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

TalentedChimp's Profile

TalentedChimp's Avatar Joined almost 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by TalentedChimp

More Discussions by TalentedChimp

Latest Comments by TalentedChimp

Go to: Jesus and an unholy Union Flag

TalentedChimp's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by TalentedChimp

I guess if you can't be a good artist, be "controversial". Ain't no such thing as bad publicity.

Mon, 11 May 2009 14:35:00 UTC | #358587

Go to: Go gentle into that good night

TalentedChimp's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by TalentedChimp

How sad if our freedom to think about the immensity of time and space could be defined by what someone informs us that we believe.


Tue, 05 May 2009 14:35:00 UTC | #356597

Go to: another flea - 'Is GOD a Delusion'

TalentedChimp's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by TalentedChimp

we need to posit the existence of a fundamentally mysterious reality beyond the empirical world.

This is simply called "unreality" surely? If it can't be empirically experienced, then, to all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

When that’s the case, the argument doesn’t prove its conclusion, but it still reveals something important: it shows that reasonable people can accept the conclusion, even if they needn’t.

Meaningless double-talk. No reasonable person would accept an argument that doesn't prove it's conclusion. It is by definition, inconclusive - it's a pointless argument.

I think the arguments for God tend to be like that: they show us that reasonable people can believe in a fundamental reality that transcends the empirical world, even if the arguments don’t prove that such a transcendent reality exists.

And here he uses "believe". Belief is in spite of the arguments, not because of them. One must "believe" in any god if the arguments don't show that it exists. This is called "faith".

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:31:00 UTC | #352062

Go to: Don't penalize Texas students for any belief about science, bill says

TalentedChimp's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by TalentedChimp

I fail to see how "teaching the weaknesses" of one theory requires the introduction of another "theory". Surely any weaknesses of one theory are dealt with within the purview of the research and peer-review process within that theoretical framework?

Does that mean that we should push for the teaching of the weaknesses of ID/Creationism by promoting a new theory, say, Natural Design/Not-Creationism Theory?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:53:00 UTC | #338487

Go to: Religious Ed. rebellion

TalentedChimp's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by TalentedChimp

Why not simply remove the teaching of religions to the history curriculum? Or call it Cultural History or something like that? Religion is (or was) so intimately bound to a culture's history that the two are (or were) nearly indistinguishable.

Putting "religion" or "religious" into the title of any course of education is likely to ring the alarm bells of indoctrination.

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:13:00 UTC | #289941

More Comments by TalentedChimp