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

Riley's Profile

Riley's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Riley

More Discussions by Riley

Latest Comments by Riley

Go to: Jake: Hanging out with a teenage Einstein

Riley's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by Riley

But from what I know about Einstein's biography, Jake and Einstein have almost nothing in common.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:38:31 UTC | #914923

Go to: Sam Harris on accommodationism

Riley's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by Riley

Comment 44 by J.KEARNS :

In my view anyone who makes William Lane Craig look like a cretin gets my approval.

so what you are saying is that William Lane Craig gets your approval?

Sun, 29 May 2011 14:16:21 UTC | #632091

Go to: Ken Ham vs. Rev. Barry Lynn Over Tax Funded Bible Theme Park

Riley's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by Riley

Comment 67 by Starcrash :

I don't care if a Christian theme park is given government help. If there was an institution dedicated to spreading the truth from an Atheist's point of view (let's hypothetically call it Nearly Every Museum on the Planet), I'm pretty sure it would also get government funding.

"truth from an Atheist's point of view" ??? You mean facts supported by scientific evidence? This point of view of truth is, thank god, not limited to atheists.

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:31:42 UTC | #586515

Go to: Ken Ham vs. Rev. Barry Lynn Over Tax Funded Bible Theme Park

Riley's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by Riley

Comment 18 by yanquetino :

Comment 10 by Riley :

Ken Ham in this case is right. The government needs to be neutral. If a Mickey Mouse based theme park would have qualified for government subsidies as part of a state program intended to attract tourism and business development (i.e. tax revenue and jobs), then so too should a Noah's Ark based theme park.

Wow... I didn't know that Disneyworld was attempting to proselytize the religious belief that Mickey Mouse was real!

The government should be neutral about reality? Can't wait for them to subsidize a Golden Plate theme park for Mormons.

I think you and others here are confusing "bad policy" with "unconstitutional policy". The fact that Kentucky is choosing to incentivize (i.e. subsidize) the building of a for-profit (i.e. subject to taxation) theme park that promotes a crazy point of view is a bad policy. It is not an unconstitutional policy. If all those who apply for similar government tax breaks are chosen based solely on the merits their project (the amount of jobs and money the project would bring to the region), then there is nothing unconstitutional in this. In fact, ironically, if Kentucky had rejected the Noah's Ark project on the basis of its religious content, that would have been unconstitutional.

It's honestly embarrassing to watch this clip. The guy making the case against Ham, the guy who is supposed to be representing the side of reason and good argument, made a fool of himself.

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:25:04 UTC | #586512

Go to: Ken Ham vs. Rev. Barry Lynn Over Tax Funded Bible Theme Park

Riley's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Riley

Ken Ham in this case is right. The government needs to be neutral. If a Mickey Mouse based theme park would have qualified for government subsidies as part of a state program intended to attract tourism and business development (i.e. tax revenue and jobs), then so too should a Noah's Ark based theme park.

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 02:11:14 UTC | #585811

More Comments by Riley