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

RainDear's Profile

RainDear's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by RainDear

More Discussions by RainDear

Latest Comments by RainDear

Go to: James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud

RainDear's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by RainDear

I'm a bit puzzled by why Randi's not coming out sooner is criticized here. In fact, I actually don't understand why sexual orientation has to be such an important issue at all.

If I had to define myself or my friends by listing certain properties or personality traits we have, sexual preferences wouldn't be among the top 20. I think sexuality really doesn't play that big a part in people's lives after they have turned 40, settled down, had a kid or two and concentrated on their careers or hobbies while slowly sliding into a quiet celibacy. So it's kind of silly that our culture keeps making it into an issue and demands that we should somehow define ourselves by it.

So, as to the comment #482928 by Steve Zara --
In a lot of bedrooms, what goes on is mostly sleeping and reading.

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:59:00 UTC | #463148

Go to: The Improbability Pump

RainDear's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by RainDear

Seems that not many here went through the trouble of reading Coyne's article. Creationism is a minor point in it, as Coyne mostly concentrates on Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's book "What Darwin Got Wrong", which accepts evolution but attacks the idea of natural selection. And apparently it has nothing to do with religion.

So, interestingly, it's not only a religious thing to oppose natural selection. There seems to be a dislike of the idea among a few philosophers and scientists, too. To me, it suggests that a certain type of mind just hates thinking of humans as smart animals, so all kinds of sophisticated pseudo-scientific theories refuting evolution and/or natural selection have a plenty of breeding ground.

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:51:00 UTC | #462561

Go to: Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering Up Atheist Crimes?

RainDear's Avatar Jump to comment 100 by RainDear

Good point, JemyM.

Most crimes against the humanity have been committed by non-Danes. Although you and I are both non-Danes, I don't think we should feel guilty for those crimes. I agree with you there.

However, in the case of atheism, the implication usually is that the hatred of religion (arguably not uncommon among atheists) can actually be held accountable for certain atrocities.

So, while I basically do agree with your proposal of "the atheist fallacy", I’m not sure that this answer would satisfy a theist using the tiresome Stalin-Hitler-Pol Pot-argument. Their argument is based on the idea of divine moral authority, the lack of which supposedly leads to atrocities. Even Richard’s argument about the logical pathway from religion to atrocities (while crimes committed by atheists were not committed in the name of atheism) sounds too evasive to me. Somehow evading responsibility without assigning blame to something else is just not enough to kill the stupid old argument.

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:28:00 UTC | #460691

Go to: Johann Hari calls for the arrest of the Pope part 1

RainDear's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by RainDear

Well done, Johann Hari. It’s disgusting how the RCC tries to spin this as an atheist attack on religion. Any secular organization intentionally covering up child rape would have been crucified by now, pun intended.

I’m wondering whether the leadership of the RCC is really full of monsters, or is it just that the RCC is so alienated from real life that they can’t see the monstrosity of their actions and words?

The problem with religious morality is the artificiality of its doctrines. The very idea of ”sin” is artificial. It is not based on the bad consequences of certain actions or the human suffering they might cause. No, it’s based on pseudo-intellectual interpretations of an ancient collection of miscellaneous scrolls, supposedly written by a bunch of goat-herders.

Perhaps this is the RCC logic:
1. There are many sins associated with sexuality.
2. People are sinful, even priests, even sexually.
3. But we must be merciful to sinners.

So, premarital sex is a sin. Using a condom is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Chil rape is a sin.

Perhaps a devout catholic really doesn’t see why child rape is somehow a worse sin than using a condom. After all, two unmarried homosexual adults using a condom constitutes THREE sins simultaneously. To a devout catholic, raping a child constitutes just one. So be reasonable and lay off, atheists.

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:45:00 UTC | #460686

Go to: The Catholic Church: Why Richard Dawkins Was Right and I Was Wrong

RainDear's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by RainDear

It's always a good thing to hear someone admit he was wrong. At least when he clearly was, not when he's Anthony Flew.

I think Michael Ruse suffers from the same problem many educated, liberal, well-off western people do. Perhaps I’m still one of them, too. Often these people are liberal atheists, who hold very dear the ideals of fairness and equality, even above the ideal of rational thinking. They, or should I say we, abhor sexism, rasism, patriotism, all possible cultural phobias, any cultural chauvinism, any in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, anything that could be construed as promoting our own flock over another. His worst intellectual nightmare is being called unfair and biased, accused of black and white thinking or kicking the underdog.

So, in a desperate attempt to avoid any such accusations, a liberal atheist overcompensates. Trying to look fair and impartial, he always ends up promoting the other side. As a well-off, academic, white western atheist, he finds it difficult to criticise things like alcholics, abusers of social benefits, illiterate street criminals, problematic aspects of certain immigrant cultures, Asian and African corruption, or as in this case, a criminal religious group. While harshly condemning misdemeanors by his own in-group, he will treat crimes committed by his out-group with exceptional leniency and understanding.

Actually, Ruse has realised and admitted this. Since he’s not religious himself, he feels the need to defend religion. Although seeing himself as rational atheist, he still feels the christian command to love the enemy and turning the other cheek. The more obvious the crimes of the RCC are, the more likely it is that a liberal intellectual will see them as the underdog. An underdog that must be defended in the name of fairness and fear of bias. (I just read a review of Zaeef’s ”My Life with the Taleban”. Haven’t read the book, but the review was a desperate attempt to bend over backwards to understand the Taliban and it’s rationale, to allow us to see the good things it has created.)

Once again, I’m reminded of the Bertrand Russell quote: ”The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 06:58:00 UTC | #460646

More Comments by RainDear