Granted I'm only half way through this rather than having finished but I thought I'd start my thoughts early.

This book is certainly contentious, impressively thought provoking and zeitgeist-ial (if that's a word!).

Richard Dawkins, eminent proffesor of Biology, scientifically disproves God (all of, not just Christian Jesus Christ God - also Woden, Zeus, Allah etc). This is obviously where the contention arises.

His content is extremely though provoking, a staple example could be that a theist (who who strongly believes) is in fact mostly atheist as they discount all the other Gods believed in by other religions / castes / cults etc. Dawkins just goes one step further and is atheist, including all Gods.

And zeitgeistial as religion is very much du jour with clases in Gaza, 9/11, continued terror threats etc which again returns the book to contentious.

Dawkins offers a scale of 7 from absolute belief to absolute belief there is no God and for that reason alone everyone should read it to question where they fall.

At times Dawkins is accused of ranting, à la Michael Moore, but that because, despite claims that he will not purposely offend, he is at times insensitive, though explains why.

Personally I think throw away comments such as 'Who cares' should be precisely that - thrown away. They don't aid his argument and give credence to the 'rant'.

Recommended, not easy going by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are a Biology Graduate and or used to reading papers and theses, but (though I'm half way through) fascinating nevertheless.

I have a bit of hatred for Mister Dawkins.

In one interview, he asked "where is Zeus now? Where is Thor?" without once stopping to realize that science and biology have gone through their own unique changes according to time and place. Case in point - the Russians have a more thorough understand of atomic radiation than Americans. They've had to deal with it up front, and have as such created their own pop culture memes. Memes that are at this point in time becoming mythologized.

His stance, when asking that question, was basically that science is good and always right, fighting valiantly for empirical Truth and Justice, whereas religion...whereas religion is just fickle. Fickle, hollow, empty, and without any point whatsoever. Causes the death of many men, dontcha know?

I know more about alchemy than I'm letting on right here - but the common story goes that modern science's humble beginnings started with the attempts to create gold from common elements. Then I could go off about the repeated scientific failures and re-evaluations throughout the years.

I mean...even the etymology of the word should show something.
The root word of "science" means "S***".
But then the root words for "religion" mean to "return to shackles".
That's two different shades of F***ed. Makes you think that the old linguistic grandfathers could've been into Kafka.

His content is extremely though provoking, a staple example could be that a theist (who who strongly believes) is in fact mostly atheist as they discount all the other Gods believed in by other religions / castes / cults etc. Dawkins just goes one step further and is atheist, including all Gods.

What Richard Poo says about theists and atheists is absolute nonsense. I love Zeno's paradoxes, but I would never go so far as to say that they're reality. Dawkin's examples have nothing to do with Zeno, but they extrapolate and include in the manner that Zeno's do. A theist is not mostly atheist because they discount all other Gods. A monotheist believes in one God and is therefore less like an atheist than is a polytheist - who ascribes many Gods to many situations and scenarios (similar to the laws of physics, biology, "Natural Selection," and such). "Decentralization" is more like "absolutely nothing" than is "complete centralization".

Dawkins operates under the assumption that everyone is "sort-of right." Which is true. But he has a problem with turning a blind eye to his field's own failures.

I would like to read the Dawkins book. I have it on my wish list. I am about to read the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I am not really a believer in "God" but I believe religion gives people reasonable group instruction into Ethics. The Christian Church is worse than say, Buddhism or Baha'i. All are pretty horrible to women. Oh well, I won't go there.

As I said, a somewhat contentious book.

Any book worth its salt will have detractors.

I have a bit of hatred for Mister Dawkins.

In one interview, he asked "where is Zeus now? Where is Thor?" without once stopping to realize that science and biology have gone through their own unique changes according to time and place. Case in point - the Russians have a more thorough understand of atomic radiation than Americans. They've had to deal with it up front, and have as such created their own pop culture memes. Memes that are at this point in time becoming mythologized.

His stance, when asking that question, was basically that science is good and always right, fighting valiantly for empirical Truth and Justice, whereas religion...whereas religion is just fickle. Fickle, hollow, empty, and without any point whatsoever. Causes the death of many men, dontcha know?

I know more about alchemy than I'm letting on right here - but the common story goes that modern science's humble beginnings started with the attempts to create gold from common elements. Then I could go off about the repeated scientific failures and re-evaluations throughout the years.

I mean...even the etymology of the word should show something.
The root word of "science" means "S***".
But then the root words for "religion" mean to "return to shackles".
That's two different shades of F***ed. Makes you think that the old linguistic grandfathers could've been into Kafka.



What Richard Poo says about theists and atheists is absolute nonsense. I love Zeno's paradoxes, but I would never go so far as to say that they're reality. Dawkin's examples have nothing to do with Zeno, but they extrapolate and include in the manner that Zeno's do. A theist is not mostly atheist because they discount all other Gods. A monotheist believes in one God and is therefore less like an atheist than is a polytheist - who ascribes many Gods to many situations and scenarios (similar to the laws of physics, biology, "Natural Selection," and such). "Decentralization" is more like "absolutely nothing" than is "complete centralization".

Dawkins operates under the assumption that everyone is "sort-of right." Which is true. But he has a problem with turning a blind eye to his field's own failures.

Were you tripping while writing this?

Were you tripping while writing this?

Non. I take it you disagree. Chill.
This ice cream sounds delicious. (http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/108526) Now for a secret:

I am not an atheist. Cat's outta' the bag.
You could say that I hate atheism with as much furor as Richard Poopy hates religion. But that's only because it's so counter-popular these days.

And like every other religion, theory, and science, atheism too falls short of providing a stable answer for every question. It is honeycombed with its own problems. In fact, nothing can fully be complete without having a number of defaulted holes. Try to answer everything, and you become wrong. Stomp out and attack other beliefs for committing the Sin of Imperfection while calling yourself a "better" solution to problems, and you become a hypocrite. That is my opinion of Richard Poopy. Most atheists carry the dogmatic creed of religious zealots to the tee. Not all - but a good portion. Richard Poopy is however a very benevolent hypocrite. The man's voice alone makes me want to hug him.

General consensus however is that my thought and writing processes are halfway between poetry and an acid trip. If that's what you meant. I have a very active right brain, and as such you likely have trouble following my tangents and "irrelevancies". If you don't understand what I'm saying at first read, take your time and think things through. I will admit that I often reply to threads with an unorganized "string" of semi-related ideas. I can't be bothered to speak 100% properly when all I'm trying to do is respond.

Perhaps you could say that I'm lucky in being able to disagree, and see things my own way, as opposed to the way of everyone else. On the planet.

With all that said, I will not go so far as to say that atheism is wrong, period, end of sentence.
But the last thing anyone should ever do, is get along.

answers are harder than questions.

I know, but I can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that anything that tries to answer everything (while smashing everything else) is up to no good.

Take Phoenix theory. Using it, "kan krou" explain the workings of C++?
Or take molecular biology, and, using its rules and terms, talk to me about...calculus (I don't know calculus, but it's just an example).
Atheism and evolution answer their own unique questions, but anything beyond them, is beyond them.

Richard Poo insists on polarizing Religion and Science. He and many others see the "balance" between the two as a shaky instability. "One or the other" is really a rather fascist thing to want.