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

twoodman's Profile

twoodman's Avatar Joined over 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by twoodman

More Discussions by twoodman

Latest Comments by twoodman

Go to: Why is evolution more accepted in Mexico than in the USA?

twoodman's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by twoodman

Catholics have no trouble with evolution, and I have never met a Catholic creationist although I know there are some in the US. It is biblical fundamentalists who are creationists. Note that the present Pope has refused to endorse Intelligent Design. As for the person who calls RC Church a 'paedophile organisation' that's one sixth of the world's population you have just tarred with the same brush!

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:16:38 UTC | #948695

Go to: Ratzinger's apology for Christian violence in history.

twoodman's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by twoodman

What a very one-sided view of the Church and church history there is here! It's all bad isn't it? No mention of the way the monasteries preserved culture, of the civilising effects of barbarian culture, of the charitable work and hospitals, of the great saints like Francis of Assissi. When was the last time the official RC Church sanctioned violence do you think? At a time when culture was itself violent and there was hardly such a thing as pacifism the Church defied its founder, which is a great shame. Good that the Pope apologises for it. Don't try to drag in everything you can to slander it in response. Hitler was born a Catholic, but he invented his own religion, killed hundreds of priests, hated Catholicism, and said he would deal with it when he had finished with the Jews. This is just one example of the shoddy arguments some of you resort to. For what others of you say I have the greatest respect.

Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:18:36 UTC | #886578

Go to: Magicians say their craft makes them see faith as just hocus-pocus

twoodman's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by twoodman

What a shame not to be able to tell the difference between magic tricks and religion. Another false syllogism here which amounts to a circular argument -- religion is a series of magic tricks; a magician can deconstruct magic tricks; therefore we can deconstruct religion. It doesn't require any great logical powers to see that the first statement amounts to an unexamined and unproven assertion and thus to a circular argument. Of course some religion is no more than magic tricks. The nub must be to attempt to prove that all religion is that. It is tempting to remind the unhistorically minded that science had much of its origins in magic, alchemy etc. One central problem is a misunderstanding of the word 'supernatural', which is better avoided in talking either about the Abrahamic religions -- where God is not in any obvious sense supernatural-- or religions such as Buddhism. For elucidation see the British theologian Herbert McCabe.

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:51:43 UTC | #886118

More Comments by twoodman