[kj] (OT) The Religion of Peace, Love and Understanding

[Jim Harper]

Fine. But I'm not conducting a science vs religion debate, and I'm not convinced why a discussion about Dawkins' beliefs has to become one about science against religion- especially when I haven't described my views on science, and have already stated my opposition to religion.
 
For the record,  I'm not disputing his right to write the book. I don't care if he publishes his toenail clippings.
 
Okay. Here it is. I don't like people who are absolutely convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong. It's a dangerous position.
 
And no, your belief that God is about as logical as the Tooth Fairy doesn't instantly make it a fact. You don't know, I don't know, and Dawkins doesn't know.
 
Jim.

--- On Fri, 7/5/10, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:


A prominent scientist attacking the existence of god based on the lack of
evidence means that the argument is categorically a science vs religion
rebate.

I think you need to make a point, attack something he's said specifically
(rather than the way he's said it), because I'm not really getting any
solid reason you're against his right to write that book.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The god argument has as
much proof as the Tooth Fairy argument. Writing a book to go into that in
depth doesn't make someone a fanatic.




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20100507/6a11d71a/attachment.html>