don't suppose he's familiar with the Bush's relelation that god "told" him to invade Iraq then?

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:18:00 UTC | #6779

goddogit's Avatar Comment 4 by goddogit

If I can understand anything about this parody of reasoned argument, it that whatever bizarre, ill-defined semi-supreme being he thinks has some vague "positive social purpose" is such a weakling that Prof. Dawkins and others shouldn't be picking on him/her/it.

Dawkins has answered EVERY ONE of his silly critics dozens of times over, but they still attack, like Napolean's troops at Waterloo, in the same old way, and being handily beaten back.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:35:00 UTC | #6781

William's Avatar Comment 5 by William

Oliver is ignorant a little.

>>Well, no. The cause of those acts of terrorism was a particular theocratic movement, Islamism. Dawkins does his best to draw analogies with other religions, giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh.<<

Has Oliver ever visited http://www.godhatesfags.com I wonder?

This is religion at its WORST. Yes, I know it is a minority opinion amongst many decent Theists, yet they still exists, as do Al Qaeda.

Kind Regards, William.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:37:00 UTC | #6782

flibble's Avatar Comment 6 by flibble

"A life of obeisance to a deity one disbelieves in may be a price worth paying."

What sort or garbage is this? It sounds all too similar to the old hedging your bets idea of "what have you lost by spending a lifetime believing in him if in fact he doesn't exist".

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:51:00 UTC | #6784

Greywizard's Avatar Comment 7 by Greywizard

Kamm's argument -- if that is what it is -- is incredibly simplistic. He seems to suggest that Dawkins does not understand the principle of the separation of church and state. Of course, the problem clearly is that this principle is being infringed regularly in countries where such separation is amongst the founding principles. The religious are, more and more, dictating national agendas in the US and Britain, at least. John Gray ends his review of Michael Burleigh's "Scared Causes" with these words:

"Burleigh gets one thing right. Religion - especially of the monotheistic variety that demands universal acceptance - is back. If ever politics was secular, it is so no longer. Presidents whose view of the world is formed from apocalyptic myths are in charge in Iran and the US, and seem ready to act on the belief that salvation comes to humankind by way of Armageddon. The social science that assumed religion must eventually yield to science is obsolete. If you want to understand the beliefs that are shaping global politics, read the Book of Revelation."

Incredibly, Oliver Kamm doesn't seem to have noticed.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:03:00 UTC | #6785

Martin's Avatar Comment 8 by Martin

ROFL

"Bush II"

They always say the sequel is worse than the original, and just made to cash in on the previous success.

Although I'm not sure Bush I was that good to start with.

That reminds me of a great comment I once read. Allegedly the film "The Madness of King George" was originally titled "George II". Unfortunately in audience trials in the US, too many people asked when the first film had been out.. and what had happened in it.

I bet it's those people that the religious brain washers are targeting.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:12:00 UTC | #6789

JackR's Avatar Comment 9 by JackR

Like others here, I had to read this mealy-mouthed tosh more than once before I could form an opinion about where the author was coming from. I think I can safely say that where the author is coming from is that thin-blooded, gutless place where yesterday's appeasing atheists wring their impotent hands and whine, "Oh why can't we all just get along?", seemingly oblivious to the fact that the words and actions of the religious have made it perfectly clear why.

Sorry Ollie, you've had your day. It's time for atheists to stop tolerating the nonsense which blights lives. You're going to have to stand aside, mate.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:13:00 UTC | #6790

Russ's Avatar Comment 10 by Russ

When the author says,

"Dawkins does his best to draw analogies with other religions, giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh."

he highlights his lack of awareness of the seriousness of the problem of political religious fundamentalism here in the US.

Leaders of many Catholic and Protestant - including the fundamentalists and evangelicals - political action committees have said and written that when the US becomes a theocracy, pluralism will be not just heresy, but also a crime. That is, not being a member of a specific sect will be against the law. These groups and their minions are pumping billions of dollars a year into political lobbying efforts. Many of these religious groups spend more of their resources purchasing political influence than they spend on humanitarian causes.

This same mindset of control has been advocated by many authors, like Anne Coulter, who have sold tens of millions of books advocating the violent spread of Christianity throughout the world. Which version of Christianity they want forced on others is not clear.

With each US election cycle they get nearer to having almost direct church control over the US military. The world would be a little less safe if Iranian religious extremists had a few nuclear weapons, but the threat would be unimaginably worse yet if American religious extremists had the US nuclear arsenal at its disposal. Don't think it can't happen: George W. Bush is arguably the stupidest, and most religiously goofy man to ever be President. God talks to George. George has said this himself. Simple observation shows that George doing what God tells him results in nothing but chaos. Just ask the Iraqi people or non-wealthy Americans.

The White House has acknowledged that Bush has almost daily contact with members of those fringe-dwelling American Taliban type religious fundamentalists. Many of these people - Bush may be one of them - desire to see nuclear war as the fulfillment of their religious dreams.

Non-Americans must understand one simple idea that can effect every person on the planet: American political power is purchased, bought and paid for; it is not the result of merit, intellect, or wisdom. This means that if religious extremists pump the most money into the system they will purchase the most influence and power.

You can tell a lot about people by looking at who they select for role models. The increasingly influential American Christian fundamentalists look upon terrorist bombers with admiration and envy. So much, in fact, that they have started holding camps for children for the express purpose of inculcating the idea that if you love Jesus, you must be willing to die for him.

The US having hundreds of Native American religions, hundreds more New Age type religions, hundreds of Christianities, and hundreds more religions imported from India, Africa, Asia, South America, Australia, and little island nations the world over is quite likely the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, if the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, the Ted Haggards, the Pat Dobsons and the Rick Warrens get their way, instant criminalization of all but a few million would result because these religious leaders clearly view all religion as unworthy of respect, except, of course, for their own. Religion is not worthy of respect: just ask religionists themselves.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:40:00 UTC | #6792

Godless's Avatar Comment 11 by Godless

Was this article a first draft? Stream of conciousness? Tell him to rewrite and clarify his points then maybe I will take him seriously. I'm tired of reading obscure tosh such as this. Where are editors when you need them?

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:05:00 UTC | #6793

Serge's Avatar Comment 12 by Serge

Well done you guys (and dolls). (Most of )You all pick up on the gobble-di-gook written by Oliver Kramm.
I will only repeat a comment I put on the Murial Gray article blog:

"I have serious doubts whether religiously superstitious people would ever be convinced of the irrationality of their beliefs by rational arguments."

...For God's sake!!!!!...
.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:20:00 UTC | #6798

J.C. Samuelson's Avatar Comment 13 by J.C. Samuelson

The writer is very foolish, as are many of the commenters on the Times' website regarding this article in the sense that even in the face of Islamic violence on 7/7, 9/11, and in reaction to just about any slight to their faith, they feel that religion is harmless. Yes, while many of the faithful do keep their faith to themselves, they are no check against those who wish to impose the same faith by force. If there is a clearer case of people willingly burying their heads in the sand, I am unaware of it.

These people are ignorant considering the fact that the President of the most militarily powerful nation on earth communes daily with not only God but fundamentalist Christian theists. People who believe in a glorious rapture by Jesus accompanied by a global apocalypse have absolutely no business influencing foreign policy decisions. One of them (Ted Haggard) actually believes that war should be fought on theological grounds. Yet people like this are - at this moment - steering us toward the very thing we would all like to avoid.

Religion is harmless. Bull! Religion is preventing the free research into embryonic stem cells, simply because they believe that somehow the soul enters the cellular structure at the moment of conception. While millions suffer from various diseases that might eventually be cured through this research, they raise false analogies about Nazi experiments and human sacrifice. The President gushes about how the U.S. will donate x amount of dollars to the fight against AIDS in Africa, yet the money is spent on unrealistic abstinence-only education, without considering the present spread of the disease through unprotected sex. Why? Because condoms are a sin according to the church, whose doctrine concerning this is taken directly from the Old Testament.

I could go on, but what would be the point? People will remain ignorant and continue to enable destructive beliefs that should long ago have been relegated to the scrap heap of history.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:42:00 UTC | #6801

William's Avatar Comment 14 by William

Agreed Serge.

Often, when they can see the flaws in their arguments, Theists then espouse that Atheists are SMUG. We aren't smug. I don't hold any particularly impressive titles - but I do like to think rationally about our existence. For myself, Religion/ God and all the other fantasies are just that; make-believe. Oh! I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to meet my Grandfather, who died 30 years before I was born. Sadly, I can't see a rational reason for that ever happening.

Great comments above all! It takes time to read through them, but I read them all. I like learning and I wish Theists would choose to learn, instead of just preaching doom, gloom, naysayer and repent all the time. Their arguments, for myself, are becoming worn out and tiresome.

Kind Regards, William.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:42:00 UTC | #6802

Manfred's Avatar Comment 15 by Manfred

"Well, no. The cause of those acts of terrorism was a particular theocratic movement, Islamism. Dawkins does his best to draw analogies with other religions, giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh."

Islamism? What on earth is islamism? The acts of terrorism on 9/11 and 7/7 etc. were the effects of what true Islam (true by the standards of its followers)teaches. Islam and for that matter all religious dogmas are opposite of what free thought values. Muslim fundamentalists are using terrorism to do what they think and are taught is right. Christian fundamentalists in the US are using their money and power and influence to promote what they think and are taught is right. The root of the problem is not Islamism. It is the religion itself. Why should it matter what we call it? As long as it is an inflexible dogma, it is against free thought.
I completely understand why atheists like Prof. Dawkins and Sam Harris are encouraging atheists to be more outspoken. People should realize that if religion goes unchallenged, the state of affairs become very similar to what is going on in Iran. The names and details would be different, but the basic idea is the same.
I have grown up in Iran under a theocracy. And this theocracy came to absolute power because moderate religious poepole, who are very nice people indeed, paved the way for it. And everybody else did not challenge it out of respect for religion.
At the time of the revolution in 1979, nobody exactly knew what an Islamic republic is. Khomeini himself said that under such system, even Marxists would be free to express their ideas. Nobody challenged him; everyone believed him, even the Marxists. He was a grand Ayatollah. He deserved respect. His word was the word of God. And we saw what happened.
Even today, many intellectuals in Iran are struggling to reconcile religion and free thought. It is a futile effort, and it is not working. They are still trying to respect the very foundation on which the system is built.
Granted, if anyone inside the country challenges religion, he or she has to pay a heavy price.

I now live in the US and I am constantly appalled by Christian fundamentalists. I don't understand why they are trying so hard to make the US resemble an islamic republic.
It is all basically the same. Just change the names of religions and you would get the same package. People really need to read more history.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:54:00 UTC | #6803

Martin's Avatar Comment 16 by Martin

I never realised Iran chose to become a theocracy.

I always thought it was imposed, or had always been that way.

Damn.. you know what you just did?!

I now have to add Iranian history to my reading list. Although if what you say in your post is right, that moderate religion in effect caused the Iranian theocracy, Iran would be the perfect example for atheists to hold up as the dangers of unchecked moderate religion.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:04:00 UTC | #6805

Manfred's Avatar Comment 17 by Manfred

Martin
More than 90% of Iranians voted for the Islamic Republic in a very popular referundum 2 months after the final victory of the revolution.

People belonging to all types of political and ideological factions participated and helped the revolution and voted for the islamic republic(including Marxists and communists).

Although it would be too simplistic to say that only moderate religious parties and factions caused the thoecracy to come to absolute power,
they were indeed very popular and had a huge appeal to people and they definitely helped. The first prime minister after the revolution was the leader of the leading moderate religious party who also had a moderate view on nationalism. His cabinet was forced to resign during the hostage crisis which was mostly led by fundamentalists.

As you said Iran is a perfect example of the dangers of treating religion as something unchallenged.

Religion has the potential to foster fundamentalism and if fundamentalists come to power, even those moderate religious people fall victim to the more extremist elements. That, I think is exactly why Richard Dawkins' fight is so important.

Cheers

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:21:00 UTC | #6806

Jay's Avatar Comment 18 by Jay

Send your comments to this intellectual reject himself:

oliver.kamm@tiscali.co.uk

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:23:00 UTC | #6807

Nathan's Avatar Comment 19 by Nathan

The scariest/funniest thing I've heard in a while was the President of Iran said that "we need to have faith taught in our schools" soon after the American debate on Creationism taught in schools. Everyone lambasted the Iranian President for such a rediculous statement without ever noting how close it is to what was occuring in America at the same time.

"giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh."

Prove it. How is Richard Dawkins statement that evangelicals don't want to opress women wrong? Abortion Rights? In South Dakota they are trying to outlaw abortion in all cases, rape, incest, these things don't matter. This is driven by evangelicals. It is still legal to rape your wife in several states, and up until 1989, legal to do it in Utah (where I come from, and which could be argued to be a religion controlled state, by the Mormons).

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:28:00 UTC | #6808

Jay's Avatar Comment 20 by Jay

Manfred, please cut and past your post to this nutjob! Same with everyone. Let him stop whining about the assult on the respectibility of faith and either defend it head to head or yield and get out of the way!

Thanks.

oliver.kamm@tiscali.co.uk

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:28:00 UTC | #6809

Nathan's Avatar Comment 21 by Nathan

"How is Richard Dawkins statement that evangelicals don't want to opress women wrong?"

I misspoke.. Evangelicals do oppress women.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:30:00 UTC | #6810

RascoHeldall's Avatar Comment 22 by RascoHeldall

"So here we have a leader, who admits to being Christian. He wants to promote Faith Schools. He sends soldiers to Iraq to kill Muslims whilst going to church on Sundays to serve God. Isn't this in violation of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', one of the ten commandments that a Christian should observe? I heard him asked about this and he insisted he'd done the right thing!"

A small piece in the news today revealed Blair had real difficulty with science at school. No wonder he is such a gullible, confused twat. How much better would the Government be if scientifically literate people were running it?

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:35:00 UTC | #6812

J.C. Samuelson's Avatar Comment 23 by J.C. Samuelson

Oops. Post #36 / #4104 was mine. Forgot to put in the name.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:21:00 UTC | #6817

Manfred's Avatar Comment 24 by Manfred

>>"Then we will find that great light that pervades the universe, put there by God, him or her self."<<

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Dear Don, atheists are not bound by any dogma, meaning that they are ready to change their minds if presented with irrefutable objective evidence. And they are not trying to impose anything on anyone. That is why they are called free thinkers. You unfortunately have not presented any evidence of the existence of a God, and although you are being presented by scientific evidence almost daily that is contrary of what is said in your Book, you are not ready to rethink your position.
Scientific method and thinking, is not a matter of faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Scientific method deals with evidence. I cannot disprove your God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I am not going to believe in them unless you can present me enough objective scientific evidence.

And I really doubt St. Augustine can be counted as a free thinker.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:50:00 UTC | #6822

JackR's Avatar Comment 25 by JackR

"atheism has never spoken to the human condition."

Neither has 1+1 = 2. It's still true though, isn't it?

What the hell does "spoken to the human condition" mean, anyway? What a tenuous phrase. Do you mean "contained useful insights into the human condition", perhaps? Pure atheism may not have done this since pure atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a particular belief (why do we have to keep saying this?) However, the sort of atheism which insists on analysing and tackling the widespread irrationalities of religious believers most certainly has provided useful insights into the human condition: not least the insight of how tragically prone humanity is to believing demonstrably arrant nonsense in the face of all reason and evidence.

As for the absurd suggestion that the idea of God is self-evident, well, no it isn't. And simply declaring that it is - whether that declaration comes from you, Augustine or the Pope doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. Once again, if you wish to make a claim about something being true, or something existing, you cannot do so with any clout whatsoever unless you provide hard evidence and reasoned argument for it. In the absence of such, there isn't the slightest good reason to shift from the default position of not believing.

Why do god-botherers find it so very difficult to get their heads around this blindingly obvious bit of elementary logic?

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:54:00 UTC | #6823

Ryan's Avatar Comment 26 by Ryan

William, Manfred, Jack:

Well said, I totally agree. At a point this irrational nonsense becomes, well, infuriating in the most polite sense of the term.

I only wish I could actually respond in full, but unfortunately I'm at work and don't get paid for looking at posts, much less responding :)

Fight the good fight.

-Ryan

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:02:00 UTC | #6825

Russ's Avatar Comment 27 by Russ

Post 32. Comment #4090 by

says "For me, atheism has never spoken to the human condition. The universe only inspires terror, and not beauty, when left to its own devices."

I, on the other hand, see quite a different picture.

I see atheism directly addressing the human condition. I see no terror. I see great beauty. Why is that?

I know from the vast existing body of evidence that I am composed of matter only - matter rearranged by fluxes of energy starting with the Sun and ending with my animation. I see back in time to a Big Bang and I stand in awe that I have, after so much, time resulted from an amazing cosmic evolutionary process. That I, indeed, that all of humanity, can look back and see its origins, fills me with an indescribable wonder.

Genetics - not some xenophobic diety - demonstrates to me that I am related to every human on this planet. It tells me there really is a brotherhood of man. My understanding of this well-documented truth tells me that the religious books have it terribly inhumanly wrong.

Biology, genetics, and ecology inform me about my relatedness to every living thing on this planet, and, more, my absolute dependence on the other inhabitants of the biosphere. Holy books would have me naively believe that the world is an inexhaustible wellspring of human sustenance, but these sciences truthfully tell me that I live in a finite world with limited resources. My dependence together with the limited resources require the moral choice to share. That is, the science tells me that it is a good idea to be sharing and to be conscientious in the use of resources. The human capability to determine this, directly the result of interacting bits of matter in the brain, inspires curiosity in me: what else can we do?

For me atheism is, at its core, the non-interference of the supernatural in my thought processes. Atheism is the freedom to connect the dots of the natural world, of which I am very much a part, and, if necessary, reconnect them when I realize my errors in knowledge, understanding or interpretation. Atheism allows me to truly work toward the best that man, and I myself, can be since I can follow the evidence wherever it goes. Religions, doctrines, holy books, and apologetics all have a specific end in mind, and, unlike the unencumbered mental freedom of atheism, they obstruct both the search for truth about the natural world and the individual search for life-long personal contentment.

Religions inspire terror, atheism does not. I am not afraid of what I do not know. I instead revel in the understanding that what I don't know serves as my guide along my own unique path to personal enlightenment, joy and happiness.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:22:00 UTC | #6827

J.C. Samuelson's Avatar Comment 28 by J.C. Samuelson

@ #40

"I seem to recall a reformation, of which Catholics joined in, resulting in some important changes in thinking in which guilt is admitted and righted."

How is this statement in any way relevant to this discussion?

"The point I was making is that for Augustine's philosophy (perhaps the first true philosopher in historical overview) the idea of God is self-evident. 'I am, therefore God is.'"

Well, the rather dubious claim that Augustine has the distinction of being the 'first true philosopher' aside, I'd like to point out that Augustine's thinking was fallacious. In affirming the consequent (If A then B; B so A) Augustine essentially took an absolute certainty to prove an absolute uncertainty. This is like saying "Lightning is, therefore Zeus is." Why? Zeus makes lightning (as everyone knows), therefore if lightning then Zeus. Surely you can see how this is illogical.

Augustine projected his faith onto his own existence, and in so doing ruled out the possibility that nature itself gave rise to humanity.

"It takes a giant leap of blind faith to transform the reality of God into an object for a subject to meditate on, and to pose the mind itself as being the greatest power. Isn't this the hallmark of humanism?"

Actually, the hallmark of humanism (if it has one) is that it affirms the dignity and worth of all humanity. As for objectifying God, theists do that better than anyone. How would it be possible to objectify something one doesn't believe exists anywhere but the mind of man? This takes no giant leap of blind faith, because as has been said many times, mankind is quite predisposed to creating gods to worship. What takes a leap of faith is to believe that one of these gods is actually real, to the exclusion of all the others.

Let me rephrase your assertion: "It takes a giant leap of blind faith to transform the reality of Apollo into an object for a subject to meditate on..." Absurd, don't you think? You probably don't believe in Apollo, do you? When you understand why, then you'll have a better understanding of how an atheist thinks.

"Philosophy seems to have been reduced rather than expanded, and leaves out the most important part of the equation in explaining the prime question of 'How did we get here?' But how do you feel about this?"

Philosophy, science, reason are never diminished so long as the pursuit of knowledge allows for new information. If anything, reliance on 1st century philosophy, theology, and science (such as it could be said to exist), diminishes these things because it dismisses new information.

As for your question of our origins, we only have evidence that we are one of many species on the tree of evolution, and share a common ancestor with some apes. If you're asking about the origin of life, that's abiogenesis and at this point we do not have the answers. There is nothing to fear in saying "I don't know."

Be wary of a god of the gaps. Scientific discovery has slowly but surely closed most of the gaps that formerly were occupied by a deity. Indeed, heaven would have quite a problem with homelessness since these gods were evicted from their previous accommodations. I'll start a collection. Anyone wishing to donate please make your checks payable to the "J.C. Samuelson Foundation for the Fair Treatment of Homeless Deities."

As for how I 'feel' about it, I can't say I 'feel' any particular way about it. I do not worry about it, that much is certain, and I don't fear the universe or my eventual death.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:23:00 UTC | #6828

Manfred's Avatar Comment 29 by Manfred

Ryan, thanks for the kind words.

Don:
I must confess, I am starting to fail to understand you. You are contradicting yourself, man.
"God is not stagnant, but changes to meet the needs of the time. He uses humans to bring his purposes to fruition. He didn't simply create the world and the life in it, and then disappear to never be heard from again. He lives today! And he uses man to give his message."

I must ask, why, why and why? Didn't you say in another post that he is the higher power? Why can't he just use his own power? Why does he need humans to do his bidding? And on what premise are you saying that "You are using your brain to reason upon things that cannot be understood in this way.?" You know, this is not the hard objective evidence you were talking about before.

And why can't our brain understand these things?
If by this you mean the unknowns that science has not answered yet, then you should know that scientists are working on those very mysteries. There used to be very many questions throughout the history of which humans did not know the answers. Progress of knowledge through science has answered many of them. There are still many questions and science keeps providing us with answers.
In which one of your scriptures, Books or whatnot, the answers to these questions are really the
correct ones that modern science has provided?

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:36:00 UTC | #6829

Rienk's Avatar Comment 30 by Rienk

"A life of obeisance to a deity one disbelieves in may be a price worth paying."

So we should show obeisance to a nonexisting deity and it's believers, though the believers will not show us the same obeisance?
There is a word for that: oppression.

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:50:00 UTC | #6830