That Richard Dawkins, such a charmer!

The Archbishop of Westminster, the dude who a year ago complained about a "new secularist intolerance of religion," is now urging Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem."

Dawkins, of course, has replied to this olive branch with his usual subtlety:

Referring to God as an "imaginary friend", Mr Dawkins [told the BBC]: "When talking to a politician you would demand proof for what they say, but suddenly when talking to a clergyman you don't have to provide evidence.

"There's absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, 'I believe it because I believe it.'"

Yet more evidence that the name of this blog is justified, if not by God, than by science!

Dawkins sucks!

The Bill contains the literally monstrous idea to allow boffins to insert human DNA into animal eggs creating hybrid human-animal embryos. This Frankenstinian proposal allegedly has some Christian ministers parading their double standard consciences

If you want to read more about the Bill, there is some discussion here, taken from the minutes of the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill - the report is indexed here: First Report. There was some discussion of the O'Brien comments at the Richard Dawkins Forum here and the Telegraph had a 'For and Against' article. The Times also has some poll results here on PDF.

UPDATE 1: Weirdly, the MRC (Medical Research Council) don't seem to want researchers to turn up on Monday - they think it would be counter-productive for scientists to come to Parliament and explain their research. Dr Minger has said that he has been encouraged by the MRC's note - rather than just turn up to the show of support alone, he will be encouraging colleagues to join him. Evan Harris described the MRC note as "rather absurd and paranoid". Ben Goldacre's Miniblog had this summary: "Run away, hide, do not engage, do not speak, do not have feelings, do not have opinions, and if you it must let them only be expressed by The Singular Official Voice."

*Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (the Archbishop of Westminster) also said some stupid things about atheists recently. In defence of his comments he later claimed on the Today programme that societies ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin - ripe for terror and oppression. As I wrote last week, my view is that repudiation of liberal ideas rather than repudiation of religious ideas leads to despotism (although I used Lenin and Hitler as my examples).  I think Murphy-O'Connor has made a mistake invoking Hitler and Stalin as examples of the evils of reason, as I don't think either man was particularly influenced by reason - in my view they were a pair of murderous, power-hungry bastards (and Hitler had some very strange beliefs indeed - well Google seems to think so anyway). There's a bit more about Hitler the Atheist here on the Richard Dawkins site [according to the BBC's online report, Dawkins was on Radio 4 earlier discussing Murphy-O'Connor's remarks] and some discussion of Murphy O'Connor's comments on the Bad Science Forum.

UPDATE 2: See my comment below for links to more religion/science stupidity where Hawk-Handsaw is looking at some comments made by Nadine Dorries.

"Hur kan du tycka att Marxism är bra, det leder ju bara till problem!"

"Nej, det gör det inte alls - det leder till rättvisa"

"Men folket har ju alltid lidit under marxism?"

"Ja, det har du rätt i - det har jag inte tänkt på"

Det skulle kunna låta så, men det är kanske lite otroligt. Med religion däremot verkar det vara tabu - i alla fall om man argumenterar emot...

"Jesus är guds son och föddes av Maria, som var oskuld"

"Men jungfrufödslar är ju biologiskt omöjliga"

"Nu måste du respektera min tro!"

"Okej"

Så skulle det kunna låta. Försök att läsa åtminstone en del av texten jag länkar till - jag kan göra det igen här! Den är lång,  men läsvärd.

"a fundamentalist mindset. What is that? It is a binary worldview of us and them, it is elevating ourselves to a higher moral plane, and relegating others to positions of moral inferiority. It is an embrace of catatrophic, even apocalyptic violence as a cleansing agent to remove human impediments towards, if not a perfected world, a world made more perfect in their vision. [...] The dehumanization of others is very much a fundamentalist position."

He summarizes his position in this perfectly composed soundbite:

We have nothing to fear from people who don't believe in God. We have everything to fear from people who don't believe in sin.

While I do agree with Hedges on several matters, notably the danger in several outspoken atheists' pro-violence attitudes, and the necessity to stop referring to "Islamic society" as a monolithic whole (although I wonder how he can say this one line after saying "I know the middle east intimately"), I disagree on most points. There are a few in particular that I want to talk about here.

To start, we need to be careful about terms. I've written before about the flawed application of the term "fundamentalist" to atheism. Fundamentalism is a particular religious movement that espouses a return to the origins and fundamentals of the religion. Atheism, which is by definition a lack of belief, has no original beliefs to return to and so by definition cannot be fundamentalist. Perhaps Hedges means "extremist" or "radical." I'm not jut being a linguistic prescriptivist here, there is real importance to this word. "Fundamentalist" has a particularly religious meaning, which "extremist" and "radical" do not necessarily carry. By calling new atheism "fundamentalist" he is not-so-subtly describing it in religious terms, playing into that tired out debate that atheism is a religion too. If you want atheists to take your message seriously, as indeed he must by agreeing to be interviewed on a notoriously atheistic podcast, you can't start out by insulting them.

Also, I'm confused by his use of the terms "atheists" (as used in the title of his book) and "new atheists." His book title suggests that his problem is with people who do not believe in God, but his discussion focuses specifically on Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. At one point he identifies Hitchens and Harris as the new atheists, while regular atheists (those he has no problem with) are those who "don't embrace the neo-con agenda." If he doesn't care about us regular atheists, why does he not believe in us? Also, if Hedges is so concerned that the Muslim world is unfairly tarred by the actions of a handful of extremists, why is he so comfortable letting all atheists take the blame for a few outspoken radicals? So, if the "atheists" he doesn't believe in are Hitchens and Harris (who many atheists themselves disagree with), then who are the "new atheists?" He seems unclear on "atheists" and "new atheists," defining the terms separately and then using them interchangeably. This is disingenuous, at best.

Now lets talk about sin. Hedges defines sin rather creatively, referring to people who don't believe in it as "people who don't understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption." Sin, then, is the innate capacity of humans to do ill. To understand sin is to recognize your capacity to do harm and (assumedly) to try to overcome it. Sin is a religiously loaded concept, however, usually meaning things like "estrangement from god." To sin is to act against God's will. Thus, by necessity, someone who does not believe in a god cannot believe that any act is against its will. If we remove God out of the definition, what we are left with is Hedge's definition of sin, which anyone else would call human nature. A secular understanding of it could be called a moral code or an ethical system. Atheists assuredly can be ethical. So what we have here is Hedges claiming that atheists do not believe in sin, a religious concept, but giving sin a secular definition. He is saying that lack of belief in God isn't the problem, lack of ethical value is. I could agree with him on that, but by using a word like "sin" to mean ethics, he is claiming (again, without explicitly saying), that lack of ethics is an atheist trait.

But that's the crux of my problem with Hedge's argument. None of his criticisms tie back to atheism at all. He criticizes Hitchens and Harris, Dawkins to some extent (but mostly leaves him alone because Dawkins is British), and the general category of atheists who "embrace the neo-con agenda" without giving any examples other than Hitchens and Harris, but he can't tie any of the problems he points out to atheism as a whole. Yes, Harris is a warmonger, and I disagree with his views on torture. Are pro-torture views typical of atheists? No, just typical of Harris. Yes, Hitchens claims that religion ruins everything, and I disagree in general terms. Is vehement anti-religiosity a necessary view to be atheist? Nope, just to be Hitchens.

Let's compare this to the other "fundamentalist" groups he cites, certain right wing Christian groups and Islamicists. If we take the main views of anti-homosexual preacher Fred Phelps and compare them to the views of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, I have no doubt we'd fine a close correlation. If we look at what extreme Islamicist leaders teach and what their members believe, I imagine there are several necessary doctrines.

Atheism is different. There are no necessary doctrines, there is no organized group, our most outspoken members are not necessarily seen as leaders, and there is no pressure to take what they say as truth without critically examining it for oneself. So, what Hedges doesn't believe in is the controversial political views of several outspoken scientists who do not believe in God. He's more than happy, though, to say that these political views are common among the members of a group which doesn't really exist as a group at all.

Am I mischaracterizing his argument? Remember, I haven't read the book, just listened to an interview. If you have read the book please comment and let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong.

Harun Yahya - An Invitation to The Truth

Harun Yahya's official site; includes information about the author, purchase details, articles and audio-visual excerpts.
www.harunyahya.com/ - 56k -

Create your own visitor map!

*http://richarddawkins.net

There was a video clip I watched, I have forgotten the name of the author, it made the impression that it was pointless entering into a discussion. In other words there is as much point in arguing about the rights & wrongs of religion with a religious person as there is trying to teach string theory to a really f**king stupid monkey. You will never get anywhere, this does not mean I think religious people are stupid (well everyone can be stupid at times), it just means at some point you are just wasting your energy. Where does that leave us non-believers? There still needs to be challenges to religion, however this is not a new thing and it's been happening for longer than you think. If it was not challenged then it would destroy everything and I mean that, it would crash into our lives and everyone should be angry about that. It is also right that Hitchens should name and shame religious practices that are wrong, if it keeps happening maybe they will change or maybe everyone else will start to look down on religion and that would be a good thing. Other than fun the new atheists' books might help atheists plus the general group of semi-believers, this is a useful and good step. I don't really think it should ever be addressed at religious people though. I would also suggest that you must keep the good name of atheists, although I disagree with that term, answer religious people with thought and consideration.

The second error: Melvin Konner illustrates an impressive analogy, although he suggests it is a poor one but I think it explains a lot. To paraphrase it; the books of the new atheists are very much like writing a book about water. You could have chapters on floods, tornados, hurricanes and you could also state that most of the water on the earth has salt in it thus making it poisonous to humans. From this you would conclude that water does more harm than good, since all you have read is about the harm water does rather than the good things it can do. Much like the new atheists books, there is a focus of harm and that would of course make you angry about the ideas that have been presented. There is no balance, Konner suggests, to the approach that has been taken and this is the case when reading some of Dawkin's work on evolution and how it is being attacked by Christian America. It would worry me more if that this was the standard Christian approach to evolution, although the Pope, who in my book is not a man of pure good, finds that evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. This is perhaps the error of new atheists, to simply assume that religion is just a force for evil and even though it can be that never should mean we should focus only on that aspect. There has been a very strong reaction towards these books, strong is good but sometimes its also important to remember that balance is important. I am also guilty on no balance, but being an atheist & hopefully a rational person I will also listen to the other side of the argument when it is shown. So should you! An argument is different from the ‘I am right, you are wrong' approach.

Create your own visitor map!

But the dead horse seems to be on some ungodly life support thanks to quite a bit of misunderstanding of evolution in popular culture, and that has been an active barrier to evolution's acceptance. Issues such as Lamarckian evolution and "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" have been settled well over a century ago, and yet they are still painted upon the face of evolution by creationists. Shall we carry on the traditional discourse of gill slits and circular reasoning in the fossil record, or has everyone moved on yet? If not, then I highly recommend the TalkOrigins Archive.

This problem has been pummeled in the kingdom of science, but creationists have groped and gasped for air and then creeped over to the place where it has a chance to thrive - the political realm. (Take a look at the Wedge strategy.) Now we are sporting such ideas as "teach the controversy" and "academic freedom," all of which fly in the face of true science. Shall we start teaching the "Stork Theory" alternative to our modern theory of sexual reproduction? (Dawkins uses this analogy to satirize Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.) Of course not, and so why should we teach something outside of scientific theory in our science classrooms? Creationism needs to gain legitimacy before it starts being taught in public schools. Creationism has the freedom to gain this legitimacy, and we should not confuse this with its lack of ability to do so.

Hence the birth of Intelligent Design theory. ID has no evidence; it has only proposed gaps in evolution. (Famously Behe's "irreducible complexity.") It purports to be entirely scientific, but it is not. ID has brought to light a more general social problem here: the God versus no God debate in culture. "One nation under God"; "in God we trust." School prayer is out of the question; is God? Indeed, many take evolution to be a denial of God's existence, and many see its teaching in schools as just another way the secular left is getting God out of the school system. Both atheists and religious have argued either side of the evolution + God question.

(Personally, I don't think evolution rules out a god altogether. Obviously, it raises serious questions about things like the emergence of consciousness, the existence of souls, or our divine place in the cosmos. I can't say there isn't a logically possible god who would choose to have the universe give birth to life in order to evolve us. But one would expect any theory speaking to the human's rank among the life on Earth as well as the origin of all known life in the observable universe would have some kind of tribute to its planner, and I don't see any indication of that at all. Alas, we move on.)

The distorted views on evolution can range from the depressing to the hopefully ignorant, but I think there is almost always a measure of intellectual dishonesty involved in the hardcore activist. Is it really all that hard to go looking for the other side of a "controversy"? How difficult can it really be to conceptualize the processes of natural selection, adaptation, and divergence? It seems like creationists like to sit around their campfires telling their own yarns and guffawing at how we came here by "chance", while genuine progress is being made in today's biologically-related sciences as if it were a totally disconnected domain of intellectual thought.

This needs to stop. Science education has to be representative of the actual scientific train of thought; if anybody wishes to dissent, that would be fine, but don't teach the views of the fringe. (Obviously this works in more than just science classes...) If evolution were taught correctly, if our biology teachers all knew what they were talking about, then creationist ignorance of evolution wouldn't get very far in the our education system at all. So what we need are more teachers who are knowledgeable about evolution to educate our public, and more importantly, our children.

This is important because it is one of many ways to protect our free society from building theocratic underpinnings. It would be a slippery slope to making our nation (nearly-) officially sponsor uniquely religious viewpoints (which is definitely "respecting an establishment of religion" in my book). Beyond this, it proves internationally that America can walk the walk, not just talk the talk. America has a real potential to be a huge beacon of science, but the fact that America has the highest number of evolution "skeptics" makes us laughable. It's just one more part of America that the rest of the civilized world makes fun of.

“Uno degli effetti veramente negativi della religione è che si insegna a considerare una virtù il pascersi della propria ignoranza.”

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Dawkins, the self-styled guru of atheism (put that in your metaphysical pipe…), read one of his more notorious passages from his book “The God Delusion.” In what can only be described as obvious pride, Dawkins read:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

And for a moment, for me, the movie stopped, the dark room brightened, and in each word Dawkins read, I heard a voice:

I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you….

Stein ends the interview with an hypothetical question to Dawkins – if you die and you’re wrong, what will you say to God? And Dawkins responded by paraphrasing Bertrand Russell: “Why did you hide yourself so well?”

And that was it for me. I broke. I finally understood, if just for a moment, how deeply we break God’s heart in our disobedience. The God who whispers in each sunrise – I love you. In each leaf in the breeze – I love you. In each creature that draws its first breath – I love you. Even in the predictable patterns of chaos – I love you. He has not hidden himself.

For it is not God, it is us who are the most unpleasant characters in history: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freaks; we are vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleansers; we are misogynists, homophobes, racists, baby-slaughterers, we commit genocide, fratricide, and we kill our sons; we plague the world with diseases, with our quests for power over nations and each other. We are nothing more than bullies.

I love you. I love you. I love you.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that there might be someone who does not believe in God and actually has very good reasons backing him up? Why does an atheist not only have to explain his belief (or lack of it) in front of everyone at every given opportunity, but also have to deal with people who think that their faith is being put to question by your lack of it? After all, we are all atheist in some way or the other. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins from his talk at TED, "If you ask someone who is a Christian if he believes in Allah, Vishnu or Odin, he would definitely say no. As atheists, we just go one god further".

We don't become atheist because its something that can get talked about at cocktail parties, or because its a laugh scandalizing people. We are atheists because that is the only frame of reference that explains and satisfies the recurrent question of who we are and where we belong.

As a person born and brought up in a mildly conservative Hindu family, its been a question that I have grappled with myself for a while. My interactions with the faith that I was in mostly consisted of weekly or monthly trips to the nearest temple and reading up on the works of well-known Hindu philosophers. The more I read, the more it struck me that even as Hindus, the belief systems and philosophies that they worked with had so much variation (as Hinduism lacks any dogma)

If there was so much variation in their beliefs, then the only logical conclusion I could arrive at was that all or nearly all of it had to come from a man-made source. That religion itself was a man-made construct, adapting and evolving itself to meet the requirements and needs of its adherents over the centuries of its existence. So if it was a man-made construct, then where could God arise out of, except from a blind devotion to the central dogma of his or her existence?

My realization was not a Hindu-specific realization, because if you were to examine any of the other major world religions you would seem the profligacy of man-made construct in their belief systems, their religious texts, their rituals and dogma. How else could any one explain the sheer proliferation of sects in stridently monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity?

The second realization that I arrived at was that religion needs unquestioning belief. That it brooks no questions and rarely, if ever, accepts speculation. Religion could never be like science, accepting nothing unless it had passed the gauntlet of academic scrutiny, empirical testing and validation. Even in economics, while there might not be a mathematical equivalent of for the relationship between supply and demand, there is still a very clear and unambiguous correlation between the two. Religion has nothing of the like.

The third realization that I had which was to push me even farther, was the realization that science and religion are essentially antithetical to each other. As a person who was deeply interested in science and its questions, the sheer impossibility of any form of logical reconciliation between religion and science was something that made me realize that it had to be one or the other. That for me, there could not be an uneasy truce between the two like Human Genome Project director Francis Collins was able to arrive at very publicly, in his books as well as talks.

Like Pascal's wager, I tried making my peace with the incoherence of organized religion and my growing lack of belief in a higher power by hiding behind the convenient skirts offered by agnosticism. And it did work for a while as long as I kept myself away from any discussion regarding religion or faith that would re-ignite the doubts all over again. I stifled any close-blasphemous verbalization regarding religion that came to my lips now and then. The surprise for me was how accepting people were of my agnosticism.

It was kind of like being treated as the befuddled aunt at a party who mixes everyones name up without any recognizance of her errors. Indulgent smiles from religious people who in their hearts would have been hoping that I would find God as long as it was their own. Nods of understanding from other agnostics who might have seen in me, a reflection of their own reconciliations and journeys. Things would have continued in this fashion if I did not make the decision last year that I could not be truly free till I acknowledged who I was, because otherwise I'd be living a lie that I really had no reason to continue living.

That realizing one thing and accepting it are two totally different things, is something that I have gained as an experience truly my own. Arriving at the conclusion that I could not in all conscience consider myself a part of the religious majority was easy. Making a clean break from religion and the comfort and security of its community was for me the most difficult part of my transition.

Starting off with irrational fear of uttering anything bordering on blasphemous, being tight-lipped about religious orientation or interest, avoidance of any discussion on religion or faith, the convenient subterfuge offered by agnosticism were all the different steps that I went through before arriving at the courage to publicly verbalize my atheism. A courage required for me to scale the barriers raised in my mind and psyche by my upbringing in religion rather than the courage required to face the public eye.

This post of mine is not raise questions in the eyes of people who do profess a faith in God and/or religion. The purpose is basically to chronicle in a small way the journey I undertook to the port of call where I'm right now. There are atheists out there who propound that all atheists should be out there proselytizing the truth about atheism, the irrational belief of God and the corrupting influence that religion has on the daily lives of billions. While that might be motivation for some, for me it looks very much like the religious evangelization that I have come to dislike.

I do not seek to "convert" anyone to atheism and I do not engage (as much as possible) in arguments for atheism unless dragged or provoked into it by someone. I'm an atheist because thats what's fulfills me as a human being and not because of any sense of self-righteousness on my part. I believe that people should be free to believe in anything that they want to even if it involves fairies and leprechauns and I do wish that religious people had the same attitude of understanding when it comes to other belief systems. After all, does it take a stretch of imagination to go from angels and demons to elves?

I do think that atheists out there have a responsibility though. And that responsibility involves being more open about our atheism, about not hiding behind words like agnosticism and making the public more aware about what atheism means and what it means for them. After all the known enemy is better than the unknown (at least for religious fundamentalists). In the sublime words of Donald Rumsfeld, let us not be "unknown unknowns" but "unknown knowns" to start with and slowly make the transition to "known knowns".

Lets make sure that there is enough material out there regarding transitions made by people from a religious belief system to atheism. Material which will serve as guideposts for people out there too confused and maybe also scared to make the transition on their own. Prominent people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have their part to play but so do we. At a smaller, grassroots level, we can take baby steps also to ensure that there is a support system that people can use. Especially for people who are letting go of any that they ever had.

Most importantly, keeping in mind that we do not ever want to be equated as an "Atheist Church". Nearly all of us have arrived where we are through logical reasoning and introspection on our part. Proselytizing or evangelizing of any kind would just undermine the journey of any people who would care to join through such a drive.

I have collected some links that I think would of use to anyone interested in this topic. This page will be continually updated with new links and material, as and when I come across them.

• Why Won't God Heal Amputees : Website examining systems of prayer and religion and refuting them through simple logical reasoning. Slightly Christian-focused but that might be because its an US website
• Internet Infidels : Promoting a naturalistic worldview, namely "the hypothesis that the physical universe is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God." Good reading material and references
• Positive Atheism : Another website containing a lot of material and references for use by atheists and people stuck on the cusp. They promote activist atheism which should be self-explanatory to anyone
• Richard Dawkins : The great grand-daddy of atheists out there in terms of visibility and activism. Site contains reading samples from his books as well a very active discussion forum on atheism. Great resource, highly recommended. Be prepared to lose a lot of your time on the site though (it's that engaging!)
• Atheism in India : The only good resource on Indian Atheism that I could come across. Web site collates material from over half a century of the Atheist Center's existence. Based out of all places in Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh. The official website is here
• Flying Spaghetti Monster : A parody religion cooked (pun intended) by an activist in Kansas to protest against the inclusion of Intelligent Design as a theory in science textbooks in the state. Spread like wildfire across blogs and the news networs and now has its own approved Church and Bible.

Books:

• The God Delusion : A distillation of Richard Dawkin's work involving atheism and refuting the claims of intelligent design, its a great read for people like me. Might not bring smiles to the religious majority out there
• The Blind Watchmaker : The book that really started it all for Richard Dawkins. An examination of evolution that puts down the argument for intelligent design cogently and decisively. A great read again, even for the religious right
• A History of God : This is another book which really shook my core. Former nun Karen Armstrong examines the evolution of monotheism from its roots in paganism to its current avatar of devout bureaucracies. If this will not shake your questions about religion as a man-made construct, nothing else on this page will. Brilliant read.

There are some great books out there by Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens also but I've focused on Dawkins as he seems to be more readily available here in India.

The atheistic difference is and should always be that it offers a path based on humanism and rationalism, not one based on the very tools and techniques that started pushing us away from the folds of our religious backgrounds in the first place.

It's been said that Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.

Which isn't actually true -- he sorta was -- but it makes for a nice song.

I doubt anyone will ever write a similar song about Richard Dawkins, given his remarkable ability to irritate not only fire-breathing creationists but also quite reasonable atheists and agnostics with his dickish behavior. Heck, that's why we here at Richard Dawkins is a Douchebag started this blog and gave it that particular name.

But sometimes we get lonely. Often when we express these opinions on message boards dominated by Dawkins fanboys, we feel like we're the only ones who realize that Emperor Dawkins not only has no clothes, but also has been dipping his dick in the mashed potatoes.

So it's reassuring to find others out there who sort of feel the same way.

Like this guy, who kinda feels like Richard Dawkins is a douche.

Or this guy, who thinks Dawkins and Hitchens are cranky bitches.

And this one, who eloquently suggests that Dawkins "will one day occupy the circle of Hell Dante set aside for arrogant cockwhores."

As you might have gathered by the, er, salty language used by these bloggers, they are not fundmentalist Christians. In fact, they're atheists.

In other words, Dawkins is not only preaching to the choir -- I can't imagine a single Christian converting to atheism after reading one of his smug little screeds -- but he's actually pissing off a significant portion of the choir. Brilliant!

First of all Dawkins uses the term religion to identify belief systems which assume the existence of a supernatural higher power. Although Dawkins makes a typical association, religion actually is nothing more than just a system of beliefs and practices commonly shared among a group of people. Objectively, atheism is a religion. But Dawkins is not objective. As much as he would perhaps like to deny it...atheists do infact maintain common beliefs, just like any religious group, and their creed might be as such: "God does not exist. The universe is self-sustaining. We are a product of evolution. And when we die that is the end." Whether or not I've rendered their convictions accurately, their beliefs (or perhaps disbeliefs) are the frame work of their world view. As open-minded as the atheist pretends to be, they too filter ideas through a constructed world view. They too impose a bias. They too are religious.

Moving on...

Professor Dawkins begins his book with the observation that atheists do not receive the respect and liberty they deserve but are instead discriminated against on account of their personal beliefs. He includes an opinion apparently voiced by a recent president (whose name I will not disclose as I am not interested in a political slaughtering) which implies that atheists may not necessarily qualify as worthy citizens or patriots. Although Dawkins admits that the comment could be invalid, he invites the reader to substitute the word atheists with Jews or Muslims or Blacks. "That" he concludes, "gives the measure of the prejudice and discrimination that American atheists have to endure today. (43)" Is he proposing that the discrimination towards atheists matches the discrimination suffered by Jews? Do all atheists in America today claim to suffer the same persecution parallel to the holocaust?! After a statement like that I am inclined to take Dawkins about as seriously as I would a sulking whiny child. Poor troubled atheists, they are so victimized. I wonder if you insert the word "Jews" or the word "Muslims", or insert "Buddhists" or "Mormons," or "Christians" whether Dawkins would affirm the supposed comment. According to his bias, no religion (aside from the religion of atheism) is worthy of respect.

I will continue this in another blog. This entry is long enough...

One of the most depressing things about online discussions of atheism is the presence of small herds of Dawkins fanboys who pride themselves on their "independent" thinking but somehow manage to hold the exact same viewpoints as Dawkins on everything from Einstein's religious beliefs to the supposed irrelevance of Stalin's atheism.
Interestingly, though, in an article I found posted on, of all places, Richard Dawkins' website, Peter McKnight of the Vancouver Sun reveals that Dawkins himself is apparently a less fanatical Dawkinsist than most of his fans seem to be. McKnight notes that there seem to be two distinct Richard Dawkinses:

"First, there's the fire-breathing Dawkins of literature, whose books and essays declare religion a virus of the mind, "comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate," who maintains that religious instruction is a form of child mental abuse, and who will brook no opposition in his war on religious faith.

"Then there's the personal Dawkins, the debonair Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a man who is polite and gracious to a fault."

Interviewing Dawkins, McKnight found not only that the "personal Dawkins" was far less of a dick than the fire-breathing Dawkins we know and love (or, in our case, hate) but also that he graciously conceded many of the points the fanboys take as gospel:

Dawkins -- in person at least, if not in print ... admits that politics often plays a large role in much strife commonly attributed to religion. Despite "imagining" in The God Delusion that Northern Ireland's "troubles" would not exist in an atheistic world, he now freely acknowledges that the troubles were largely a political matter. ... He doesn't necessarily think religion is the root of all evil, but rather is perhaps only a branch. ...

"When confronted with scholarship concerning the important influence religion played in the development of scientific method in both the Islamic world and the Christian West, Dawkins, while admitting to a lack of knowledge of the history of science, said "it wouldn't surprise me if religion had predisposed people to do better science."

McKnight is left to wonder:

"But can we reconcile the two Richard Dawkinses -- the literary one who has nary a good word to say about religion, and the personal one who admits that religion doesn't have a stranglehold on terror, may inspire ethical behaviour, and may even have contributed to the scientific enterprise?"

God -- or Dawkins -- only knows.

Source: How to reconcile Richard Dawkins? by Peter McKnight

Although I was passionately and totally persuaded of the truth and relevance of atheism as a young man, I subsequently found myself persuaded that Christianity was a much more interesting and intellectually exciting world view than atheism.

Yes, it may well be a more interesting worldview than atheism - but does that make it truer or more relevant? A worldview that held the Earth to be populated by unicorns, spirits and goblins or even a worldview that held that "man is a spiritual being whose existence spans more than one life and who is endowed with abilities well beyond those which he normally considers he possesses" might also be considered more interesting or more intellectually exciting than atheism - but what does the capacity for an idea to excite have to do with its truth and relevance? McGrath seems to have given up on truth and relevance and swapped them for excitement. I get excited by all kinds of fiction and ideas - but I don't start to consider them truthful or relevant just because I find them interesting. McGrath choosing to believe in God seems to me as much a case of wishful thinking as anything. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a God who looked down on us benevolently from the heavens? Yes, probably. It would also be nice if crystal healing could cure all cancers - but it can't. It would be nice if we all had spirit guides who were forever with us during our time on this planet - but I don't seem to have ever heard from mine and I'm not sure that anyone who claims they have heard from their spirit guide is correct in their belief. Untruthful or deluded would be two options that sprang to mind before I thought "yes, spirit guides - that sounds a plausible idea".

I have always valued free thinking and being able to rebel against the orthodoxies of an age. Yet I never suspected where my free thinking would take me. [...] Both of us [i.e., McGrath and Dawkins] believe passionately in evidence-based thinking, and are critical of those who hold passionate beliefs for inadequate reasons.

Oh good - he's alternative. An open-minded free thinker.
He claims to believe passionately in evidence-based thinking and is critical of those who hold passionate beliefs for inadequate reasons. But he has faith in God - belief without evidence. So, er, no contradiction there at all.

There are some other quotes later on in the book where McGrath talks about athiesm as a faith and claims atheism might be a delusion about God. No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Atheism isn't faith in anything or anyone - it is a lack of faith in God. Another quote near the end of the book relates to "material in the pentateuch [...] dealing with forgiveness and compassion". This material relates to forgiveness and compassion according to McGrath and it "sets limits on acts of revenge" and "forbids infant sacrifice". How compassionate - we let the children live. And how forgiving - we limit revenge. That isn't forgiving - it's taking revenge. I don't consider the two to be the same and I'm a little surprised that McGrath seems to.

The book also contains quotes about the evil done by man in the name of atheism. Let's see - "Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution". So it was a socialist revolution rather than an atheist revolution. Removing religion seemed to Lenin to be important for his socialist revolution. Atheism was not the ethos that drove the revolution - socialism was. There is another historical figure who is often called upon when atheism is being bashed in defence of religion. McGrath doesn't mention him. Possibly for fear of some idiot shouting "Godwin's Law!" at him. Earlier on in the book, Nietzsche was referred to as stating "God is dead". Nietzsche, of course, repudiated liberal values as well as religious ones - as did Hitler. Both men are claimed to have been atheists and Hitler was supposedly inspired by Nietzsche. I just wanted to make the point that it seems to be repudiation of liberal ideas rather than repudiation of religious* ideas that leads to despotism and Hitler and Lenin happen to illustrate this quite nicely in my view. Some people, of course, maintain that Hitler wasn't an atheist anyway (something Dawkins mentioned in the God Delusion) - or that he approved of Nietzsche.

* For some reason I originally wrote 'liberal' rather than 'religious' here. Thanks to TimW for spotting.

1. Many things that look designed do so because they are designed.
2. From 1, it can reasonably be inferred that everything that looks designed does so because it is designed.
3. The universe looks designed.
4. From 2 and 3, the universe has a desinger.

This is the basic format of the argument. It can be fleshed out in various ways. Here's one I came across earlier.

Suppose you came upon a deserted island and found “S.O.S.” written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

There's a few things wrong with this argument.

First Refutation: Logical Fallacy

1. Some things that look designed do not have a designer.
2. From 1, it is not the case that everything that looks designed has a designer.
3. From 2, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.

Snowflakes look like they're designed - they're extremely complex. But they are formed merely through the condensation of water vapor at very low temperatures. They have no designer.

Therefore, not everything that looks designed had a designer.

Second Refutation: Objective Evidence

1. Many things that look designed can be observed during the process of their creation processes.
2. Many of those creation proccesses will involve a designer.
3. Many of those creation processes will not involve a designer.
4. From 3, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.

We know that buildings have builders because we can go to a construction yard and see the building as it is being constructed.

We know that the letters written on the sand had a writer because we can go to the beach and see people writing in the sand with sticks.

We know that the changes a species makes over time that increases it's fitness to its environment occur without a designer because we can set up a laboratory environment and observe these changes taking place without a designer. (Reference: Observed Instances of Speciation, Some More Observed Speciation Events)

Therefore, not everything that looks designed had a designer.

Third Refutation: Infinite Improbability

1. Assume the Argument from Inferred Design to be true
2. All designers look designed
3. All designers are more improbable than their designs
4. From 1 and 2, there is an infinte regress that must be terminated
5. From 3 and 4, the termination point of that regress must be infinitely improbable
6. From 5, this termination point would be impossible
7. Therefore, the Argument from Inferred Design must be false.

This one spells it out pretty nicely. Let's step through it.

My coffee mug looks designed, so it must have had a designer! That designer was a factory production line, which is more improbable than the mug.

A factory production line looks designed, so it must have had a designer! The designer was a team of human beings, which is more improbable than the production line.

Human beings look designed, so they must have had a designer! That designer was God, which is more improbable than humans.

God is the termination point of this regress, because nothing can be more improbable than God becuase God is Infinitely Improbable.

Since God is Infinitely Improbable, He is impossible and does not exist.

Therefore, the original premise of the argument is false.

Alternative Explanation for Apparent Design

1. Things that look designed are improbable
2. From 1, things that look designed must have a cause that make them more probable
3. From the Refutations of the Argument from Inferred Design, the cause of something that looks designed may or may not have been a designer
4. Designers look designed
5. Designers are more improbable than the things they design
6. From 2, 3, 4 and 5, it follows that any chain of designers that design designers must terminate in a cause that is not itself a designer

Things that look designed may or may not have a designer - but designers look designed too. And designers are more improbable than the things they design.

It is possible that a designer can design something that is itself a designer - but if this only increases the improbability the further back you go.

So to solve the problem of the improbability of apparent design, it must be possible for things that look designed to have a cause that is less improbable than themselves. Therefore it must be possible for things that look designed to not have a designer.

It follows that it must be possible for things which are designers not to have a cause that is not itself a designer.

It follows that the ultimate cause of apparent design and designers must itself be less improbable than apparent design and designers.

It follows that the ultimate cause of apparent design and designers cannot have been a designer itself.

If God exists, He must be a desinger.

If God exists, He must be the ultimate cause of apparent design.

From the last three statements, God cannot exist.

CONTENTION 1: Faith and Science are separate disciplines that are harmonious, but not academically compatible.

I owe this observation to my friend through a breakfast conversation. While science and faith seem to be fighting over each other's turf, fundamentally the disciplines of science and faith are of different realms that ought to be kept segregated for the purpose reaching the best possible conclusions of both worlds. When we violate this ordained "anti-relationship" we end up with unintelligent discussions and base debates about who is right and who is wrong, using terminology that means completely different things to different people because of the segregated disciplines, and we relegate ourselves to using the most primitive and virulent of tactics to win this "mind-war." And that gets us nowhere, except a lot of bloggers cheering each others' sides on, with little, if any honest faith or good reason.

And both sides are guilty. I'm unsure who started it first, so I'll begin with Dawkins simply because his book was published before "Expelled" was produced.

While Dawkins may be an excellent scientist and evolutionary biologist, his utilization of philosophy, metaphysics, and especially theology is horrendous. I once heard a prominent theologian say something to the effect that "The God Delusion" was one of those kinds of books that, once they put it down, it was very difficult to pick back up again. Why? Well, in my perusing of the book (I'll admit that I have not "read" it), and in the glimpse in the movie by the recited quote, one fails to find any clear substantial arguments against theism. The book -- consequentially the thrust of Dawkins' arguments [1] -- is not much more than a personal rant against the ails of religion, much like Bertrand Russell, and it completely dismisses the vast majority of material that does exist on the subject. All this, by the way, is fine, it just cannot be accepted as good theology, or even good philosophy. The ad hominem, straw men, and illogical arguments are just too much to make any real sense.

At the same time, Stein's attempt at discounting the science of evolutionary biology (under the guise of a conspiratorial repression of Intelligent Design scientists) is equally repulsive. Using "docutainment," false pretenses, poor editing, and personal emotional persuasion, the movie ends up being contrived, disingenuous, and succeeds in only solidifying the personal commitments of those who have already bought in to the one-sided perspective. Also, questioning all theories of science simply based upon unknown variables that are scientifically acceptable is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that is, if the bathwater is even that dirty, which one could argue. We cannot relegate science to mere humanistic debased intentions. That's bad science, and bad philosophy. Again, having a mission of discovering root causes of evil in the world is an honorable endeavor, but to tie it so closely to a science is again, dishonest, and just poor form in both disciplines, disregarding all other reasonable statements, thoughts, and conclusions.

I once heard Ravi Zacharias say, "If you throw dirt at each other, not only do you get your hands dirty, you also lose a lot of ground." For all those who are engaging in these kinds of debates, the earth beneath them is deteriorating.

So if we're really going to get the best of both worlds, they must be kept completely distinct from each other in what it attempts to accomplish. And if we were ever to mix them, it ought only be for the purpose of reconciling a personal conviction that one's worldview is incomplete and needs additional puzzle pieces to make a whole.

CONTENTION 2: Therefore, the evidence does not lead to Intelligent Design (ID), faith does.

However one "concludes" the evidence found through empirical study, let's just be honest in saying that ID is really not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical philosophy that brings a non-theoretical belief statement to the table. Therefore, to make the statement that "the science leads to Intelligent Design" is actually untrue. What lies beyond the physical universe, causality, originality, morality, etc., can only be encapsulated in metaphysical terms and ideas. And it's fine to use ID as that explanation, but it's not fine to say that the science leads there. Only the soul can make that jump.

[SIDE NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that ID also adheres strongly to the idea of irreducible complexity, the concept that complex mechanisms came into being/existence in the very state of their complexity due to the nature of the organism (Michael Behe's work). If this is true for ID adherents, then the above contention would have to be fairly adjusted. I welcome comments.]

CONTENTION 3: Therefore, a scientist's theistic beliefs cannot be based on science.

Consequently, just because a scientist discovers more and more about the universe, and can encapsulate it in laws, theories, and general physical principles, this cannot mean that it leads to either the very presence of a god or the complete absence of one. I suggest that "observation is not explanation" in the ultimate sense. I also argue, that even though Stephen Hawking may have discovered the beginning of the universe, this does not automatically provide conclusions about any metaphysical reality.

CONTENTION 4: Ultimately, the ID war is a political one, not a scientific or religious fight.

All this to say that as the movies, books, publications, articles, and blogs portray a rampant contentious fight, it only proves that those engaged in the fight are neither doing science, nor religion. Rather, this is politics, pure and simple. That is, this is merely about governing people's minds, hearts, and ultimately their behaviors. Each side is leveraging their disciplines, and the findings within each, as good or as bad as they may be, to persuade people to think more solidly about their a priori convictions. And as that persuasion becomes more intensified, as with all politics, it (and we) will become more polarized.

And though I suggest a segregation of the two disciplines, I also said that they are harmonious. And if we continue to rage in this way, we will do ultimate damage to both disciplines, and more importantly, we'll do damage to the very humanity that we are trying to persuade for a greater redemptive ethic. If science is going to continue to benefit humanity in the way that modernity has already proven, there must be an embracing (and celebrating) of the existence of metaphysical adherence. If religion hopes to move people's hearts and minds towards greater compassion, meaning, and purpose, it too must embrace the empirical observations that compassionate, purposeful, and visionary people make. Then, perhaps instead of opponents to be beaten, people of faith and science can see each other as the other side of the human coin, facing in opposite directions, but inextricably connected around the edges of our existence.

---

[1] I would include Christopher Hitchens in this line of reasoning as well.

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M.

"This community is a place for furs who are Atheists to discuss their lack of religion, their problems with religion, looking at the world from a non-theistic point of view and so forth. ... I believe as Richard Dawkins does that while religion may not be the root of all evil in the world, it is certainly the root of most of it. Let's discuss that here."

Many atheists say believing in God is like believing in the Easter Bunny; these atheists believe they are the Easter Bunny.

According to Furthling, one of the chattier atheistfurs, all furries should be atheists. It's only natural:

"[S]ince animals don't evince ritual or superstition, much less belief in god, it's a meaningful trait of anthropomorphic characters that they are intelligent beings that don't believe in god-- part of a broader quality of "innocence" that such characters usually have. ... All I'm saying is, I think "Atheist fur" is meaningful, distinctive, and quintessentially furry."

Right now I'm shuddering like Kif on Futurama when he unwittingly gets a look at Zapp Brannigan's fully exposed undercarriage.

EDIT: My friend Tuffy at FanDumb has almost convinced me Furthling's argument actually sort of makes sense, though my cat isn't an atheist -- she seems have her own little cat-worshiping cult, of which she is also the deity. Still, I find the notion of a dude in a wolf suit lecturing the world about rationality a tad risible.

Meanwhile, Furthling has himself responded to my post! While I am pleased that he has acknowledged us as an "insignificant blog" (which is only two letters away from a "significant blog"!), I would like to offer proof that there are indeed people who like to dress up as skanky bunnies:

(Though admittedly he is less a Furry than a Furless.)

Vezi şi: Creaţionism şi berze

(1) Creaţioniştii spun: "Nu exista suficiente fosile."
Pe lângă că creaţioniştii nu sunt avizaţi să spună câte fosile ar trebui să fie (vezi Evolution FAQ, punctul 5), sunt sigur că n-au aflat de chestia asta:

Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today—that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each—will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare.

In order to become a fossil, several things must happen. First, you must die in the right place. Only about 15 percent of rocks can preserve fossils, so it’s no good keeling over on a future site of granite. In practical terms the deceased must become buried in sediment, where it can leave an impression, like a leaf in wet mud, or decompose without exposure to oxygen, permitting the molecules in its bones and hard parts (and very occasionally softer parts) to be replaced by dissolved minerals, creating a petrified copy of the original. Then as the sediments in which the fossil lies are carelessly pressed and folded and pushed about by Earth’s processes, the fossil must somehow maintain an identifiable shape.

Finally, but above all, after tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of years hidden away, it must be found and recognized as something worth keeping.

A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson

(2) Creaţioniştii spun: "Evoluţia nu aduce informaţie în genom."
- E vorba de o vagă definire a termenului "informaţie".
- Ei la ce se referă când spun informaţie? Poate se referă la numărul de gene din ADN, poate la altceva. În orice caz, nu se referă la ceea ce se referă evoluţioniştii când vorbesc de informaţia codată de genom, altfer n-ar mai avea confuzii.

Cand are loc o mutatie, aceasta introduce zgomot, deci tinde sa degradeze informatia existenta. Dar priviti ce se intampla in momentul in care mutatia este transmisa mai departe unui urmas. Mutatia respectiva inceteaza sa mai constituie zgomot. Ea poarta o unitate mica de informatie. Poarta o mica eticheta pe care scrie “aceasta este o mutatie non-fatala”. Prezenta acestei mutatii la urmas este o piesa noua de informatie creata. In timp, populatia isi construieste o LIBRARIE de mutatii non-fatale. Aceasta constituie o vasta acumulare de informatie noua.

Deeci... aduce!

(3) Creaţioniştii spun: "Mutaţiile sunt întotdeauna dăunătoare."
- Lor nu le e clar ce sunt alea mutaţii şi îşi imaginează şoareci cu urechi pe spate, oameni cu ochi în ceafă, etc. Mutaţie înseamnă modificare, nu stricare!
- Termenul "anomalie" e unul peiorativ care nu se aplică situaţiei de faţă. Nu se ştie apriori dacă o mutaţie e benefică, dăunătoare sau neutră. Asta se stabileşte în funcţie de rezultatul pe care îl dă în fenotip.
- Când zicem mutaţii vorbim de mici variaţii în trăsăturile existente: inimi mai puternice (sau mai slabe), oase mai tari (sau mai casante), creiere mai mari (sau mai mici), etc.
- Cel mai banal exemplu de mutaţie benefică e rezistenţa bacteriilor la antibiotice, dar sunt atât de multe chiar la noi în ogradă! Vacile sunt selectate pentru mai mult lapte, oile sunt pentru mai multă lână, câinii pentru diverse calităţi. Diferenţele astea sunt produse de mutaţii! (Chiar dacă în acest caz selecţia e artificială).
Vezi şi: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

O altă neclaritate ce însoţeşte punctul 3 e credinţa că animalul e perfect aşa cum e.
Evoluţionismul spune că rezultatele selecţiei naturale sunt sub-optime (deci nu perfecte, doar aproximative), dar cum creaţioniştii nu acceptă evoluţia o să abordez problema pe înţelesul tuturor dând nişte exemple:
- un om predispus la boli cardiace ar beneficia enorm de o mutaţie care ar i-ar dezactiva respectivele gene.
- un om care e intolerant la lactoză ar beneficia şi el de mutaţii care i-ar permite să digere laptele.
- o gazelă care aleargă mai repede ar fi avantajată în faţa celorlalte gazele când sunt fugărite de prădători prin savanele din Africa.
Observăm aşadar că departe de a strica organismele, mutaţiile au numeroase ocazii să îmbunătăţească indivizii. Există mereu loc de îmbunătăţiri, iar acele îmbunătăţiri care ajută individul să-şi transmită genele mai departe vor fi favorizate.

(4) Creaţioniştii adoră să citeze şi să creadă pe cuvânt opinia unor cercetători necunoscuţi (care nu au nici măcar pagini de wiki şi a căror muncă reprezintă un mic procent din domeniu), dar ignoră restul 99.99% din literatura de specialitate unde zice altceva. De ce oare?
- Ei aleg ce zic 2 savanţi în favoarea celorlalţi 10.000 care îi contrazic. De ce oare?
- Nu e vorba de argumente aici: creaţioniştii nu verifică "argumentele" idolilor lor (şi nici nu recunosc că greşesc atunci când sunt confruntaţi cu infomaţii reale).
- Răspunsul e banal de simplu şi vine din psihologia umană: îi aleg pe cei 2 în schimbul celor 10.000 fiindcă cei 2 le susţin punctul de vedre, iar ceilalţi nu. Ăsta nu-i un argument împotriva creaţionismului, e doar o explicaţie a atitudinii oricărui creaţionist sau teorist al conspiraţiei de a ignora toate faptele. ]]> http://theluciferprinciple.wordpress.com/?p=114 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:18:56 +0000 TLP http://theluciferprinciple.wordpress.com/?p=114 O să murim şi asta ne face norocoşi. Majoritatea oamenilor n-o să moară fiindcă n-o să se nască vreodată. Numărul oamenilor care puteau fi în locul meu aici, dar care nu vor vedea lumina zilei depăşeşte numărul grăunţelor de nisip din Sahara. Eu şi cu tine suntem aici, în banalitatea noastră, în ciuda acestor şanse uluitoare.

Prezentul se deplasează din trecut spre viitor ca un reflector de-a lungul imensităţii timpului. Tot ce-i în spatele reflectorului este în întuneric, întunericul trecutului mort. Tot ce-i în faţa reflectorului este în întunericul viitorului necunoscut. Şansele ca secolul în care trăieşti tu să fie cel iluminat de reflector sunt aceleaşi cu şansele ca un bănuţ aruncat la întâmplare, să cadă deasupra unei anume furnici ce se deplasează undeva între San Francisco şi New York.

Suntem norocoşi că trăim şi aşadar trebuie să apreciem viaţa. Viaţa e preţioasă. N-o să mai primim alta. Asta e. N-o irosi! Deschide-ţi ochii, deschide-ţi urechile. Preţuieşte experienţele pe care le ai şi nu-ţi pierde timpul gândindu-te la o viitoare viaţă inexistentă de după ce eşti mort. Încearcă să faci cât de mult bine poţi altora, acum. Încearcă să-ţi trăieşti viaţa din plin în timpul care ţi-a mai rămas.

--
Asta vrea Dawkins să i se citească la serviciul funerar. Inspiring!

"Fact of the day: Richard Dawkins was born a woman and was originally named "Andrea Dworkins ", a thinly disguised anagram."

So says Encyclopedia Dramatica, anyway