kumquatq3

But it makes them seem so smart We need a "doe-eyed" smiley

1. I don't really know what would happen in their eyes if you changed your support (to answer the first part) But: Reporter: "Now a lot of people find great comfort from religion. Not everybody is as you are---well-favored, handsome, wealthy, with a good job, happy family life. I mean, your life is good---not everybody's life is good, and religion brings them comfort." Dawkins: "There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting---it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true." that might be a reply to your second part 2. That puppies head look alot like Fox McCloud's head. I kept waiting for him to get into an Arwing.

Speaking of odds, the actual odds of the universe just being a random action aren't too great either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, Dawkins has a GREAT (imo) argument about that. I'll try to dig it up in a bit.

who said god, you didn't mmm....supermodels

Well, if she's hot, wouldn't be the first time! :D Can I get a zing?

See, PS3 is the true kiddie system!

"In Deep ****"

Morning paper: U.S.A. Annexes Britain: Bush determined to remove WMD's, renames country "Sherryll". Weather: Rainy

i wasn't trying to say there are no repurcussions. that's the other nifty catch with the ability to voice unpopular opinions: you have to put up with other people lashing back. likewise, if a company behaves in a manner that is oppressive (religion, race, etc.), boycott. make it known that their practices are unacceptable, etc... it works. I see what you're saying, I do, but your "backlash" idea is exactly why people hide such views. When there is no backlash, like some places in the south, no "backlash" occurs. Not to mention, Joe vs. Giant Corp isn't a straight up fair fight. So what then? You could just move on, but is that justice? Is that Liberty? Obviously gets grey here there are plenty of contradictions in modern times, but one can not argue that private industry as a whole has only gotten more successful in the last 20 years. Obviously not due to this stuff, but I don't think it has measurably hurt it. Where I do think open hate speech would. Economics not being a moral or legal, of course... Quotas and such? I agree, as a white male, their not "right". I fail to come up with something that works better in practice.

It's more about how you approach believers than anything. Same "disbelief" Still, I'd be hard pressed to lump all the guys in the article together.

Having no grounds to speak to it, nor have I even gotten Dawkins new book yet, I'll give it a shot (also, I note some import differences between Dawkins and the other profiled, so I'm going by how the article defines the "movement". Rather than any one guy): My guess? You're more against them than with them. Maybe even "worse" than the hardcore believer, depending on how you spin it. From the articles perspective: At best you give power to the religion you believe in. You may have no problems with gays or condoms, but when your church speaks against them, it's credited with having you in it's numbers. They don't say: "There is X amount of Catholics/Christians in the word and X% of them are partial believers". You may not want to stone gays, but you help give power to those that do. The worst case scenario would be that you "understand" but choose to be ignorant. You see the flaws, you see the problems with it all (article, remember) and you choose to "kinda" believe anyways. So they may argue that you are worse than those that believe out of ignorance or stupidity, because you get it, but believe out of fear, blind hope, or something else. I suppose it's viewed sorta like hearing gun shots outside and hearing someone screaming for help, but instead of helping, you just pull down the shades and ignore it. ....Good men do nothing and all that

I agree people should be able to speak their mind. However, I don't believe that gives that them immunity from any response. I think words can have an impact much like a glass ceiling can. In fact, I don't think you can have such speech and not have some negative effect on someone because of it. I see your idea working in theory, but not in practice. Remember, separate doesn't mean equal for a reason. Because it never was. not sure what you mean here. we've strayed so far off course, i'm not sure either of us is certain what the other is getting at... par for the course in multi-page debates i suppose. hehe... taks And we are having 2 at once. I simply meant, we're talking about racist speech, and not physically actions or other impediments that can result in glass ceilings or lower pay, etc

Selective membership? Then they would be part of Mensa or the big three religions Skepticism is all well and good. Especially if it is declaring an absolute. However, eventually you have to ask yourself if something is likely correct or incorrect or you get nowhere. Like those Royal Bank of Scotland commercials. Just so were clearly, if these studies are correct or incorrect, I'm not arguing that I am more intelligent (or less) than individuals that do believe. I'm not saying, look at me, I'm so smart for not believing. I was defending points raised by the article.

yes, the zombies were amazingly polite.

However, they are not all college based studies, that just the first section of what I posted. Obviously there is almost always another way to take the data. There will always be that 1-10% uncertainty of correlation. Of course, if thats the case, then why don't those things appeal to religious people. What is the difference between the two. Obviously unsupported, but worth asking.

So you mean ZERO actions taken in the name of ignorance, all talk? Then the "racist remarks" is where we differ, it seems. If I got it right, you think people should be able to say such comments with impunity. It's other peoples problem now. Let them adjust if they don't like it. Is that right?

I disagree. If you're running off reason, then you are "open" by definition, it's whatever makes the most sense (obviously, to the amount humanity allows). I don't dispute there is no chance that god exists, however the odds are VERY low imo, and there for I don't believe. As, to me, that's blind belief. I'm open to peoples ideas, just don't expect blind faith. Obviously though, if someone is combative and dismissive, then they are not open. This is far different than someone who questions.

Not really. " That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The article touches apon this (not Dawkins, they interview 4 people):

100% correct. Did anyone argue that? Actually, there was studies comparing ivy league to state schools and you are correct. At those schools religious beliefs were much more common than at Harvard. However, that was the point. The studies, while they all could be biased or wrong, aren't "selective" as a whole. Anymore than any statistic study.

I'm not sure your getting what I'm trying to say. Let them be racist all they want. Hell, I won't have it any other way. BUT when they act on their beliefs to hurt others, intentionally or not, they violate their Liberty. Hence all the "their problems" stuff.

Hit youtube, the comment needs context You're in a elite club

You're going to literal with it. He mean your "atheistic" towards other gods. There isn't much to it other than he wants you to remember that. I think he sees it as helping to disarm the argument and make it less personal. After all, if you don't belief in someone else's gods, how offended can you be when someone doesn't believe in yours?

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you believe in Zeus?

Well, the "tanning easy" part doesn't help with the not burning, it just means your cells don't take damage as easy. I'm the same way.

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist.