yes, very QUEER indeed ;)

WOW

thank you SO much for posting this. I watched all 20 min+ completely enthralled and amazed.

Dawkins is often a bit too snarky and blunt for his own good, and for the good of the ideas he is trying to convey, (in my opinion) but this lecture was amazingly humble, simple and non threatening. I'm sending it to my father- a roman catholic physicist! Thanks again!

This is about 4 months old. I've watched it twice since. I also highly recommend the talk Al Gore gave. Hilarious.

Playboy. Yes. It has interesting, er, articles.

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. I've heard (or read) most of this before, but it never stops amazing me.

As far as any comments along the lines of "Dawkins is snarky and too blunt, too arrogant and not humble enough" -- well, pardon me, but fuck you. Yeah, I'm being uncivilized, responding like that -- but it is beyond uncivilized to call Dawkins snarky, or too blunt, or arrogant.

If you describe the physical nature of the Earth to a Flat Earth believer, do you not think you'd come across as arrogant, or snarky? Might you be you too blunt or even arrogant?

the idea (~10:40) about how none of the molecules in our body are constant, they are all literally foreign to our past selves, is a buddhist idea i think. i wonder why this idea of impermanence was intuitive to them.

Thanks for the video.

Our unblinking propensity to project anthropomorphic qualities onto systems where they don't apply is understood. And yet if you you also factor in that the universe is like a random number generator where completely unlikely things DO occur because of the given vastness that it contains, aren't you also doing a disservice to say that there absolutely is no God because then you put a limit on the universe itself?

Excuse my childish musings.

An Atheist Bullies the Faithful

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, In These Times. Posted December 15, 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/movies/45388/

A Clueless Moron vilifies Dawkins would be a better title.

yes, because the ad hominem attacks against anyone who criticizes Dawkins are so intelligent.

That perception would be entirely natural to Budhists who believe that all matter is impermanent and illusional. They believe time itself is an illusion.

Fritzhead: Even Dawkins does not say that there can not possibly be a god. His position starts with the fact that there is no object proof of the existance of a god. So your question is useful only when talking to the rare variety of atheist that says there can not be a god.

You can't logically prove that god doesn't exist but neither can you logically prove that unicorns and elves don't exist.

There are, by the way, people who do actually believe in elves and unicorns. Not many, but they are there. And a Christian can not prove they don't exist any more than a physicist can prove there are absolutely no gods.

You state the question very well but it's only valid when directed at that particular minority of atheists.

Re "Cluless moron vilifies Dawkins"

I got to say, I read the article and while he is certainly clueless regarding what Dawkins is doing and saying, he is not nearly a moron. That was a pretty clever piece of Christian spin. It played fast and loose with the facts. Anyone who watches the vid he talks about will see that. But his audience won't be caught dead watching such a thing and he knows it.

Interestingly, the writer Dawkins of being a "funamentalist" based on Dawkins supposed non stop sweeping generalizations.

Sweeping genralizations are not a big part of what Dawkins does. He is never reticent to go into detail to explain the specifics of what he is talking about.

So, on one hand I say the writer is truly clueless regarding what Dawkins is saying but he is definetly not a moron.

He understood exactly how to realize his intentions when he wrote that article.

Typo: The sentence "Interestingly, the writer Dawkins of being a "funamentalist" based on Dawkins supposed non stop sweeping generalizations.", from the above post should read: Interestingly, the writer accuses Dawson of being a fundamentalist, based on Dawkins' supposed non stop "sweeping generalizations."