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

justme's Profile

justme's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by justme

More Discussions by justme

Latest Comments by justme

Go to: Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

justme's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by justme

Three thoughts;

1. Scope out the cool looking churches for a pub or restaurant upgrade.

2. Can you ship more of what you have over there to the USA?

3. Nasty groups over in the USA are looking for foreign branches of the poison they peddle. Like any successful cult, they won't take "no thanks" for an answer.

Fri, 09 May 2008 16:33:00 UTC | #168682

Go to: An Inquisition in science's name

justme's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by justme

I'll give him one compliment: He didn't compare Richard and Sam to either Communists or Nazis.

Other than that, he entirely misses the point, and throws in ideas that nobody has proposed simply to satirize them. Simply dishonest.

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:40:00 UTC | #48085

Go to: Christopher Hitchens on Religion

justme's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by justme

cacahahacaca: Thanks for the link to the MP3. The main sites look like they are slammed right now.

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:45:00 UTC | #45593

Go to: Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

justme's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by justme

Damien White:
"Unfortunately, I don't think it will. Religious people are fundamentaly irrational. If gods really existed, no religious person would wish to be immortal. Yet they clearly do. How do I know this? Because most churches are non-smoking."

Haven't been in a church in years, but except for the incense (Catholic churches), I don't remember them big places for chain smokers to gather in. (Get it ... 'chain' smokers?)

That said, I think you're right that religion isn't going away. It will morph, though, and I suspect that it will go one of two general directions in regard to verifiable truth such as the sciences;

* Stricter isolation from the sciences (with a heavier reliance on 'faith'); the split between dogmatic groups and ones that are detached from the debate (as they see no conflict between mild faith and hard science). Expect a meltdown as the two groups clash in the public arena when the dogmatic groups get pushy and demand absurd levels of special treatment.

* Embracing the sciences (with a 'faith' component on the totally unverifiable aspects of current religions). The UUs already do this to some respect taking in all information not just religious sources, though they take the stance that you don't need to be a theist either -- something that other mainline religious groups will avoid doing.

One or both of these scenarios could easily happen. I'm not convinced which direction we are going, though the folks who are willfully ignorant of research will hopefully be laughed out of the public debate on these issues as they should be.

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:59:00 UTC | #44352

Go to: I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

justme's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by justme

The Onion Radio News podcast ...

http://www.theonion.com/content/feeds/radionews

Wed, 30 May 2007 23:34:00 UTC | #43484

More Comments by justme