tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post8903759571134284428..comments2023-09-30T08:05:10.721-04:00Comments on And Yet It Moves: Who designed the designer?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13832931497605041428noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-17698524685332967972010-12-12T12:33:36.702-05:002010-12-12T12:33:36.702-05:00i think it is less that religion is wrong and more...i think it is less that religion is wrong and more or less its a stupid thing.<br />now im not calling a person's personal faith stupid (although i have met people with some pretty whacked out ideas); but religion on a whole to me is a waste filled thing, full of manipulation and hypocritical behaviors. <br />my grand father's generation were not considered white until the 60's due to being Roman Catholic Irish; in the town of Maynard, Ma when he was a kid any one of RC faith were not allowed to cross the train track line because of Protestant fear.<br />Today my father when working on home loans on Cape Cod will get asked to confirm if a lender is a Mc or a Mac because the borrower doesn't want to associated with "lesser" people.<br />None of this makes sense.<br />But faith isn't supposed to make sense to anyone else but to the individual self.<br />Dawkins faith is that religious belief's are wrong and stupid, and it is a fine line between "religion" and "faith" when it comes to "belief's" but that is what he believes; and he is no different from the Dali Llama(sp), the Pope, or any other religious political figure when it comes to selling books to get his faith out there, and like those people he is not trying to hurt anyone but open their eyes to his perceived reality.bairdduvessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06781443285628475955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-73215519777966973432010-12-12T10:35:37.646-05:002010-12-12T10:35:37.646-05:00Haha...I agree that you'd want to know the mot...Haha...I agree that you'd want to know the motives etc of Lichtenstein, but those would be the next questions to ask after evidence establishes that Lichtenstein was the murderer. The fact that there are more things to learn does not negate the first learned fact...that the evidence indicates Lichtenstein.<br /><br />I certainly did not mean to attack atheism, just a specific assertion by Dawkins. And I agree that it is sad how hateful some Christians and atheists can be towards each other over, you're right, stuff that we will probably never be able to know with certainty. But I think that was part of the intent of my post: scientists and religious people alike cannot be certain of their own assertions. Dawkins, it seems to me, is trying to single out religious people's beliefs as obviously wrong or stupid (just look at his book "The God Delusion" or TV programs where religion is "The Root of All Evil.")Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832931497605041428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-71085482382300197732010-12-12T00:31:00.196-05:002010-12-12T00:31:00.196-05:00oh man if it wasn't for my head cold i'd h...oh man if it wasn't for my head cold i'd have something witty to say. <br />but i am very proud to be an atheist. when it comes to who made the universe, i say who cares. there is no way to know whether one group is right or wrong, or if there is or isn't gods out there. but we should just try to live in a way that expresses friendship and cooperation instead of fighting over pointless abstract ideas. <br />As a former psych worker though, I would not be able to understand the murder until I understand "Lichtenstein", his/her motives, actions, thoughts, behavioral stimuli that may have contributed to the actions. <br />to understand the murder you have to understand the variables that caused it.<br />then i'd kick him in the nads (if Lichtenstein is a her,i'd have to um...okay i've got nothing.)bairdduvessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06781443285628475955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-37622858693146169822010-12-11T20:41:53.894-05:002010-12-11T20:41:53.894-05:00Ed, that's exactly right. Dawkins is of the op...Ed, that's exactly right. Dawkins is of the opinion that explanations involving God are a priori off the table. That's fine, but he should own that rather than try to dupe people into thinking that explanations involving God are somehow unique in needing further explanation.<br /><br />Mike...what am I going to do with you...just kidding. Let's say that a forensic scientist concludes that your friend was murdered by one Sigmund Lichtenstein. Would you then say, "Your explanation of my friend's murder is meaningless! Now you have to explain Lichtenstein!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832931497605041428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-36334369601300800412010-12-11T20:18:14.814-05:002010-12-11T20:18:14.814-05:00i'm with dawkins on this one...i'm with dawkins on this one...bairdduvessahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06781443285628475955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8281898744624594172.post-76735989437068427762010-12-11T19:46:44.785-05:002010-12-11T19:46:44.785-05:00Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Daw...Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Dawkins tries to create a playing field in which he is assured victory. I'm sure we all try to do that to a certain degree, but he has essentially decided that certain constructions are "out of bounds" when applied to certain topics, with your point being that his applications are basically arbitrary.ed cyzewskihttp://www.inamirrordimly.comnoreply@blogger.com