On Dec 22, 2007 8:15 PM, Philip Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dawkins trivializes religion from his comfortable first world perspective > > ignoring the way of life of hundreds of millions of people and offers little > > substitute for what religion does and has done for civilization and what has > > came out of it over the ages. He's a spoiled brat prude with a glaring > > self-righteous desire to prove to people with his copious superficial > > factoids that god doesn't exist by pandering to common frustrations. He has > > little common sense about the subject in general, just his > > > > > > > Wow. Nice to see someone take that position on Dawkins. I'm ambivalent, > > but I haven't seen many rational comments against him and his views. > > Nice? Why? I thought you wanted rational comments. "Rational" by > definition means comments giving reasons, which the above do not.
I used the term "nice" where perhaps 'surprising' or 'refreshing' might have been more appropriate to my intention. Many of the list I have read are so anti-religion that I would not expect an AGI thread to be equally anti-Dawkins. my use of "rational" might have been sub-optimal also. Typically anti- groups exist because they are threatened by whatever it is they are against. It appeared to me that John Rose was making a somewhat informed dismissal of Dawkins theory rather than a kneejerk/conditioned priori reaction. Maybe I assumed those opinions were formed in response to common domain knowledge of Dawkins. i responded primarily to your question: why - Hopefully this explains motivation for my original comment without introducing too many new 'irrational' arguments. :) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=78928262-8a6673