dimreepr

You follow logic like you hand out neg rep's, with no reason other than a childish need to be right...

A strange self induced feeling, that everyone can do? What taught you that?

Then selfish, does seem to have a demographic... 🙄

One day, you'll be older than 50... 😉

What demographic steps in front of a car?

We can't compare like for like, while we allow it to grow and mutate; it's like asking, why do car's that are allowed to go as fast as possible, kill people?

OK, what do you mean by safer, in this context? Is it safer for you, or is it safer for everyone?

You don't seem to understand the concept of safer...

But Dawkins does, "The God Delusion" is soap boxing/preaching and is erroneously rebuking the religious. Your post in my thread shows that, but shouldn't the word be accept, rather than tolerate; tolerance suggests that you don't like your wife's beliefs. "If you wish to seek peace of mind, then believe; if you wish to seek the truth, then investigate." - Nietzshe

Let's not get into a semantic arguement, did you watch the debate I posted, specifically Douglas's contribution? As Prometheus said, the two philosophies aren't seeking the same truth or reality; contentment is a subjective reality/truth, how does science measure that? There are many paths to contentment (ways to learn), science doesn't offer that class/lesson; as I've said before "we don't need to sink their boat, to aid the buoyancy of ours."... Why would any rational person think that film is blasphemous?

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Nor me, just a guess... What truth? Why? It's a method to reduce human bias and seek answer's; it doesn't seek to answer your truth.

And there in lies the problem, it's positively Newtonian (for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction); it creates an entrenched position in science; and I have no doubt religious forums suffer the same problem's. Krauss and Dawkins are thinking in those tramline's. Of particular interest is at 1:22 and Douglas Moran's contribution. Indeed, do you remember my reply? It's only a problem when we believe what we know is true.

Well, we're here too... A pandemic, is just another version of "the war of the world's". Life will find a way. Once started... Who knew when that happened...

Doesn't that just suggest, it's based on what we think will be valuable tomorrow? We can't live our lives, based on a bet; unless we have more than we need...

I'm not suggesting religion's have the monopoly on moral teaching's, in fact to suggest "the scientific method is based on truth and reality" is exactly what he's arguing against. It shouldn't matter how one learns "a good moral compass"; science has a lot of answer's, but it's not the only conclusion or version of reality. But he's doing exactly the same with religion. Understaning is difficult to achieve, that's the curse of knowledge. That's my point. This is my thread, that argues their position; maybe worth another read.

Fun fact, degrees of understanding is by a factor of three, or four; depending on how smart you are...

Yet they both dismiss the possibility that a religion has something valuable to add; and they speak about truth as if it's a fact. "Rise of the new athiest" may as well be a new religion. Kraus said that someone understood "The god delusion" in a good way...

Indeed, we just have to accept that our territory isn't threatened; and we only think that because we're taught to hate anything that might threaten tomorrow's comfort, rather than tomorrow's food/needs.

does that make it any less interesting?

The less informed you are, the better the joke...

Is that a joke?

I'm glad you've learned a lesson... 😉

What makes you think that tomorrow will enlighten you?

Knowledge is only understood when we exceed our teacher's; they don't just give you a doctorate....