Comment submitted without real first and last name but rather a blogger's handle:
I think Professor Dawkins is the most rational and clear thinking scientist of our generation.
His unassailable logic blows religion out of the water.
My email sent:
What are they going to do over there to you if you use your real first and last name on the RLCC site?
I'd love to approve your comment and answer in public. However, after having instituted the real-name policy, the comment spam has been vastly reduced. It has been worth it.
Anyway, I read and heard Dawkins. He's always argued against lightweights. Send him a message that I said so. Tell him to come on over and leave his comments. He won't blow anything anywhere. Watch and see if he's willing, which I seriously doubt. Don't kid yourself that the atheists don't know I'm here either. They know. They monitor blogs. They prey on the weak. I'm weak but not in the way they want.
Peace to You, xxx,
P.S. If you saw the name requirement (how could you have missed it), you're being a tempter you know.
Someone who embraces religion accusing an atheist (or indeed anyone) of "preying on the weak" is the best laugh I've had in ages.
I'm really happy for you that you can buy into such delusional nonsense. But it has nothing to do with reality.
As for real names, internet privacy is a big deal in the UK. Too many religious nutcases seeking vengeance, you see, ready to frogmarch us to the Mosque.
There is a huge hole in your reasoning. It assumes all religion may be painted with the brush of preying on the weak. Of course, this depends upon whether or not you and I are using the term "weak" in a manner that is similar enough that we aren't simply speaking completely passed each other. In referring to Richard Dawkins, I used the term to say that he argues against straw men. You see, I argue against religion too. You know though that I am no atheist. What Jesus taught is religion, but how many of those who profess religion follow Jesus's teachings? I don't defend deviations. I do though understand them in general on the mundane level. I defend being non-coercive, which allows those of the Muslims who do the wrong things to end up in the ditch of their Mohammed's and their making.
The way to beat Islam is to show Muslims how wrong they are within their own system. They know that. That's why they won't debate. I've tried it with them. They won't do it. They become frustrated and upset, which is revealing. Therefore, they shut down. Of course, there are those who are dumb enough to resort immediately to violence. They two though may be shut down. Unfortunately, the powers that be don't want that.
Christianity was co-opted and usurped by enemies of the Christ-spirit. I only speculate on how you conceptualize "spirit," so this is a case in point where I might be speaking passed you. That's not my intention. I'm not intending a condescending tone either.
I've read enough of your writings to know that just below your admittedly cranky surface, is a mind that really wants people to be good to each other. You're a major cynic about all things not your exact ideology though. By the way, I can and do apply the same logic to myself without problem.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What has been done in Jesus's name is not his fault.
Also, please understand that I have personal, individualized, spiritual experiences that were you to experience them, you wouldn't continue holding your views. Furthermore, there are rules involved (just as Dawkins has his methodologies) that if violated, the experiences stop. That is something I will not do. Doing it wouldn't prove anything to anyone other than that I backslid. This is, and is also not, convenient depending upon one's end. Dawkins holds that it is a convenient deception. He's ignorant and cannot be informed in the manner in which he insists (scientific method). That's just how it is.
As to your ideology that I mentioned above, you have half-truths on your site, xxx. Many of your points are valid, but they fall short of how to bring about the non-hypocritical. The only completely non-hypocritical vision is the undefiled revelation of Jesus. The moment you argue against other than Jesus's exact vision, you're talking about something else. Tautological, yes; but then why do so many naysayers go ahead and do it anyway? They won't get to square one in a debate with me.
I don't hate you, xxx, even though I hate you (different contexts, different connotations in the same breath). I love you, xxx, as a fallen brother. Perhaps you aren't a brother in that sense in that maybe you where never up. It remains to be seen. It's not for me to say.
Finally, your fear to use your name aids your enemy in this case. I don't believe you mean, "frogmarch us to the Mosque" in the most literal sense of course. They wouldn't frog march anyone anywhere though were they to be countered with the whole truth rather than violent crusades that are always from the false spirit. There, I negatively criticized a religion: Roman Catholic.
Peace, Love, and Truth: One,
P.S. I'm turning all of this into a post, which we've been through before.
Tom, Tom, Tom,
No need for deep discussions or rationalisations mate.
As far as I'm concerned ALL religion is [expletive deleted]. Dawkins doesn't deal in theories - he deals in scientific fact. It's stupidity to try and compare his sound science with medieval fairy tales.
You gave up before starting.
It is true that those who can't swim or don't want to learn better stay where they can touch bottom while their heads are still above the surface.
Always being fearful will get you drowned. Of course, when swimming becomes required for survival and you haven't ever taken off the floaters....
Anyway, there's no point in my talking to a spiritless wall.
Try reading more about epistemology within the context of the philosophy of science, if you've ever done that at all. I have. Dawkins doesn't get it. He's not a "good" scientist.
P.S. Medieval fairy tales — Jesus?
End of discussion through no fault of my own