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

Retusa's Profile

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

Latest Discussions Started by Retusa

More Discussions by Retusa

Latest Comments by Retusa

Go to: Do atheists need their own bible?

Retusa's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by Retusa

"When you're talking about the King James Bible, you're talking about one of the greatest works in English literature, perhaps world literature,"

Probably true, but that's its only merit in my opinion, in all other respects it is of no value.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:00:53 UTC | #938435

Go to: A universe without purpose

Retusa's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by Retusa

Comment 30 Alan4discussion

"If my hammer breaks and I finish knocking in the nail with a rock, I have given the rock a purpose"

I'd be more inclined to say you've found a use for the rock, 'purpose' is a goal or aim: 'use' is employment for or toward a purpose. Either way, the rock doesn't have a single use or purpose.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:42:40 UTC | #938433

Go to: Are You a Believer? Take The Dawkins Test.

Retusa's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Retusa

Comment 16 by mmurray

"I always thought 6.9 was chosen just to avoid having to deal with the table turning manoeuvre that says "OK you prove God doesn't exist". You want the emphasis on them to prove that their god exists."

The emphasis is automatically upon them because the onus of proof lies with those making the claim, that's why I would never rate myself as a 7, it avoids the need to answer charges of arrogance. I leave that to the believers who fail to see that claiming to know that which they cannot possibly know, is arrogance of the highest order!

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:45:54 UTC | #933376

Go to: Lawrence M. Krauss on A Universe from Nothing

Retusa's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Retusa

Schrodinger's Cat

"Actually I take umbrage at what I consider to be a somewhat un-scientific attitude. Science is about taking the trouble to actually investigate things."

Yes, science is like you say, however, most of the woo-woo stuff drumdaddy mentioned has been thoroughly investigated quite a while ago and found to be unevidcenced; it's therefore not a priori. So count me with you drumdaddy and play the rudiments every day! :)

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:58:48 UTC | #930964

Go to: BBC rewrites history of science

Retusa's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Retusa

An "easily made" error, no big deal, but it's true that standards at the BBC are not what they used to be.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 23:27:10 UTC | #924466

More Comments by Retusa