Comments on: Coprophilia is a Rational Response

By: dave walker

dave walker — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:26:33 +0000

Just checked out David Mills’ u tube poo scooping antics for something to do
on a gloomy Sunday afternoon and feel the exercise might have been more
entertaining in a Snuff Movie kind of way if performed in an Iranian street
with a copy of The Koran.

By: John Scott

John Scott — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:08:20 +0000

Agreed that Christians should not be offended. Atheists, however, might be, when Mills is seen as representative of intellectual atheism.

By: Will Spencer

Will Spencer — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:23:24 +0000

Mills appears to have been studying at the Michael Moore school of marketing.

Let’s be careful not to crucify Dawkins for the sins of Mills.

The best response that the Christians could have is to laugh at these shenanigans. This would show a good example for the Muslims — who will try to hunt down and behead Mills when he moves on to “desecrating” their holy book.

By: John Scott

John Scott — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:32:54 +0000

So you’re saying that Dawkins hypothesis of atheism falls if the majority of religious people are indeed tolerant?

Then it falls.

By: dave walker

dave walker — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:07:48 +0000

I think so. If the crazy Flinstone loving, hellfire fearing, women hating, female
genital mutilating, suicide murdering denominations can be dragged into the 21st century, then the relatively civilised belief systems may follow.

By: John Scott

John Scott — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:02:10 +0000

Who do the Japanese mean harm to?

So Dawkins atheism only applies to religions that mean harm to people?

By: dave walker

dave walker — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:47:48 +0000

Who do the Japanese mean harm to, apart from whales? Let them keep their Tenriyko, the name sounds kinda cool like many of their contributions to world culture like Judo, Samurai and Toshiba.

By: John Scott

John Scott — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:47:33 +0000

Dave, please forgive my delayed response. I was busy. (My birthday yesterday. )

As for Buddhists and Confucians, Mr Dawkins explains that these beliefs are more like ethical systems or philosophies than religions.

Buddhism, especially modern Nichiren Sh?sh? (Sokka) Buddhism is very much a religion. Tenrikyo is a pantheistic religion, the kind Dawkins likes to see as harmless, but it’s very much a cult, and in Japan the followers of it have to hand over their land.

Nope, you can’t really criticise Mr Dawkins for choosing to focus on the belief systems that appear the keenest to plunge the modern world into a new dark age of anti scientific, anti life irrationality and unreason.

Who does more harm to science and reason? The religious, the majority of whom make no claims to science or reason; or a scientist subverting both science and logic in order to further his anti-theist agenda?

By: John Scott

John Scott — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:03:10 +0000

Why shouldnt the existence of god be treated to scientific scrutiny? That seems a logical and reasonable response to any phenomenon doesnt it?

Science is useful for finding the truth about physical attributes of physical objects. If science were capable of detecting or analyzing non-physical objects, it would indeed be useful in addressing the god hypothesis.

However, the hypothesized gods, the hypothesized souls, the hypothesized ghosts, pixies and spaghetti monsters are all non-physical objects. As such, science is useless in analyzing them.

If the evidence is not there, then I cannot support a hypothesis

I don’t know of any evidence for the existence of god. That should lead you to agnosticism. Unless, like Dawkins, you are emotionally inclined, and feel hostility to the idea of god or gods. Then you might want to be atheist.

By: Frankie

Frankie — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:20:57 +0000

Thank you for your recommendation to read The God Delusion. I have read it all ready and while I dont remember word for word what Mr. Dawkins writes, I think I got the gist of it.

Why shouldnt the existence of god be treated to scientific scrutiny? That seems a logical and reasonable response to any phenomenon doesnt it?

I think we should step away from burden of proof and examine evidence. If the evidence is not there, then I cannot support a hypothesis but if it is there it is worth examining further. That’s the scientific process. So, for me anyway, there just doesnt seem to be enough evidence to support the idea of a supernatural being that takes an interest in the minute details of everyone’s life. Although, as Dawkins says, I would be willing to see any evidence that is available. And so far there isnt any.

Have you read Christopher Hitchens book God is not Great. Also a good read. Dawkins also wrote The Selfish Gene and The Ancestors Tale..both worth reading.