|
Richard Dawkins "The Enemies of Reason' on UK TV | by jeff_uk | 2007-08-08 10:28:29 |
|
Not impressed with Dawkins, since he doesn't under | by shminux | 2007-08-08 10:36:46 |
|
How can they not be opposite? | by jeff_uk | 2007-08-08 10:55:22 |
|
The problems really only come out when | by Peace_man | 2007-08-08 11:00:07 |
|
Dawkins addresses this, too. | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 11:07:12 |
|
Dawkins seems to address many things | by hadji | 2007-08-08 12:18:15 |
|
He could just as easily have phrased it | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 12:37:51 |
|
Neither assumption can be proven correct | by hadji | 2007-08-08 13:00:44 |
|
I can prove that there is little reason to believe | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 13:11:21 |
|
I'm happy for you. | by hadji | 2007-08-08 13:26:42 |
|
I don't understand... | by Nath3 | 2007-08-08 15:21:42 |
| That's fine. You don't have to understand how. |
by hadji |
2007-08-08 20:22:38 |
Just please accept that it is, and respect that.
Don't know if you ever saw Contact, but if you did, recall the scene where McConaughey's character asked Foster's character, "Did you love your father?"
And she said something to the effect of "Of course!"
And he asked her, "Can you prove it?" |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Informative as always. | by tallastro | 2007-08-08 21:29:09 |
|
Look at it this way, and tell me if this | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:00:59 |
|
I mean no hostility. | by Nath3 | 2007-08-08 21:58:47 |
|
I think what I mean is live and let live. | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:11:44 |
|
I guess, simply put, you started your comment with | by hadji | 2007-08-08 22:15:37 |
