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

FighterForReason's Profile

FighterForReason's Avatar Joined about 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by FighterForReason

More Discussions by FighterForReason

Latest Comments by FighterForReason

Go to: [Update 1/27] Closing Statements - Richard Dawkins at the Jaipur Literature Festival

FighterForReason's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by FighterForReason

          [Comment 6](/videos/644736-richard-dawkins-at-the-jaipur-literature-festival/comments?page=1#comment_911775) by  [Richard Dawkins](/profiles/53)          :


                 > [Comment 5](/videos/644736-richard-dawkins-at-the-jaipur-literature-festival/comments?page=1#comment_911772) by   [SerenaP](/profiles/171745) :> >   WRT the lady who asked if it was Richard's conscious decision to use simpler and simpler language over the years, and Richard replying that each was addressed to a different audience.> > I'd like it if Richard writes books for an audience that has read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. I consider The God Delusion "light reading"... something to read for a quick laugh, but essentially, I did not come across much that I had not figured out already for myself. (The Smolin bits were entirely new to me.)> I was genuinely surprised by the observation of the woman in the audience, apparenty endorsed by Serena here. I had truly thought that, with the exception of *The Extended Phenotype* (for professional biologists) and *The Magic of Reality* (for children), all my books, including *The Selfish Gene,* were aimed at the same audience as each other: intelligent non-specialist adults.Shows how much I know!Richard

In my experience of reading your work, the only difficulties I had were with The Extended Phenotype, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn a lot from your easier-to-read books.

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:23:25 UTC | #911780

Go to: New Satellite Takes Spectacular High-Res Image of Earth

FighterForReason's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by FighterForReason

          [Comment 2](/articles/644737-new-satellite-takes-spectacular-high-res-image-of-earth/comments?page=1#comment_911770) by  [Richard Dawkins](/profiles/53)          :


                 I'm intrigued by the beautiful cloud shapes, because they include pretty much the same kinds of shapes as we see with the naked eye, yet the shapes in this photograph are presumably much larger. For instance, some of the clouds over the Gulf of Mexico look pretty much like our familiar, cirrocumulus 'mackerel sky', yet each 'scale' of the 'mackerel' in the picture must be many miles across, surely much larger than the ones we see from the ground? Or look at the long, wispy cloud to the south west of Baja California. It would not be surprising to look up from the ground and see a cloud looking just like that, a cirrus cloud complete with the same kind of wispy side tails. Yet the cloud in the photograph is about as long as the Baja Calfornia peninsula itself, that is more than 700 miles long.Is this a fractal phenomenon, or am I talking through my hat (which I unfortunately lost in Sri Lanka this week)?Richard

I see what you mean - the clouds do look the same as what we see with our naked eye. Such beauty! Images like this further illuminate the "magic of reality", as you call it, Professor.

Jordan.

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:19:41 UTC | #911776

Go to: Atheists are arrogant? I think the opposite.

FighterForReason's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by FighterForReason

It's amusing that religious people call us arrogant, when our views are backed up by mountains and mountains of evidence, while they are absolutely certain of themselves being correct, even without a shred of evidence. I suspect that even a child can tell which is the more arrogant. Also, I find it rather arrogant and sadistic that religious people take pleasure in the belief that we atheists are going to burn and suffer eternally, as they enjoy infinite benefits and joy. It is moronic, to be sure.

Jordan.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:58:03 UTC | #911523

Go to: Education is the only antidote to religion: Richard Dawkins

FighterForReason's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by FighterForReason

Professor Dawkins is correct - education is the ultimate antidote to religion, and the only way we can expect it to disappear. Why do religious people continuously indoctrinate their children? Because they themselves were likely indoctrinated. And indoctrination is a form of child abuse, and as such, when we see this happening, we should not take it lightly. It is a sickening sight, here in the UK, to see young girls having to wear those headscarves while their despicable father proudly walks down the street with them, knowing that he doesn't have to wear the scarf because he is male. This is disgraceful, and it deserves ridicule and hatred. When children are taught to think critically, to make up their own minds and to witness the wonders of their existence without the need for the supernatural fiction, I daresay they grow into much better people than those disgusting, hateful morons who believe in ancient texts. I have a teacher in my college who agrees with me, and he openly criticises religion in front of religious people. An excellent example of what we need in this world. He has before openly stated that religion is disgusting and stupid. An inspirational man, to be sure. Why should we hold back our opinions for fear of offending?

Jordan.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:53:07 UTC | #911520

Go to: Islam doesn't like the gays much, does it?

FighterForReason's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by FighterForReason

          [Comment 87](/discussions/644618-islam-doesn-t-like-the-gays-much-does-it/comments?page=3#comment_911147) by  [Schrodinger's Cat](/profiles/105285)          :


                 Comment 85 by Derek M> What a simple and practical idea! But do you seriously think Muslims will ever change the sacred and infallible words of the Koran? To do so is probably punishable by death anyway... sigh!... back to the drawing board.> I think it's a brilliant idea. It puts the ball squarely in the court of the 'moderates'. It would show just how moderate they actually are........the acid test.If they have no objection to the inciteful verses being removed, then fine. We will have made genuine progress.On the other hand, if they start giving a load of spew about the Koran being a sacred whole, infallible, and all that, then they are effectively still giving those inciteful ideas their support.They can't have it both ways. I fail to see why any genuine moderate would object to the removal of hateful verses. Of course it would be difficult in practice......but it would be interesting to see what the moderate reaction would be even to the suggestion of such an idea.

This is the problem with moderates. They claim to be "moderate", but when faced with the real problem of how evil their religion is, they still feel obliged to defend it. This demonstrates that, although moderates are better than extremists, it still isn't good enough to be a moderate, because they are tacitly endorsing those hateful sections of the religion anyway - by claiming that the religion is perfect. I doubt it would be very easy to find even a moderate, practicing Muslim who would deplore even the most disgraceful verses in the Qu'ran. Moderates deserve no respect for their beliefs, just as racists deserve no respect for their beliefs. This is, by the way, distinct from saying that these people deserve no respect - their may be other areas of their lives in which they are intelligent people. But their religiosity should be ridiculed.

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:05:58 UTC | #911204

More Comments by FighterForReason