Had a magical dinner with Richard Dawkins, visiting from Oxford, and some bright execs from Silicon Valley. Topics included:
Should religious institutions get tax subsidies?
Should religion be a choice of adulthood, like one’s political views?
What is to be gained by coming out? See the OUT Campaign.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/47406192@N08] – true, true. Medieval mind traps have historical curiosity, just like the even more primitive belief systems that preceded them. As progress accelerates, the silliness of static frameworks and inviolate truths will hopefully become more obvious. But cultural drift seems glacial to a free mind. I suspect an older generation will have to pass, as the mental virus seems largely incurable on the individual level. On the other hand, where I live, I do not know of anyone in my age cohort who is religious. Plenty of them in my parents’ generation, but not one of my friends or colleagues. Of course, there might be a sample selection bias at work here. =)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06/] – Some wise words. We do tend to ignore information that contradicts our beliefs (otherwise, religion would rapidly wither from the planet) and relish and reinforce in our minds the confirmatory beliefs. I would be interested in a statement by Einstein that he believed in religion (distinct from spirituality and wonder per my comments above). And his opinion is really not that important after all. He’s just one guy. I think the only reason that religious people get excited about Einstein is that perhaps in his enigmatic statements we might have evidence that a great scientist was religious. It draws a sharp point to the generality that great scientists are atheists. The religious folk have a tough time finding a schizophrenic mind capable of claiming to be religious and scientific at the same time and willing to defend these incompatible thoughts (Francis Collins tries, and it is so, so sad).
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/27817825@N07] – Einstein’s atheism is delusional? Recall the cognitive bias… do you just skip over the direct statements made by Einstein himself (above), and cling to the opinion of a secretary? Surely, you have a clear statement by Einstein himself on this point.
And realize the soclo-political context. In public forums in America and much of the world, there is little to gain and much to lose by claiming to be an atheist. The closed minds immediately ostracize and hold such folks in contempt. I had a chance to ask James Watson about this after he made some mild slurs on religion in a public forum. "Why did you hold your punches?" I asked when he was off stage: “Much of my funding comes from sources that would be insulted by an attack on religion.”
So, I’d look to Einstein’s private letters. The things he wrote himself (above) and not what his secretary wants to believe.
I guess princeton.edu is big enough not to have to worry about getting into trouble with its funding sources over what they publish.
press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6681.pdf
I’m sure you will have some way to discredit all the quotes about Einstein not being atheist in the Max Jammer book. Obviously Carl Sagan was also subject to that same cognitive bias that makes him really an atheist too. You guys are behaving like Mormons going back thru their genealogy converting all their prominent relatives.
Do you think a text like the Tao Te Ching belongs in a musem? Many people I know both in and way out of my age cohort follow that along with Buddhist Sutras; are they all stuck in atavistic viral mind traps? How about Yoga, I suppose that is just a spiritual practice thing and has nothing to do with Religion. Sorry, there is no such thing as atheist Yoga. You can’t honestly do even a basic namaste. You can do atheist Tai Chi however so there is some hope of enlightenment for you but you won’t wind up being atheist.
To igury: It matters a lot not only what people say but also how you say it. This "how" part in your case is a dissonance. I do not really know how to communicate it to you but you do not catch the tune here. There can be a more pleasant discussion without this vibes of confrontation. I am not sure you are even talking about the same thing. You bring some vibes of violence to this conversation.
Furthermore, this talk is also beautiful and quite enlightening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Gk_Ddhr0M
So new paradigm is possible here, uniting what seems disconnected on a surface:)… for people who are open-minded. I understand that religious mind is about close-mindedness and not being able to question one’s beliefs. I have difficulty relating to people with any type of dogmatic thinking. If there is a better way or better idea, let’s have it and respect each other opinions as a dialog in the process of continuous discovery which is never ending. Self-improvement (replace with evolution) is an idea which is opened for all, with or without mysticism. This is what humans do: learn and play and be happy in process, not attack each other. Hate any kind of violence.
I don’t think Einstein was a big fan of the Infini Rien wager on salvation either given his skeptical views on the success of quantum mechanics. All that fundamental uncertainty in the universe successfully dealt with by the grubby laws of the casino. Not quite what his deterministic God had in mind. God with a French accent too. Along with a nation that savors uncertainty, purposelessness, skepticism and violent schizophrenic rationalist extremism. Clearly that was way too much for him.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/27817825@N07] it seems to me that your comments together with your icon have one major purpose: it is attracting attention. Ok, you accomplished this goal, so what?
are you interested in learning and growing in the first place? Most people here are. One way or another. If you are – the best knowledge you can acquire is in the campgrounds of your "enemy". People hate mostly things they need to see and do not see about themselves. So figure out who is your "enemy" and learn from them and have fun:) Do you ever have fun?
Funny, I expressed my own feelings, I did not say anything about SJ and Jgury not liking each other or especially, about Jgury not being smart:):)
I am just trying to tune this dialog toward more cooperation and less confrontation if possible, but it is a matter of my own personal preference. I respect other opinions and approaches.
I like people like Garrett Lisi – it does not matter if they are mystical or not, whatever… they light up the room:) And it is all that matters in the heart of hearts. I have watched his video last night is still under impression:) and very happy with it:)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Fun? Sure. How about some fun with Pizza, Photoshop with friends on Flickr….[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/5877821423/]
There is some kind of visual asymmetry effect with this message. When it is "Pizza"
in the usual message you just see Pizza like you have seen a zillion times. When you reverse it and there is no recognizable word you see the barfing person then maybe
"ass". At least that is how it looked to me. Now you have the privilege of never looking at a Pizza sign the same way again.
I don’t think I fall into the enemies of reason camping out in atheist Indian country either. This is a bit more of a dialect process which should be to the benefit of the more rational. Especially if I am honing some of the atheist arguments better than they are. Like with Sam Harris and his statements about radical Islam. Chris Hedges is a much better example of a guy seeking attention and getting paid for it, not me. Harris needs to expand his arguments beyond a Religious fixation and link to the broader problems of fanaticism. That gives broader appeal, and allows you to add strength to the argument with support from broadly accepted common sense separation of church and state arguments. I also believe that as the truth but that is not relevant. One of the goals is to see basic church/state rationality in the Islamic world and not any more combat either I think is fair to say. So that is a much more broad consensus atheist argument than putting it in an extreme context of nuclear weapons and preemptive strikes. It is enough just to say terror and violence and let your intelligent influentials fill in the specifics.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] ". I understand that religious mind is about close-mindedness and not being able to question one’s beliefs." Hmmm. I don’t think that is what you really mean. A matter of fact dismissal of religious thought as close-minded and not able to be introspective about beliefs is not exactly a statement of understanding and toleration. Read some Thomas Merton for example or go talk to a Swami or study some yoga at a Vedanta Society center. Sorry if this is dissonant or violently confrontational to you but when you say something like that along with how dogmatic thinking bothers you, in the context of me being some kind of example don’t you think that is a bit of a dogmatic logical disconnect? That was worth it just to create a new word dogmalogical or dogmatalogical 🙂 That is like what Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism do.
As far as my dissonance vis-a-vis SJ, if not for that he might never have revisited and learned the source of his happy school days phrase écrasez l’infâme! You could go thru alot of expensive therapy and not revisit something like this too and this is all for free, and free for all. Not quite "every man a king" but not bad either. "All for free and free for all" may have already been used as Tous pour la liberté et la liberté pour tous! but you can’t rule out: Tous gratuit ,gratuit pour tous! …The nightmare of the French WalMart manager.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/27817825@N07]
I love yoga and eastern philosophies too…no problem there at all…there are always some people who are more fortunate than others… do not see your point, sorry:) is it a joke or you are bloody serious? and what is a special significance of the sunflower in your icon? I am just trying to understand if I can…
I was a sincerely shocked by some of your comments but my apologies if I misunderstood you:)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] No significance to the sunflower in the photo other than I like growing sunflowers along with taking photos of them
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/2704736537/] My attempts at harvesting the seeds were a big failure, hanging them up to dry like laundry. You need something like a tobacco barn.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/3996860821/] The growing was a big success as you can see these are giant++ flower heads.
Serious? Well that depends, in general no but that is difficult to transmit via the internet. The web is mostly a savage anarchic place of virtual behavior without consequences but certainly more fun, entertaining and educational than a crossword puzzle, Sudoku or cable news programs. Netflix is different. Let me keep this on Atheist thread topic. Here was a good one, Why Atheists are going to Hell along with the logical response….
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=188102794578925...
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] What do you mean I’m funny? You mean, you mean the way I talk? What? Funny how? What’s funny about it? You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it’s me, I’m a little f…ed up maybe, but I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I’m here to f…in’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
You said I’m funny. How the f..k am I funny, what the f..k is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what’s funny!
Now Luca Brasi is scary. Some of these guys who comment on SJ’s Obama photos are scary. I would forward them to the secret service. My comments are mostly about his fashion and color coordination, photo technique, the ludicrous disclaimer the White House puts on their official photos, that kind of thing. Ludacris the rapper could do a better job than:
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House."
A . Ludacris disclaimer would be something very different like "YO! Mess with this phOTO You mess with Big O MoJO! Something like that. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5142086092/]
Many US Presidents often produce artistic statements in exactly the manner described by Mark Twain, that clever devil:
To string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposeless way, and seem innocently unaware that they are absurdities, is the basis of American art, if my position is correct.
I think FB needs a page like "How Atheists plan to rule the world" or the dual page of that "How Atheists are destroying the world they plan to rule!" which may already exist. I would take the opposite approach to a coming out strategy which is clearly using the Gay/Lesbian political model. That has a number of flaws for the reality of Atheist politics. A big one is nobody needs to think really hard to promote a sense of common values and benefits about being gay. No basic herding cats problems to deal with. The other is in the basic human needs satisfaction areas along with the real problems of keeping things secret that are at the level of self evident. That creates a nice cultural vacuum too where gay/lesbian in large numbers don’t feel the need for secrecy so why don’t Atheists just occupy some of that space? There are all kinds of proven successful organization models in that space too. Everything from Masonic lodges to Protestant conventicles and Buddhist /Taoist temple groups in China. In fact that Shaolin temple model has a great deal of proven elite level spiritual panache without any religious requirements. Don’t like Buddhist doctrine? They are fine with you following Tao or nothing at all. In other words you can’t just come up with an Atheist brand of Zen or Yoga – both already taken with a long history – but you have no shortage of the very highest level Tai Chi masters,for example, who really don’t care what you believe as long as you are serious about the practice and learning about Tao, even if they are Baptist ministers outside of the Dojo.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/27817825@N07] ok, see your point: you are not funny:( and and you are scary:)
do you think any enlightened person would like your comments??? even ask your own mom if they make her proud… you do not respect other people:(
however, we are all human, enjoy the sunflowers – they are really beautiful… very meaningful and spiritual activity actually – just growing sunflowers and kinda "being there" in a garden:)
No need to answer, leaving for sure this time:)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] A funny/scary personality would be like the Joker in Batman along with just about all the other male Batman villains. Catwoman had an erotic/scary profile which Batman himself found the least psychopathic and amenable to rehabilitation. Especially when Robin and Alfred were not around.
I forget, is maintaining Mom’s respect a categorical imperative? What if mom is criminal, evil,
psychopathic or not a very good example of a universal mom ideal in general, like Catwoman or Ma Barker?
My mom would understand internet dialog exactly in the context of Qui plume a, guerre a, only it is more like anarchy than the French Revolution.
Speaking of anarchy and revolution is there an Atheist political party or candidates yet? I think I would have to support them at this point. I would not even demand the signing of GOP-like pledges to repudiate the extremism of Sam Harris, or make Penn Fraser Jillette (so you don’t confuse him with all those criminal Penn Jillettes out there) correct his elephant in the trunk example to be a purely fictional object for the disproof of a negative example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA
Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair Debate: Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair would be much more respectable in a match with each of them throwing shoes at each other’s heads while the audience chants "this is a farewell kiss you dog!" You could say I am not a big supporter of the war they were both so big on, which is one heck of alot more consequential that what either of them thinks about religion- which is not much. My sister has managed to convince me that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. should all be tried as war criminals. I would not put Blair in that category as he is a bit more of a stooge and Hitchens is absolutely vile and contemptible in his ongoing denial and support of that war and for even more expanded combat.
Here is my sister’s hero in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dndz3JWcURA
Oh, and this kind of laughter yoga is good for all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEfjVnYkqM
especially for politicians and spiritual gurus who take themselves too seriously:D Thanks to Epp for the link.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Laughter yoga would have to take on a very different expressive quality to succeed in France. Here is a basic summary to help envision what form it might take:
" the French value Wit (intellectual, hostile, aggressive, sarcastic) as opposed to anglo-saxon Humour (emotional, affectionate, gentle, kindly, genial)
Therefore, the French sense of humour is more oriented toward others than themselves, less nonsensical than English humour, more cruel. It is never self-deprecating : it is combative, fueled by ridicule and mockery and it needs a target.
The French are great teases, which contribute (for naive foreigners) to their reputation of being rude
A frequent form of humor is to exagerate excessively a statement to illustrate its falsehood : if you are too literal, you just think it is silly"
So you might think a French laughter Yoga session would succeed with the public humiliation of a Jerry Lewis type buffoon attempting Yoga asanas. Perhaps.
In the 50s Lewis’ brash, overzealous act was a spot-on take of American excess, and therefore appealed to the Gallic sense of humor. Today that just may be greeted with revulsion and anger. A Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter drag queen lecturing a French audience encouraged by shill jeers of "Bitch!" or "Whore!" would be much more current, triggering the real anger and revulsion but with great potential comedic hysteria.
http://www.understandfrance.org/French/Attitudes3.html#ancreshar...
Why all this interest in France? France must be ranked near the top for a nation in which to lead the good life in general and for the atheist in particular. There is no need to sport any big red A bling and they will probably hold it against you for being crass Anglo-American.
In my case I find myself more often in Brazil which is even more religious than the US, but with a very powerful and unique syncretic tradition. In the US you do not typically see fundamentalist evangelic Christians who moonlight as Macumba dancers with their Japanese Buddhist friends and relatives from Sao Paulo for example.
One aspect of Richard Dawkins that I became aware of from reading his Atheist books is just how rich he has become from his relentless entrepreneurial ventures, books, lectures, debates, private donations, etc. He consistently ranks in the top 1000 persons rich list in Britain at least since 1998. No wonder he quit working as a scientist. Not that there is anything wrong with getting rich off your notions of Atheism. However, that does not exactly add to your credibility when you are denouncing charlatans and enemies of reason for getting rich by selling delusion. Mr. Dawkins (he is now the former Charles Simonyi professor at Oxford ) has considerably more financial clout now than all but the biggest institutions like the Catholic Church. He really does not do his legacy and diverse organizations any favors by association with small timers and dim bulbs like Sam Harris is my free pro financial advice. People like that lead to alienation of donors and a tarnished legacy by association.
I do have a favorite Richard Dawkins section in God Delusion. It has a simple title that I will share with you. Here it is, Section 4: ""WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD."
A bold statement of hedged clarity from the paragon of uncompromising atheist polemic.
This falls into the beloved pop culture rhetorical category known as how Jehovah and his prophets would sound on a bad day. As an affirmation of faith: "Hear me my chosen people, there almost certainly is a God of ours and I think the name is Jehovah!" I would rather worship Brian Cohen. Section 4 comes after Richard, I feel so close to him after all this study, gives us his keen comical insights on Pascal’s wager.
I recall one of the key aspects of Infini Rien, all or nothing, is the logical clarity that leads up to it along with an honesty of personal contemplation. I don’t think Pascal was scoffing or chortling when he was writing the the Pensées which is Dawkins suggestion about it. But that was a more savage time in France. Pascal today might have to be more sensitive to his closeted colleagues and state Infini Rien as: Why there almost certainly is all and nothing most likely look how wrong everything else is. Maybe that would get a guy like James Watson to be more bold. Of course it does not help when your breakthrough discovery is more in the Ringo Starr category of great moments in science. At least Crick was more honest about it.
All that being said, I’m so disgusted with how bad the current anti-evolution, anti-science groups are getting I think I will go ahead and make a contribution to richarddawkinsfoundation.org/
A fine example of why, "the cult of Darwin"
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
And it gets worse….
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&a...
OMG, Richard Dawkins has gone fully agnostic! blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100139447/ri…
Who is left to really be #1? I think Stephen Hawking should be it by default. God not necessary to explain the universe and the Big Bang is correct and gets to the heart of the issue of God being IFF necessary and sufficient. God is not strictly necessary for all kinds of things like afterlives, souls, the big bang, bible authors, you name it. Much like rationality is not necessary for reality in a numerical sense as a basic example. Rationality is not necessary for God either, that is very clear. However, there is no doubt that an all powerful God is definitely sufficient for things like the BB, the bible, human and animal souls, everything. It is the all powerful existence or not that is the crux of the problem. That is exactly how Pascal was looking at it. He did not live long enough deal with imaginary numbers but that is similar to the non exist case vis-a-vis being different, but not entirely disjoint with real numbers. It is not strictly binary. That is, even imaginary God is still incredibly useful for humans, much like imaginary numbers in math and science. Please don’t tell me how imaginary numbers never killed anyone, caused warfare, the abuse of women and children or made Nazi belt buckles. I am covering the necessity of invention here. If you want to confirm the human need to kill then you are correct. They also need to do good stuff at the least for the preservation of humanity, which includes killing Nazis and all terrorists, unless of course they are your terrorists or the Nazis you need to keep. Goodwin’s law needs to be extended to include terrorists by the way.
I certainly understand it, a good impersonal God name, better in terms of real and imaginary components along with some quantum statistical mechanical, exist and not exist, Zen reasoning.
of course Dawkins and any reasonable scientist would say that they can’t prove God does not exist; there is no new news there.
But I do love your passing comment that an "imaginary God is still incredibly useful for humans, much like imaginary numbers in math and science." There is a whole New Scientist "God" issue exploring that topic. Been meaning to read it.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] That utility of imaginary God is in the context of a necessary invention if it did not already exist. Dawkins is not agnostic like Carl Sagan who found the entire debate an annoying, tiresome distraction to his pursuits of science and education. Same as Neil deGrasse Tyson, no surprise there. Dawkins has relished the role of driving that debate as much as he is capable, abandoning his scientific research in the process. That is a giant historical debate and I find Dawkins trying to be all things to all agnostics, atheists and skeptics. One major problem is this unwillingness to address the deficiencies of science, reason and general problems of evil in those domains. Another is the condescending and often sneering dismissal of faith based knowledge and methods. E.g you won’t go very far in getting Yoga awareness if you don’t believe in it and are in for an unpleasant dojo experience if you sneer at the Kung Fu master demanding proof of Tao and Chi power. Even worse, which I don’t think Dawkins and his RDF are guilty of participating in, but still relevant, is the complacency with warmongering jingoists who are dabbling with the rhetoric of annihilation, genocide and racism.
Not that I am in denial of the current reality of modern écrasez l’infâme, despite how well that worked in France. The problems are in definition of the l’infâme part which is much bigger than religion and the recurrent violent totalitarian aspects of the écrasez. That is, one ideal final scientific solution would be a prozac-like happy pill or cocktail that would also be a contraceptive, make you satisfied with all forms of labor, not engage in fanatical acts of terror and violence or internalize any hateful ideologies. Basically what most religions are supposed to achieve only in pharmaceutical form. It could also have a co-medication that satisfies the need for confession and ease telling the truth, as an aid to law enforcement of course-to protect our children.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Jerry Coyne weighs in on the God Issue of New Scientist. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-god-issue…
Hey, I knew Monte Lloyd, I studied with Monte Lloyd- a good visual memory can be a key gift for good times with evolutionary ecologists, Monte Lloyd was a friend of mine. Jerry Coyne is no Monte Lloyd. And some would say, thank god for that.
However, he is correct. Alain de Botton is "cringe-making" and the usual atheists-should-have-the-trappings-of-faith is in fact tripe.
OMG look at a few of these Victor Stenger statements referenced in the Coyne post:
"
Religion has destroyed our trust by its repeated failure. Using the empirical method, science has eliminated smallpox, flown men to the moon, and discovered DNA. If science didn’t work, we wouldn’t do it. Relying on faith, religion has brought us inquisitions, holy wars, and intolerance. Religion doesn’t work, but we still do it.
Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."
Uhh, brilliant logic there Prof. You know, where the conclusion is contrary to the point you want to make. Apparently Religion DOES work and really well. Enough to fly us into buildings and be the most serious menace to world peace we now have. Good god how can anyone take such shoddy reasoning seriously? Embarrassing.
How about this one: "No doubt, science has its limits. However, the fact that science is limited doesn’t mean that religion or any alternative system of thought can or does provide insight into what lies beyond those limits. " Yes, no alternative system of thought can or does provide any insight into what lies beyond the limits of science. I guess that rules out Yoga, Zen meditation, animal instincts, aliens who have super powerful intuition and don’t need to perform experiments-except on us of course, ….
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Yes. or marriage counselling. Religion has destroyed our trust by all those lies(!) but we have to pretend and put up with it, for the children….(tears…sniff..sniff…hostility…) just like their father! — Every family is like that to an extent.. (hands over box of aloe & lanolin kleenex) — Well, does every family have to put up with taking care of their little altar boy friends…and their skank moms??!!
…..
This business of professors in evolutionary biology writing pop culture books books on science for atheists is somewhat amusing. I don’t know about Oxford and Cambridge but University of Chicago and the Hyde Park/Kenwood neighborhoods have more theological seminaries per square foot than anyplace else in the US (Kenwood has the Mosques) so Jerry Coyne needs to get out more to really learn about world religions and not be so fixated on Christianity. U of C also just got the Vivekananda chair from the nation of India in honor of the legendary Swami’s legacy in the US. So Coyne has no excuse for not dealing accurately with the most influential Hindu thinking. That alone is a enough to ensure you have very little time for science. If he does not like Hindu traditions he can test his new notions and insights about divinity interactions as testable hypotheses by heading out from the U of C center in Delhi to the high Buddhist realms. That is what they do in Lama selection after all which I think represents some well established practices for the entire subcontinent that are fairly well known. Not as difficult to grasp and deeply Hindu like the Shankara legend who was known for things like understanding his past lives and those of strangers, in addition to many other things that make you a legendary Indian guru. Safe to assume you don’t get that status for nothing, especially when you have such a distinct genius for Sanskrit verse, prose and logic that you are indisputably a real person.
In SAT terms:
Shankara : Sanskrit :: Mozart+Beethoven : Music
Shankara : Hinduism :: Alexander : Warfare
Now the test questions
Shankara : Vivekachudamani ::
A Madhava : Vedanta
B Tulsidas : Ramacharita
C Kabir : Carnac
D Vivekananda : Vivekachudamani
E Ravi Shakar : Sitar
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Religion has destroyed our trust by all those lies. Begs the question of who "our" is in the context of an atheist, free thinking science blog. That is why I put in a (!) not about the lies themselves, that is a given for just about as far back as marital infidelity, prostitution, Greeks and Romans. They might as well go on and on about how they felt betrayed finding out about the lies of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and I don’t think these are snark posts either but it would be a good exercise. Oh, but Santa doesn’t kill people, fly his sleigh into buildings or leave gifts under pillows for genital mutilation!
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Maybe playing some Norah Jones in class can calm down Bright-Bully-Boy:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/7222807694/]
Bright-Bully-Boy is fighting Bible-Bully-Boy every day since Buddha-Bully-Boy found this Professor Jerry quote in the NYTimes:
"…..while evolutionary biology can explain, for example, the origin of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we shouldn’t see evolution as a cure for human woes. Its value is explanatory: to tell us how, when and why we got here" Bastard-Bully-Boy pointed out that why we got here is unknown in his case and to all of us including Bright-Bully-Boy’s mother.
Leave a Reply