Religion

MisterFred

(525 posts)

34. A subject line to make any utilitarian weep. :) nt

Reply to edhopper (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 01:05 PM

Apr 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheist author Dominic Johnson makes argument for religion [View all] rug Apr 2016 OP

What rubbish! Cartoonist Apr 2016 #1

Agreed rurallib Apr 2016 #2

Exactly, for those that believe rock Apr 2016 #52

His doctorate in evolutionary biology too? rug Apr 2016 #3

He should be roundly ridiculed at least. MisterFred Apr 2016 #5

Ok, he can keep that one Cartoonist Apr 2016 #6

You take a rather dim view of academic freedom, don't you? stone space Apr 2016 #17

Academic freedom? Cartoonist Apr 2016 #18

Sounds like you are out to remake higher education in your own image. stone space Apr 2016 #20

I am not alone. Cartoonist Apr 2016 #21

He's wrong. MisterFred Apr 2016 #4

the reviews have been thoughtfuol and positive. rug Apr 2016 #8

Meh. MisterFred Apr 2016 #10

Just sayin' Cartoonist Apr 2016 #19

Yes, I thought of that too. :) MisterFred Apr 2016 #23

The holes get a lot deeper Major Nikon Apr 2016 #50

Yeah, those religious believers skepticscott Apr 2016 #7

Simplistic. rug Apr 2016 #9

As relevant as the evidence presented by the author of the book you posted about. nt MisterFred Apr 2016 #11

So, are you saying that poster is as wrong as the author of the book? rug Apr 2016 #12

More or less. MisterFred Apr 2016 #13

But of course. Kudos to Johnson for his honesty. nt jonno99 Apr 2016 #14

Peer reviewed honesty. rug Apr 2016 #15

The book isn't peer reviewed. MisterFred Apr 2016 #24

Check his publications and the topics. rug Apr 2016 #27

Thank you. MisterFred Apr 2016 #33

Perhaps some people that are not otherwise inclined to do good cpwm17 Apr 2016 #16

Uhm, not sure how to take the article seriously when it misapplies Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #22

I am glad rug likes the idea edhopper Apr 2016 #25

I am not glad ed doesn't know what I like. rug Apr 2016 #28

Is that a double negative? edhopper Apr 2016 #29

Acstually, no. Parse it again. rug Apr 2016 #30

I am not glad that you are not glad edhopper Apr 2016 #31

A subject line to make any utilitarian weep. :) nt MisterFred Apr 2016 #34

Like...Cool Man edhopper Apr 2016 #35

It's about control. So mankind would not have evolved Lint Head Apr 2016 #26

Sounds like an interesting book. Jim__ Apr 2016 #32

It's certainly more interesting than reading "Religion Poisons Everything" every other day. rug Apr 2016 #39

Even if this were so, you can't believe in something just because it might make you behave better if LeftishBrit Apr 2016 #36

I think it's less about belief than the evolutionary advantage of belief. rug Apr 2016 #37

That's what my argument was intended to be about in the last paragraph of my post LeftishBrit Apr 2016 #38

I suspect belief or nonbelief does not make one act better or worse. rug Apr 2016 #40

It all depends what you believe in Fumesucker Apr 2016 #41

I didn't realize you disagreed with the book's argument. NT MisterFred Apr 2016 #42

I don't believe in a punishing God but I can see its social advantage. rug Apr 2016 #43

Uh, yes it does. MisterFred Apr 2016 #44

No, it doesn't. rug Apr 2016 #45

Not one individual, no. MisterFred Apr 2016 #46

Dominic is a pathetic apologist for religion, and completely ignorant of all scientific studies in AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #47

Dominic is an atheist. Sometimes I think you (plural) don't have a clue what apologist means. rug Apr 2016 #48

One does not have to be a member, to be an apologist. See S.E. Cupp. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #49

I've recently read a scientific paper that basically said the same. DetlefK Apr 2016 #51