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

Comments by root2squared

Go to: What Should Replace Religions?

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by root2squared

Sanity.

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:27:01 UTC | #584551

Go to: Should employers be blind to private beliefs?

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by root2squared

Hmm...tricky one. I would use the following algorithm:

1) Are the people making the decision more or equally competent/published/respected than the person being considered in the field? If yes, then they can discriminate on the basis of belief. This ensures that an accomplished Newton would not be rejected, but an amateur one who has not yet been proven would (Collateral damage).

2) Are the people making the decision less competent? Then, really they should be slightly embarrassed that a person with the handicap of religion is better than them and should be grateful someone better will be joining them.

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:43:37 UTC | #584211

Go to: The limitations of the single narrative

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by root2squared

This really is not about Islam. It is about something very important for rational thinking:

The narrative shapes views, and those with more power have more narratives. Hearing stories from one side only will most likely make you a bigot and you will never realize it.

A very simple fact that most will never get throughout their lives.

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:03:37 UTC | #583992

Go to: The limitations of the single narrative

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by root2squared

Thanks for posting this. I thought it was brilliant, very insightful, and witty as well.

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:59:16 UTC | #583967

Go to: Islamophobia is the moral blind spot of modern Britain

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by root2squared

Some statistics. Just to clarify (For the over-zealous), I'm not implying anything. I like to look up numbers.

Google search:

islam site:richarddawkins.net About 4,130 results

christianity site:richarddawkins.net About 2,910 results

paedophiles site:richarddawkins.net About 672 results

terrorists site:richarddawkins.net About 403 results

pope site:richarddawkins.net About 31,700 results

burka site:richarddawkins.net About 1,960 results

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:06:18 UTC | #582601

Go to: Human Savages

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by root2squared

I feel like very few of us are actually overcoming our evolutionary past

I think we have similar hardware, though not exactly the same for all, but running very different software. Very few are virus free and most of them need to upgrade.

Those that distance themselves from this savage cave man past are more EVOLVED than those who mire themselves in the world of stoning and execution.

I prefer sticking to scientific objectivity. Those whose genes are spread the most, whether they are barbarians or not, are the most evolved.

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:23 UTC | #582201

Go to: T-shirt slogans that do not offend

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by root2squared

Yes Virginia, there is a god.

Or

Yes, Virginia's mommy and daddy, there is a god.

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:13:12 UTC | #582147

Go to: Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 218 by root2squared

Comment 220 by Mark Jones :

Comment 218 by root2squared

If gays can't get married wherever this place is, then it's the fault of the government and society there, not these people.

The legislation explicitly equates marriage and civil partnership, so this criticism doesn't apply to the application of the law in this case.

Having civil partnership separate from marriage is ridiculous, I agree.

Legally, you may be in the right, but as I said, if the state can discriminate against unmarried people, then I don't see why citizens shouldn't be able to also.

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:21:07 UTC | #581263

Go to: Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 213 by root2squared

The articles states that the reason they were turned away was because they were not married, not because they were gay. If gays can't get married wherever this place is, then it's the fault of the government and society there, not these people.

By not allowing gays to call their civil partnership a marriage, it is the state that is discriminating against them. Since most governments already discriminate against unmarried people through higher taxes, I don't see why the a citizen can't discriminate against ALL i.e straight as well as gay unmarried people as well.

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:55:45 UTC | #581226

Go to: Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by root2squared

Gay people have too much intelligence and human respect for that.

Gay people are also well dressed and neat and tidy.

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:44:43 UTC | #580779

Go to: Atheists & Agnostics speak out in Arabic (English Sub.)

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by root2squared

I'm surprised there are no violent threats and %**%¥>}#s among the comments. Maybe they only hate Pat Condell?

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:41 UTC | #580680

Go to: Rev. Jones to hold 'Judge the Quran Day'

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by root2squared

This guy is a useful idiot. Let people of faith keep fighting each other till they turn skeptical or split into tiny powerless factions.

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:34:50 UTC | #580424

Go to: The truth about the lunatic religious right in America

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by root2squared

An interesting point brought low by accomodationism. I cringed when he decided he had to mentions "I'm a church going Christian myself." I applaud what these people are trying to do, to stop the crazies taking over. I just wish they could go that logical step further.

I agree.

In the river of thought, the flow of reason is obstructed by the fundamentalism of rocks which take a long time to erode, and while the mud of moderation may not impede it as forcefully, it will still gradually divert it from its correct course and dirty the waters.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:46:14 UTC | #579488

Go to: God was behind Big Bang, pope says

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by root2squared

Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

Marked as troll.

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:38:44 UTC | #579483

Go to: How animals made us human

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by root2squared

Comment Removed by Author

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:33:29 UTC | #579131

Go to: How animals made us human

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by root2squared

I think pets evoke the same emotions and feelings in us that make us love the company of small children - cute, vulnerable, innocent, funny, but with added benefits like:

1) Lower maintenance.

2) Kids are the most fun and cute when they are 1-5 years old. Pets are like kids who never grow older.

3) Pets worship us as if we were god (well, dogs, not cats).

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:32:29 UTC | #579130

Go to: Earth's Rotation Changes Zodiac Signs

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by root2squared

Comment 15 by Rodger T :

O M G,aquarius is entering uranus.

LOL!

Anyone notice how EVERY SINGLE FNC female presenter, pundit or commentator is blonde?

If I just want to watch hotties reading the news, I'd go with Naked News and believe it or not, compared to Fox, their news presentation is classy, sophisticated, and professional.

Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:04:41 UTC | #578961

Go to: The three great wounds

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by root2squared

Comment 29 by blitz442 :

Comment 28 by Jollyroger

Everything, yes everything, that you can conceive of is generated in around a litre of chemicals located just above your shoulders. All your sensorary inputs feed into this little lump of matter, and you can't even be sure that there is or is not an external reality, whatever that may mean. Free will? No way!

If someone commits a crime, can they absolve themselves of any guilt or punishment on these grounds?

Deterministic atoms of criminal: You can't punish me because I don't have free will, so I had no choice in the matter.

Deterministic atoms of judge: I don't have free will either, so I can't not punish you either.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:52:34 UTC | #578535

Go to: The end for small glaciers

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by root2squared

BTW Sarah Palin is also a Global Warming denier. :-)

I find it funny that even nutty Islamic terrorists believe in global warming. link text

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:32:28 UTC | #578527

Go to: American Islamophobia

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 220 by root2squared

Comment 231 by HughCaldwell :

Comment 230 by root2squared I don't have a problem with a fear of Islam. On average, it seems to be the most fanatical religion, the most narrow minded, and the most dangerous. It should never be appeased or tolerated.

You have forgotten that Muslims are among our military and political allies. The Americans (and the British) have trained and armed Muslim armies and police forces.

I'm neither a part of 'our' nor a part of 'them'. Those who ally with, arm, and support human rights violators and genocidal dictators are also responsible for their actions.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:51:46 UTC | #578454

Go to: Pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for potentially life-saving drugs

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by root2squared

Such pharmacists should be denied medicine when their lives are in danger for being pro-death.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:41:20 UTC | #578369

Go to: American Islamophobia

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 216 by root2squared

I don't have a problem with a fear of Islam. On average, it seems to be the most fanatical religion, the most narrow minded, and the most dangerous. It should never be appeased or tolerated.

As for terrorism, American and British soldiers in Muslim countries are terrorists. Fanatical Muslims are also terrorists. Both deserve each other. I'm not sure which has caused more evil around the world. It would be an interesting study.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:10:36 UTC | #578345

Go to: On scientism: BioLogos‘s big meeting, in which Francis Collins embarrasses himself and the NIH

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by root2squared

I love Mr. Waterfall. He always makes me laugh.

Comment 20 by bethe123 :

Put the blame where it deservers to be placed.

Who was the person who appointed him to this position? Barack Hussein Obama.

You don't understand. Obama is secretly an atheist. How can he not be? He speaks so nicely. And obviously, since Collins is far more intelligent than Obama and a real scientist, he must definitely be an atheist and only pretends to be a Christian to further his career. And see, it worked. Playing Christian got him this position. So stop complaining.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:46:58 UTC | #578329

Go to: Pat Robertson: Snow Is God's Way of Punishing Americans Planning To Drive To Do Something Gay

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by root2squared

When the joke is not distinguishable from what could easily be true, it's not funny. Humor fail.

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:54:54 UTC | #578119

Go to: Obama's Tucson speech

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by root2squared

Comment 43 by BanJoIvie :

Comment 33 by root2squared

First of all, I don't see why a politician has to fly across the country to a memorial service...

Really? I actually doubt that you can't think of any difference between this memorial service and memorials for other avoidable deaths accross the country. Are you honestly saying that if you were President you would have skipped the ceremony or declined to speak? I find that surprising. I also think it would show remarkably poor judgement and an inability to read the mood of the nation - both bad qualities for a leader.

No, I can't think of a reason why a politician should be present in this case. I don't see how anyone can claim the "mood of the nation" required him to be there. He could have easily just issued a statement from the WH.

The speech has references to scripture and heaven.

So does The God Delusion.

Context.

Again, preaching at the memorial to show his religiosity as a representative of the state which is supposed to be secular.

I would say it is a stretch to call what he said preaching. Though I agree the speech showed affinity for vaguely religious sentiment over irreligion. I am mildly disappointed in that regard as well, but hardly surprised given the nature of the event and the expectations of the very great majority of the audience. All things considered, I think it was the least religious speech we could have expected from almost any American President at this point in history. Any other person with a chance in hell of holding that office would probably have increased the god talk.

Secularism, by the way, does not mean that personal expressions of faith should be forbidden from the public sphere or even from public officials. It merely means that religion should never be endorsed under color of authority. Obama is free to believe in God and to express that belief in public without violating the wall of separation.

And which of your somewhat conflicting expectations do you think Obama should have heeded, to "keep the politics out of it" or to speak as "a representative of the state"? I actually think he did a remarkable job on both fronts, while you obviously feel he failed twice-over.

There was an article about a year ago which said that Obama mentioned Jesus more times than Bush. Religious nuts always piss me off.

Mentioning children is always about pushing emotional buttons, never about any rational talk about issues.

I ask again. Do you feel that it is inherently wrong to appeal to emotion in a funerary speech?

No, but Obama mentioned children in the context of democracy, which is politics.

If this was about grief, he didn't belong there or at the least could have kept politics out of it.

Whether or not he "belonged there" is surely subjective, but I don't see how your opinion on the matter - or mine - should outweigh those of the victims' families, which neither of us know. In any case, Obama would surely have been criticized much more fiercely for skipping it than for addressing a grieving nation at a difficult and confusing period. Rightly so in my opinion. I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that you would have been equally harsh in your assessment if he had stayed away, and someone had opened a thread here to discuss it. I freely confess that this is mere speculation, and I am very apt to have misjudged you on this point.

I definitely would not criticized him then. My reaction would have been to say: it's not his job to speak at memorial services.

As for politics, in the strictest sense, I'm not sure it is even possible to keep an event such as that absolutely apolitical. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to think of anything in human interactions that is not arguably connected to politics. If one is the POTUS, every action is "political", even avoiding a memorial service for the victims of a federal assasination.

But in my opinion, this was a remarkably politics-free Presidential speech by any rational sense of the word. I'm curious as to where exactly - having decided to speak - you feel he crossed the line and failed to "at least" keep the politics out?

Lastly, I don't believe him to be sincere, and think this was just an opportunity to improve his poll numbers through an emotional speech. I can't prove that, since it is my subjective interpretation, so probably there's not much point talking about this more. It also doesn't seem to have been a funeral anyway: Critics Assail Cheering and T-Shirts at Obama Tucson Speech

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:09:36 UTC | #578061

Go to: Obama's Tucson speech

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by root2squared

Comment 32 by Quine :

Comment 10 by root2squared :

Cheap tactic of using 9 year old's death to provoke emotions - check.

The man is the father of two young daughters; no cheap tactic for him. Every day Obama must face the fact that one of his could catch a stray bullet meant for him. How would you speak to the parents in front of him who were, at that moment, living that very nightmare?

I've no doubt he loves his own daughters. But you are making an assumption here: that Obama has empathy and cares about some random people he's never met. Based on his actions so far and his character, that seems extremely unlikely.

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:14:08 UTC | #577973

Go to: Depth of the Kindness Hormone Appears to Know Some Bounds

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by root2squared

Yes, you knew there had to be a catch. As oxytocin comes into sharper focus, its social radius of action turns out to have definite limits. The love and trust it promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group. Oxytocin turns out to be the hormone of the clan, not of universal brotherhood. Psychologists trying to specify its role have now concluded it is the agent of ethnocentrism.

Not surprising. It seems to explain racism and nationalism. So if someone has high oxytocin, can we really blame him/her for being racist?

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:33:43 UTC | #577963

Go to: Obama's Tucson speech

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by root2squared

BanJolvie

First of all, I don't see why a politician has to fly across the country to a memorial service which should be a private thing involving family and friends. Thousands of people die every year in situations which are completely avoidable. Eg. People who die simply because they don't have money. Why are there no big presidential memorial services for them? Less than 20 people died here.

The speech has references to scripture and heaven. Again, preaching at the memorial to show his religiosity as a representative of the state which is supposed to be secular.

Finally, talking about the girl in terms evoking emotion while tied to politics, as in we must live up to her expectations. Really? A small child is quite naive about the world. Mentioning children is always about pushing emotional buttons, never about any rational talk about issues. If this was about politics, then talking about a small girl jumping in heaven is out of place. If this was about grief, he didn't belong there or at the least could have kept politics out of it.

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:46:40 UTC | #577942

Go to: Obama's Tucson speech

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by root2squared

Comment 25 by Randy Ping :

Comment 10 by root2squared :

Cheap tactic of using 9 year old's death to provoke emotions - check. Using the event to show how full of Jesus he is - check. Praising everyone to make them feel good about themselves - check. Evoking cheap nationalism - check. Typical feel good, meaningless blather from an incompetent and corrupt politician meant for consumption by his flock.

Wow. Just wow. You must be really proud of such an atitude. Do you feel all tough, superior and cool now?

And do you feel all warm, fuzzy, and emotional now that Obama exploited the death of a small kid to evoke these feelings in you?

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:22:15 UTC | #577898

Go to: For the love of God – or good – support World Interfaith Harmony Week

root2squared's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by root2squared

I think you are inferior, a sinner, a blasphemer, will burn in hell, worship a fake god, and hence, have wrong morals and values, BUT, for one week, I will respect and love you. Aren't I great?

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:08:37 UTC | #577842