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

Comments by the way

Go to: Apathetic Atheists: A Forgotten Resource?

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 216 by the way

@comment 213 by Spiritual Atheist

Haven't commented in a while, but thought I'd post even tho' I haven't read all the comments, but this post was at the top of the page! Apologies if it has been covered already.

At the core of religion is the need to explain the bad and help people to be good

I'm not sure but I have an idea that the origin of the word 'religion' has something to do with 'to bind or tie' my take on religion is that it is all about power and control whereby the masses are 'bound' by stringent rules. To achieve this religions go by the 'Golden Rule', whereby he who has the gold makes the rules. So they need money, lots of it, to keep the masses under their control.

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:57:20 UTC | #932864

Go to: In Defense of Richard Dawkins

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by the way

Helga: Well, no one could never replace Hitchens. But of all the people I can think of, Neil DeGrassi Tysen would be my pick.

Quine: Science, we have covered. Hitch left a big hole from the world of literature; I would choose Salman Rushdie.

Bit late I know, but how about Ayan Hirsi Ali...or our very own Carto?

Edit: In fact there are several members of this forum I think would be more than able to fill the Hitch' literary place.....(eg; Corylus, Paula Kirby....?)

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:20:17 UTC | #916535

Go to: More rubbish about "shrill" atheists - this time in The Daily Mail

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by the way

Richard Dawkins is a household name now in UK, as well as being very well known in the U.S. A huge amount of people who read faith/less articles or have heard him speak will know that this is simply not the case, (that he is supposedly 'shrill'). Those who don't, neither know or care I would think.

'Shrill' just won't cut it any more, and anyone invoking that moniker now is just shooting themselves in the foot, and making a fool of themselves.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:58:26 UTC | #913335

Go to: [Update-related article] In Atheists We Distrust

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by the way

Comment 37 by aroundtown

also allowed me another jab on religiosity.

Hahaha! Ok! So we're on the same page then! ;)

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:42:55 UTC | #909317

Go to: [Update-related article] In Atheists We Distrust

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by the way

re Comment 34 by aroundtown

Thanks for that! Understood. I didn't want to come across as pissy (and I hope I didn't), but yes, sometimes I do get confused what people really mean, and I'm sometimes not really sure where they stand on certain issues as it all gets lost in translation.

I hope you didn't take offence, I meant none. ;)

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:22:43 UTC | #909313

Go to: [Update-related article] In Atheists We Distrust

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by the way

Comment 22 by aroundtown

I could care less what they think of me

Please forgive me aroundtown, I am a bit confused here. How much less could you care? A lot less? Not much less? You less, but they're still ok in your eyes? (ie you do have a small soft spot for them)

Or are you saying that you could not care any less than you already have reached the bottom of your caring for them?

It does confuse apologies.

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:04:19 UTC | #909294

Go to: If by "Christian love" you mean hatred & contempt...

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by the way

Comment 73 by JackR

re...your link

really nasty comments..."soliciting a child"...blah blah blah

"She's a pawn, she's a star." Horrible nasty nasty people, (and it gets worse)

I struggle to believe that grown ups really believe in this shit (in this day and age!)..bye bye US of A.

Who said "She's a pawn, she's a star"? Grown ups (adults)...nasty little f wits.

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:50:04 UTC | #908591

Go to: UCL Union censorship: Jesus & Mo respond

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 84 by the way

comment 56 by ive print screened your responses to show how moral , tolerant and (pro social cohesion) richard dawkins followers are -

comment 82 by adress a point made above i dont find anyone particularly offensive tbh with you -

Comment 83 by Absinthius

I am glad I am not the only one who is feeling this!

In fact I don't think you are fooling anyone Mahid. The majority of posters on this forum are a pretty savvy lot by and large, and no amount of obsequiousness and special pleading will make them change their minds re your arguments or religion are worth the time of day. I am so so very very sorry, but that's frees peach baby!...Dommage!

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:08:52 UTC | #907627

Go to: UCL Union censorship: Jesus & Mo respond

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by the way

"Will it be a pint of the usual lads, or are you sticking with a coke today Mo?"

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:33:22 UTC | #907310

Go to: My attempt to rewrite the Ten Commandments

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by the way

re rule six...There is NO rule six!

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:06:17 UTC | #905647

Go to: God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell Because He Loved Him

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by the way


Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:52:22 UTC | #900649

Go to: Catholic Answers Live with Sean Faircloth

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by the way

Comment 95 by susanlatimer

Unless they had a patent on them and then they'd sell a "blessed" version

'Holy' condoms! They'd go for those I'm sure!

Edit: Couldn't resist, sorry!

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:51:43 UTC | #896079

Go to: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 796 by the way

@Comment 793 by Questions4Now

There really seems to be some comprehension issues with the theists on this thread. Richard Dawkins has given his reasons very clearly for not wishing to debate WLC, not now or in the future...end of. That is his right whether you like it or not.

Dr. Craig clearly qualifies under the requirements for debate Prof. Dawkins has outlined for his opponents in the past. Further, perhaps you Brits don't understand the position Craig occupies in the realm of American evangelicalism

Dawkins must seem as a hell of a threat to you guys in America, that you are so desperate for WLC to debate him. I can see it now, the smug knowing smiles on the faces of the evangelicals as they leave the auditorium in gleeful anticipation of the next day's papers.

" Richard Dawkins cannot prove that there is no god!" What a coup!

We know that! Every atheist knows that. We just choose to live our lives as if it does not exist seeing as there is no evidence, none whatsoever that it does.

It would be more productive to debate a current issue with religion than whether a nonentity exists or not.

Richard Dawkins is a scientist, author and educator and gives talks, interviews and takes part in discussions. I've seen very few debates in which he has taken part. It doesn't seem to be his style, and who is to say otherwise.

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:02:33 UTC | #885644

Go to: Rochester Hills Country Club Cancels Richard Dawkins Appearance

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by the way

I think that you are too defensive of Prof Dawkins, but I don't particularly care about the country club in question.

You cared enough to posit a reason as to why you thought the venue may have been cancelled. If the application (or invite) had been turned down from the off then fair do's, but the venue was booked and invitations and marketing/publicity set in motion. As far as I can tell there was no hiding the fact as to who Richard Dawkins is and what the agenda was.....unlike what Ben Stein and producers/directors did in Expelled in order to get interviews with RD and other prominent atheists and scientists. as you seemed to care enough to posit a reason, do you think they were right to cancel after having accepted the booking? or was just to get a dig in?

Why do you think the natural world is wonderful?

It just 'is'!

Aaarh the secular sneer again. You easily claim to be embracing harsh reality, but limit "reality" to what your senses can measure and your mind can model.

'Secular sneer'? I think I know what you are getting at, but you come across as too intelligent and articulate to use such a term. It does roll off the tongue nicely! I would imagine (hope) that you are also a secularist, or would you really like to live in a theocracy? 'Atheist arrogance' perhaps, or 'atheist affront' might be more apropos!

Harsh reality is the only one I know, is that a bad thing?

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:28:59 UTC | #881488

Go to: Rochester Hills Country Club Cancels Richard Dawkins Appearance

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by the way

@ Matt50

Are you agreeing with the decision of the Rochester Hills Country Club to cancel Richard Dawkins' talk/book promotion because you feel that he is just too strident, shrill and assertive and would hurt the sensibilities of the club members. Adults among whom some would think nothing of going to church on a Sunday and screwing someone over in a business deal on a Monday. Or is it the title of the book that annoys you? That you feel there is no 'magic' in reality? I assume you would have the same viewpoint if somebody wrote a book called Bible 'Truths'? (I would assume by its title it is also aimed at children). No artistic licence should be allowed when it comes to book titles!

I guess I don't need to spell it out, but I took the word 'Magic' in the title of the book and its contents to mean about the 'Wonder' of the natural world, of nature and reality, and in the book comparisons were made with the childlike myths that mankind has dreamed up in order to understand and explain a bygone world.

But yeah, you're probably right, exposing those myths to harsh reality could seriously undermine their fragile egos. Better stick to business, it's less cruel.

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:13:42 UTC | #881394

Go to: Natural Enchantment

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by the way

My daughter regarded the explosive loveliness with gloom. "Last year, these would have looked like beautiful flowers to me," she said. "Now that I'm taking biology, all I can see is a bunch of plants trying to get pollinated."

And they were probably sour as well.

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:08:50 UTC | #877143

Go to: Site Redesign Input

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 185 by the way

My 2 cents for what it's worth...

A 'thumbs up' facility maybe and if possible those cool little emoticons! If they are abused, the Mods are always on hand. Aaaand...maybe a 'chatroom' for those posters who feel they need to rebut every word, every sentence, every line, every paragraph in a post. Sometimes it can be really irritating to scroll thru' yards of screen space to get to a post by Paula, Corylus, Carto, Steve et al, or even one of Quine's 'Got evidence?' Those posts are usually so succinct and to the point that even I can work out what they are getting at! I don't really need to be spoon-fed.

In a chat room, those that feel they really need to could then go through their arguments point by point, word by word without having to clutter up the main page.....?

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:50:57 UTC | #874788

Go to: The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (illustrated by Dave McKean)

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by the way

To continue with my theme!

It would be great if RD would connive with David Attenborough (or other public figure who can 'do no wrong') and pull a 'Sokal'! The dénouement would be even sweeter if it was for one of those pseudo-moralistic pubs such as the Torygraph!

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:40:34 UTC | #874388

Go to: The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (illustrated by Dave McKean)

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by the way

I wish journalists and the media in general would 'get over themselves' when they critique Richard Dawkins, on whether it is something he has said, done or written. No prizes for guessing if Tudge would've changed anything in his review if the author had been, say, Sir David Attenborough?

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:02:59 UTC | #874370

Go to: [UPDATED] David Attenborough joins campaign against creationism in schools

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by the way

Like Paula Kirby at comment #15, I am also genuinely shocked by the (wilfull) ignorance shown by the comprehensive school science teacher...

I am not a biologist, not a teacher and yet I can fully comprehend the simple beauty (aha! moment) of the scientific theory of evolution. Its beauty lies in its simplicity, even a child could grasp the concept. How many more like him abound, and how many more like him are lurking under the radar? Teaching your kids? And...what else is he teaching them? Very very worrying.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:22:40 UTC | #872772

Go to: Site Redesign Input

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by the way

I don't see any significance of the "grey heads", or, more specifically, of promulgating one's gender to the community here.

I agree, and there is also something disconcerting about being categorised as a 'grey' when one has gone to the trouble of either choosing a user name or using one's real kinda relegates one back to anonymity again, and almost provokes you to choose an avatar in order to re-establish your identity again. (or maybe that's just me!)

No pix would be better than a 'grey' to my mind, ('cept for those who put up pix), like it was done before.

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:06:06 UTC | #863692

Go to: Site Redesign Input

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by the way

Replace the Grey 'heads' accompanying each post with the RDF logo (or somesuch) for those who do not have an avatar. (or would that irritate and possibly deter the religious apologists?)

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:37:26 UTC | #863684

Go to: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by the way

The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.

Yes, for all the reasons Richard mentioned, however I hope the evolution question will not be asked as "Do you believe in evolution?" but as "Do you accept evolution as fact?"

I admit it is a bugbear of mine but, to me unless the question is asked with care, the disingenuous will pounce on it and twist it to their own ends.

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:25:02 UTC | #863416

Go to: Heard the one about the pope? Sadly, yes

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by the way

@ comment 52 Rich witlshire

Atheism; nothing to get cross about!

You nailed it! Dunno why christians get so hung up about it (atheism). We've got no hang-ups!

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:10:29 UTC | #641717

Go to: [UPDATE] Islamic bore talks over PZ Myers

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by the way

re the five times a day prayers. This is what I found on the internet.

the Prophet was summoned in a miraculous celestial journey by night from Makkah to Jerusalem and then into the heavens to the special Divine presence. He then received the obligation of ‘five times daily prayers’ directly from the Lord-God Himself, and he returned to announce to all those who had faith in Allah Most High that the institution of (five times daily) prayers was the vehicle through which they, too, could journey to the divine presence. Angel Gabriel subsequently came to him one day and led him in prayer five times - once in the early morning (after dawn but before sunrise), once in the early afternoon (after the sun had crossed the zenith but before mid-afternoon), once in the later afternoon (but before the setting of the sun), once after the sun had set, and finally in the early hours of the night (after twilight had ended). On each occasion he led the prayers at the earliest time possible. He then returned the next day and again led the Prophet in the same five times prayers, but this time he chose the latest possible time for each prayer. He then announced that these were the five times of compulsory prayer, and that each prayer was to be performed within the timeframe just established. In addition to these compulsory prayers there are, of course, voluntary prayers that could be performed at any time, but best of all in the early hours of the morning before dawn. Since there is but One God, and hence but one Truth, and only one true religion (i.e., the religion of ‘Abraham’ from whose name the name ‘Brahma’ appears to have originated) the implication is that whoever worships the One true God must pray these five times compulsory prayers every day. Anyone who does not perform the five times daily prayers would eventually live an essentially pagan life since the compulsory five times daily prayers are the very foundation of the religious way of life.

So I gather basically, if as a muslim you do not follow the five times a day ritual, you are essentially a kuffar, and we all know what happens to them. It is after all a religion founded on fear and intimidation with some pretty brutal punishments for even minor transgressions.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:14:19 UTC | #635786

Go to: Phallic Symbols at Denver International Airport

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by the way

Well this takes Irate's definition of a 'Nob-Jockey' to a new level.

[ooops, Edited sp]

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:45:40 UTC | #635433

Go to: The sad jar of atoms and the spaniel of destiny

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by the way

Comment 35 by jonny5509

Has everyone on this thread been at the glue?

Bendi is hysterically witty (and astute (should that be clevah?) with it) I'll have you know!...I'd rather read one enigmatic and deepity post by Bendi than ten concise, informative and educational posts by Dawkins (sorry gnu mods, I meant Richard!) /end sarcasm>

Sat, 21 May 2011 18:14:09 UTC | #629215

Go to: [Update-YouTube] The Big Questions - Series 4 - Is the Bible Still Relevant?

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by the way

The Right Reverend Michael Nazir Ali says with a knowing smirk, "...there can be no forgiveness without cost".

A 2,000 year old sick joke still being played out today to gullible and ignorant 'know-alls'.

So much for unconditional love.

RD.."How can you applaud that?...How can you applaud that??" Well said!...How religion poisons the mind.

Sun, 08 May 2011 19:39:50 UTC | #624668

Go to: Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 439 by the way

Comment 425 by Sparkly1 :

I know some atheists do, however, dislike me. I say that because, intermingled with factual answer is the irresistible urge to give me a good punch in the teeth. Which you wouldn't do to someone you liked. Which is not really necessary, is it?

Nonsense on stilts. You seem to be hell bent on playing the poor misunderstood victim here. Being persecuted for your beliefs perhaps? For being a woman maybe? Welcome to the church, they seem to have worked their magic on you.

Is that your only defence for your beliefs? Crying offence and playing the persecution card. I can understand why people are frustrated, but punching you in the teeth? You know this? Gimme a break!

Wed, 04 May 2011 06:17:01 UTC | #622849

Go to: Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

the way's Avatar Jump to comment 374 by the way

Sparkly 1 comment 370


So if people shouldn't be using this god thingy as an excuse for their bigotry (or altruism) what frickin' use is it for then? A comfort blanket? Of which to date there is absolutely no evidence for its existence whatsoever. I think I will stick to Richard Dawkins' and Carl Sagan's descriptions of the wonders of the universe and our small part in it, rather than in some nebulous 'something'. Far more awe inspiring and comforting for a numpty like me.

Tue, 03 May 2011 19:00:05 UTC | #622651