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

Darrell E's Profile

Darrell E's Avatar Joined over 4 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Darrell E

More Discussions by Darrell E

Latest Comments by Darrell E

Go to: Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death'

Darrell E's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Darrell E

From the article:

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions (1) that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient (2), according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.

(1) What exactly does "take" decisions mean? Does the author mean the doctor is making a decision, or does he mean the doctor accepts the decision of the patient, or something else? Is the author being intentionally vague, or is this just a common usage in a particular dialect of english that I am not familiar with?

(2) This is the most clarifying bit of information in the article and is at odds with both the title and the general tone of the article over all. It seems a bit odd that the author included this statement and the statement that Richard noted in comment #1 while the rest of the article seemed to be written with the intent of portraying atheist and agnostic doctors badly.

A doctor who thinks that his or her religious beliefs give him the moral authority to decide what available options to disclose to the patient should not be allowed to practice medicine, except perhaps under the closest of supervision to prevent him or her from doing so.

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:32:35 UTC | #505882

Go to: U.S. Soldiers Punished For Not Attending Christian Concert

Darrell E's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Darrell E

It would be very difficult to accurately describe the magnitude of my disgust. The only reasonable punishment for any military personnel involved in this is dishonorable discharge. No excuses. Nothing to discuss. Get these sanctimonious pricks right the fuck out.

Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:15:47 UTC | #503594

Go to: Shallow, smug, arrogant; pot, kettle, black

Darrell E's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Darrell E

That is a truly awful article. Not a single redeeming quality. What really does surprise me though, is that this article is fairly typical of religious writings about atheism these days.

It seems so clearly evident, from their own words, that the apologists have nothing but either hucksterism or bile to offer. And criminally poor analogies. Every article, essay, what have you.

I really find it hard to understand why so many people can't clearly see that and as a result lose faith, if not in their religion, at least in the intellectual elite that champion their religion.

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:52:55 UTC | #500423

Go to: On Dawkins’s Atheism: A Response

Darrell E's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Darrell E

Comment 17 by Steve Zara :

Comment 3 by Cartomancer Superb comment, as always. I would like to add just one thing.

It doesn't matter if materialism is true or not. It doesn't matter what the nature of reality is. Science is still the only conceivable way that fallible beings with imperfect minds can attempt to discover what is true. Even if theism were true, we would need science. Even if electrons were moved about by fairies, we would need science. Science is based on the acceptance that our personal experiences and memories aren't reliable, and ideas have to be tested. Science so far seems to indicate that reality is stable and follows a few rules. But its validity as an approach does not depend on that - even if science turned out to be of no use, it's still the only way to try.

Well said.

In order to leave room for gods and magic that the endeavor of science can’t debunk, you have to posit a supernatural realm, in addition to nature. Then you can claim all sorts of nonsense like “science can only probe natural phenomena, but this is a supernatural phenomena and religion is necessary to understand it”.

I get frustrated when I see skeptics, atheists, what have yous, arguing with theists or accommodationists that there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. I mean, that is fine and true as far as it goes, but what really needs to be pointed out is that the process of science makes no distinction between natural or supernatural, or any other “realm”. Science interrogates that which exists, period. No matter how bizzare the phenomenon may be, if it exists the methods of science can, in principal, be used to probe it.

Not only is science the only way, it is capable, in principal, of yielding useful results no matter how bizarre your "realm" may be.

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:56:45 UTC | #500009

Go to: Mormon, and feminist too

Darrell E's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by Darrell E

From Tresa Edmund's Article

My pioneer ancestors campaigned for women's rights in order to protect their practice of polygamy.

That statement boggles my mind. She wishes to be known as a feminist and she believes that? She seems to be thoroughly under the spell of her religion. Her article is shallow, naive and juvenile. Like something an average preteen might write. Pretty much what you would expect from someone cut off from the wider world, and reality, by deep immersion in religion.

As an aside, I lived for some time in Albuquerque NM as a teen and encountered many Mormons. Dated a Mormon girl for awhile. At that time, late 70s to early 80s, and in that place partying, dancing, drinking heavily and sex where rampant within the mormon teen subculture that I briefly experienced. At the time, and still in retrospect, I thought they where the wildest crowd I had ever hung out with.

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:22:53 UTC | #499848

More Comments by Darrell E