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

Christopher's Profile

Christopher's Avatar Joined almost 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Christopher

More Discussions by Christopher

Latest Comments by Christopher

Go to: Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Christopher's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Christopher

Another vote for securing the deed to an island somewhere!

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:04:00 UTC | #9155

Go to: The God Experiments

Christopher's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Christopher

My initial reaction to the God Helmet as I skimmed this article was "Didn't Shoko Asahara of Japan's infamous Aum Shinrikyo sect already try this?!"

Then I began to see similarities with the Mood Organs made famous by Philip K. Dick...

Interesting reasearch all the same I guess.

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:58:00 UTC | #9091

Go to: The sexiest man living!

Christopher's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Christopher

Count me among those who unabashedly admit to having a Man Crush on the good Doctor!

Over the top? Well, yes.

Off the mark? Open to debate maybe.

Hugely entertaining? Most certainly!

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:32:00 UTC | #8082

Go to: Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Christopher's Avatar Jump to comment 173 by Christopher

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and thought I would join the fray and add a few thoughts.

Our stance on whether god exists or not is at the very core of our worldview. Thus, we are always biased and subjective when thinking about related issues. We look at everything in the light of our fundamental assumption that god does or does not exist. Thus, none of us are able to look at 'evidence' objectively. Furthermore, though we theoretically accept that we are open to debate and might be wrong, in practice we tend to think that, ultimately, we are correct in our view.

We can find it very hard to understand how others can't 'see the truth'. We think that if only they could somehow just see and understand the evidence in the 'objective' way that we see it, they would also hold the same belief. This means that we find it incredibly hard to understand how others might look at a particular issue claiming to be objective, using reason and evidence, and open to the possibility of being wrong, and yet hold the exact opposite opinion to us (and our response is often "they're wrong, they claim to have used reason etc, yet they disagree with me, so clearly they must not really have used reason etc, even if they think they have")

I was thinking of all this as I read Greg Achilles' post, so I thought I would use some of his statements to illustrate my point. For the sake of simplicity, I have prefixed the statements from his post with 'atheist'.

Atheist: Atheists have come to their conclusions through their own research and investigation of reality using verifiable evidence.
Theist: Theists have come to their conclusions through their own research and investigation of reality using verifiable evidence.

Atheist: …to follow the objective evidence wherever it leads in the search for truth.
Theist: …to follow the objective evidence wherever it leads in the search for truth.

Atheist: Theists often claim that atheists aren't open to being wrong.
Theist: Atheists often claim that theists aren't open to being wrong.

Atheist: It seems to atheists that that is simply logical. So can you see from this why atheists see themselves… as simply following common sense and logic?
Theist: It seems to theists that that is simply logical. So can you see from this why theists see themselves… as simply following common sense and logic?

Atheist: What drives atheists to convince others is, I suspect, simple empathy, a desire to steer people who are lost to the truth, a desire to make the world a better place where humanity is living in reality and is dealing with their problems.
Theist: What drives theists to convince others is, I suspect, simple empathy, a desire to steer people who are lost to the truth, a desire to make the world a better place where humanity is living in reality and is dealing with their problems.

I know that if I read these kinds of statements, I am tempted to think about half of them "yes, that's pretty much correct", and the other half "they say that, but they aren't REALLY following their common sense and logic etc". Add to this the very subjective effect of one's own life experiences, emotions etc, and things become even more difficult.

I guess what I'm saying is that our belief about whether god exists or not isn't as objective, open-minded, rational and evidence-based as we would like to think.

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:49:00 UTC | #8020

Go to: Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Christopher's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Christopher

This was a well written review. I am not familiar with the situation in the UK, however, the hope that there is this mainstream branch of Christianity poised to make a comeback and rescue the God-Hypothesis from the crazed fundamentalists and their evil twin sisters, the unbelievers, seems rather unlikely if you look at what is going on here in the United States. Church attendance figures show a major shift away from moderate Protestant and Catholic churches and toward Evangelical Fundamentalism which Prof. Eagleton seems to clearly see the dangers of.

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:00:00 UTC | #6287

More Comments by Christopher