WIP

The pertinent question should be why do so many people with God act so immorally?

Like I said previously, Christians over here get away without being compared with Christians in Africa who kill witches and accused homosexuals, even when some of these evangelicals over here are directly connected with the African churches....so do something about the militant, violent rightwing Christianity that you guys on the far right are supporting.

Yes! Just like I consider placing bullseye targets over the pictures of people, or shooting them in effigy to be promoting violence. Spiritual warfare is a crock promoted by religions that seek to drive a wedge between people, rather than promote a common understanding. No, you should have already noticed that there is a lot I don't like about Dawkins's style of promoting his views...even many of his fellow evolutionary biologists, such as David Sloan Wilson, Lyn Margulis and the late Stephen J. Gould, considered him to be too aggressive and dogmatic in promoting his own gene-centered model of natural selection, and working to discredit any and all alternatives. But, what I really disagree with is his foray into philosophy, where he was indulged by philosopher friends like A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett...who should have known better! Many philosophers of science consider biology the last of the "hard sciences," where there are few mysteries and demands for non-linear thinking to solve problems. The biologists who find their way in to philosophy seem to have a knack for trying to compartmentalize everything into neat little categories. The difference is that the only instance in your Bible where contacting the dead is approved of is where King Saul consults a medium to conjure up the spirit of the Prophet Samuel. Aside from that, they are all supposed to be burned as witches....which is what modern-day fundamentalists will have to return to if they want to truly following a literal interpretation of scriptural laws. Simple rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So, if any supernatural claim is going to be offered as factual evidence, it has to pass a process of scientific testing. After about 30 years, magician - James Randi retired his offer of one million dollars for anyone who could prove psychic phenomena. If any of these psychic claims had a basis in fact, there would have been at least one psychic of whatever sort able to claim the prize. These supernatural phenomena are just a product of fraud and/or the limitations of the human mind,which can create its own illusions and hallucinations that appear real. And of course there's always confirmation bias of so many people who want to believe in supernatural healing, contacting dead loved ones, having a soul that will continue after the body dies etc. etc. Wherever there are strong desires for a certain belief, there will be plenty of people willing to believe it. Are you serious? That's one thing you can't accuse atheists of, is doing it for the money; since there is no real money to be made here. Dawkins may have made a little money from book sales, but he'd be lucky if the atheist/humanist/ and freethought groups he speaks to on the lecture circuit can cover his hotel and traveling expenses! Atheists don't get talked in to, or suckered in to, giving 10% of their net income to an atheist club, like the fundamentalists have had to do ever since some preacher several decades back noticed that the Temple in Jerusalem collected tithes from the people. Giving to the Lord is a lot more lucrative than giving to freethought causes....actually most atheists I've come across are the stingiest people I know. One thing's for sure, if Richard Dawkins shouts Hallelujah tomorrow and announces that he's seen the light and the glory of Jesus, he'd be picking up so much cash he wouldn't know what to do with all of the money! NO, besides not knowing what Dawkins's day job is, he doesn't offer any rebuttals with supporting evidence...there would be links all over the place in these so called rebuttals if that was the case. Once again, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. These are the people making the claims. But if you want to delve into one or two of them specifically, I'd be happy to show you just how bad the case is that the phenomena actually exists outside of people's minds.

Maybe it was a Zen koan: life creates its environment, or the environment creates life.....I'll await further details before trying to figure it out.

I hate to say it, but the comments on this thread are even stupider than I expected! I guess I was avoiding looking at this one for good reason. In the witless, compartmentalized minds here that think a religion can be neatly separated from culture and circumstances such as extreme poverty, and endless war, these killings are all about that other religion and nothing else! To start with, a little facts would be a big help here, and the story from AP informs us that three mullahs in particular, are believed to have played the crucial role in inciting a mob to demonstrate and look for revenge, when they led their followers out of the mosques and even drove around the city with loudspeakers inviting others to join the growing mob. They couldn't find Americans to take revenge on, so the UN became the 2nd choice. Nevertheless, the mob violence in a city in war-torn Afghanistan is enough for the usual Muslim-haters here to condemn every Muslim. Should we condemn all Christians in the world for the evangelical church mob in Uganda that burned an elderly man to death last year after accusing him of being a witch? No doubt the resentment against years of U.S. military patrols and random bombings plays a part in the ease of inciting mob violence. Anyone here think that no one in that mob heard about the U.S. soldiers convicted of "sport hunting" Afghanis? Most likely, these three are not the exception to the rule, but merely among the few who were stupid enough to pose beside the dead bodies of their victims in "trophy" photos. I'm sure that really goes over well in any backward, religious society! US Soldier Sentenced to 24 Years in Prison in Afghan Murder Case

My interest in martial arts comes from training with an older brother who boxed amateur, but decided against turning pro, wrestling in high school, learning jiu jitsu and a modest amount in some other disciplines, which gives me a little more appreciation for what's going on in a match, than a lot of spectators who are just looking for blood, or a knockout etc. There are street thugs who watch UFC and other MMA fights, hoping to learn something to use in a fight; but success in any fight sports relies on hours of training, because the techniques have to become almost a reflexive response to be effective. I guess! What may be factual is that pacifism is found almost exclusively on the left, while the right revels in fighting and warfare etc. For myself, I've never been one to look for fights, and never had the need to fight. When I was young and training with my older brother, there wasn't anyone at school who could hurt me with a body punch, or connect if they tried to go for my head...so, I didn't even have to throw any punches myself -- just parry a few of them off till their forearms started hurting...and then they'd usually have to give up and walk away. Johnson was getting in the shots...maybe not devastating shots, but enough to make Hardy work really hard in the guard position. I'm glad the ref let things go, because they usually stand them up, especially when the crowd isn't happy. But, if Johnson wasn't doing enough, what does that say about Hardy? It was up to him to stop the takedowns, and then once down, work for a way to reverse his position or work for a submission hold from the guard. I'm reminded of an overhyped heavyweight striker that the UFC picked up (I think from Strikeforce) a couple of years ago - Heath Herring. In his UFC debut, he kept getting taken down by a so-so wrestler, and time after time was complaining to the ref. Well, we don't know that! We weren't in the cage with him. It's possible that he was getting tired, or maybe he had to pull his left arm out of so many armlock attempts, that he was cautious because he was worried about getting caught in a submission hold. One thing I'm pretty sure of - he wouldn't be able to control GSP like he did with Dan Hardy. I didn't see his fight with Koscheck, but he appeared to pace himself well in the Hardy fight. There's no standard rules to apply for cutting weight. Some athletes can do it well, others struggle to cut even a few pounds. A lot of boxers and wrestlers have to cut a lot of weight to make their divisions. In boxing what usually happens is that fighters can do it relatively easily when they're young, but once they reach 30 it becomes a struggle to make weight, and they end up having to move up a division or two or three. A prime example would be Tommy Hearns, who scratched because of injury in the 76 Olympic Trials when he started boxing as a junior welterweight, turned pro as a welterweight, and fought in that division for several years even though his weight could shoot up to 190 or more when he wasn't training for a fight. And he ended up having to finish his career as a cruiserweight. I don't have any reference for UFC rankings, but I came across a debate on Hardy's no.1 ranking on an online sports site. Maybe his no.1 ranking was prior to that fight. What about Jon Fitch or Jake Shields? Or Carlos Condit! There are other big names that should have a shot at the title. Considering how little experience Brock Lesnar had before stepping in to the UFC, he has done better than anyone could have expected. Earlier on it seemed like Dana White wanted him to fail, because he wanted Lesnar to get some experience in a minor circuit like Bellator or Strikeforce before coming in to fight in the UFC. Lately, White has come around to view Lesnar as being a legitimate top ranked heavyweight. As he gains experience, he'll be a more formidable opponent, but, what has really surprised me in the last few years is how much the heavyweight division has improved of late. The heavyweights now have to train just as hard as the lighter divisions, and can't come in 40 or 50 pounds overweight. Shane Carwin is a big, strong, fast wrestler like Lesnar, with good hands, but Lesnar one that fight because Carwin ran out of gas...and that's going to be a big problem if he fights Velasquez, who looks like the most complete fighter in the heavyweight division, or even if he goes up against Lesnar in a rematch. One thing for sure, it looks like the heavyweight division is now too strong for former light heavyweight champions to come in and claim the title, like Randy Couture did! Since you're really into boxing and MMA, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the fledgling sports of female boxing and MMA. Just recently there was an announcement that Zuffa (UFC owners) has bought out Strikeforce, one of the few MMA syndicates that had female fighters. Dana White has previously said that he's not interested in having women in the UFC (aside from ringcard girls) but says that they will honor all of Strikeforce's existing contracts. So, now the most prominent names like Gina Carano, who trains in Randy Couture's club, are wondering if they are going to be stuck in some sort of limbo, with no more fights after this year, and no contracts renewed. I haven't watched very many of these girlfights, but one thing that occurred to me is that most of them seem to have adopted styles of fighting that the guys use...no doubt because of the way they're trained, or that fact that many of them have started in the sport because they were with men who were MMA fighters. Point is most of them spend too much time fighting standup, even though they're not very good at it, and except for some of the Japanese girls I've seen, they don't seem well grounded in jiu jitsu, even though a lot of jiu jitsu techniques rely on using the legs rather than upper body strength.

Former nuclear watchdog supports May, slams Tory minister. Keen was fired from her post as CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission after she forced a shutdown in late 2007 at a Chalk River reactor that provides vital isotopes for medical uses, and refused to restart it until safety systems were in place, despite intense political pressure. The shutdown caused a critical international shortage of isotopes and the government overrode the nuclear regulator, allowing the reactor to be restarted. Lunn fired Keen, but he then was demoted later that year. Yes, getting radioactive isotopes is important, but for the Harper Government, this incident provided a clear example that public safety takes a back seat to business as usual. A run of bad luck like they had over in Japan, and we could very well be staring at our own nuclear disaster right now. A lot of press stories on Linda Keen's endorsement of Elizabeth May focus on a theme that she is doing this out of revenge. But if it's just about revenge, why didn't she take her endorsement to the Liberals or the NDP? Possibly because Linda Keen was not impressed by the attention the other two parties have given to nuclear energy policy and environment issues in general. And boys and girls, that's why it's important to struggle against this drive to force Canada along the path to a two party system like the U.S. has. Even with three parties, none of them are giving a proper amount of attention to the environment. For them, environment issues are put further down the list of priorities when other concerns dominate the news cycle.

Does anybody really believe this? Humanitarianism can make a nice excuse for intervention; but there's no way to take it seriously. If the intervention in Libya, for example, is just about humanitarian effort, where is the intervention in Bahrain and Yemen, to stop those dictators from killing demonstrators? In Yemen, the U.S. Government had increased its support for the dictator and refused to condemn the killing of dozens of unarmed demonstrators in a public square.....some humanitarianism?

The problem I have with this buyer's remorse from the Clinton supporters is that Obama is pretty much running a Clinton - middle of the road centrist agenda as President. Would Hillary have done anything different about the Bank Bailout, Guantanamo, the three wars etc.?

What most surprised me was that he took a few swipes at FoxNews also. That pretty much rules out any future plans he might have of running for president.

This doesn't exactly make sense, so I'm going to have to do a little guessing to figure out what you're driving at here. There are differences of opinion on how evolution occurs -- a Dutch biologist Gert Korthof has dozens of book reviews on evolution and proposed alternative theories - check out the subheading Extensions & alternative evolutionary theories . There is a reason why proposed theories outside of the framework of evolutionary theory cannot be taken seriously by biologists and other life scientists -- non-evolutionary theories do not have means to explain the fossil record or the phylogenetic tree of life. Now I'm really wondering if you were into the non-liquid refreshments when you wrote this! First, evolution doesn't deal with origins of life, and what is this 'life creates environment' 'environment creates life' anyway?

I haven't read the book he's supposed to be reviewing, but I've read stuff from many of the names listed; and you can't summarize what all 50 of the believe, so the author just glosses over many of the names, before going on to condemn the celebrities on the list. It's totally false and disingenuous to label all 50 as "zealous" new atheists. Just like many of your other links, you've picked another one that creates straw men to knock down under the banner of waging war against atheism. Rather than any fact-based criticisms of new atheism, all he offers his opinions, conjectures and invectives. But, I'm more interested to see what this writer believes, and what sort of case for belief he makes...since he has so much bile for those who remain unconvinced. So what is his evidence? Near the end, he presents a murky reading of the standard Cosmological Proof for the existence of God: These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates. Well, if nothing in this universe can account for its own existence, or be uncaused, then he needs to answer the question that David Hume asked a couple of centuries ago, and he refers to earlier in the article: 'what caused God?' What makes God "eternal" and "transcendent"? And what proof is there that such a being created the Universe? How does he know that there is such a creator, and that he has these qualities that provide an existence that violates the rule that everything must have a cause? He could just be invoking the existence of a supernatural creator that exists outside of our universe (and outside of the rules of existence claimed here) to solve a problem. We don't get an explanation of why or how God is self-caused; so it's a matter of using a mystery to solve a mystery. Another problem is that these cosmological proofs that are based on the premise that all events in the Universe have a cause, are undone by the discoveries in quantum mechanics - of how things work at the sub-atomic level. For example, scientists have found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused (Virtual Particles), in empty space. Also, atomic decay, such as the decay of carbon 14 atoms, varies with identical carbon 14 atoms decaying at different rates for no other reason that that their decay rates are spontaneous (and therefore uncaused). If this is the best David Hart has got to prove God to me or anyone else, maybe his lack of a clear and consistent proof for what he believes everyone else should believe in, is the reason why he is so full of hostility to all who question the existence of God.

What the hell are you talking about -- "waging war"? Re: your last sentence, I'm wondering if you're the one who would make an interesting subject for a psychologist! The using of violent terminology and imagery, tells me that your way of thinking has no room for different opinions. Anyone who doesn't believe like you, and writes books condemning religion, is equivalent to waging war. I could say pushing your version of religion and condemning everyone who pushes back, is waging war against freethought. So, now you believe in telepathy, psychic healing, telekenesis, paranormal, mediums talking to the dead etc.....since this rebuttal is not about God, but a critical essay Dawkins wrote about psi and paranormal mumbo jumbo five years ago. And his rebuttals are all rhetoric and no substance. For example, he repeats a statement several times that there are hundreds of studies providing empirical evidence for the psychic phenomena, and provides no links or references to any of them. A secondary point is that he doesn't seem to have much of any idea who Richard Dawkins is, aside from reading the article that he took offense to, since he identifies Dawkins as a zoologist, rather than an evolutionary biologist. It's not much of rebuttal. I'm wondering if you're googling search terms like "Dawkins" and "refute" or "rebuttal" and just posting the links!

What exactly are you talking about here that you are defining as "science?" Do you think every scientist around the world gets together to ignore something like creationism? If so, I'd like to hear how this works; since there always seems to be rivals within every scientific discipline looking for flaws and errors in published research papers. Any hypothesis that has a shred of plausibility is going to find a supporter looking to advance his own position in the community by knocking down or challenging a popular theory. Since when? Scientists have to use induction all the time, because there are few if any theories that can be completed without appealing to a bias based on the success of past results to make predictions. If we take the black swan example: inductive reasoning might tell us that all swans are white, until that black swan comes swimming by one day, and then an unexpected result requires that existing theories have to be altered or scrapped in favour of an alternative that explains the new test results better. Now, the difference between the scientific method and religious revelation, is that for a standard religion, the same inductive assumption that there are no such things as black swans cannot easily incorporate the new discovery of the black swan into its canon. Science works from a principle of emergence - developing knowledge and understanding from the ground up; whereas religion begins with revealed knowledge. When a revealed truth collides with new discovery such as: the Earth not being flat and the center of creation; being much older than the dates applied in scripture; and that plants and animals are not separate creations -- the conflict can lead to a cognitive dissonance, where a believer may hold to a literal scriptural belief when thinking of spiritual matters, but shift to a modern, scientific view in a biology class or watching some Discovery Channel show on dinosaurs etc.. Many enlightened believers and church leaders may decide it's time for an upgrade and go with a non-literal understanding of Genesis. A few believers may lose faith in the religious worldview and ask 'if they can't get this right, what else are the wrong about?' But the worst choice to make is the fundamentalist choice of 'I'm going to keep believing the same damn thing regardless of the evidence!' And so, we have the Republican War On Science, and all scientific consensus is held in contempt unless it just happens to fit conservative wants and wishes. This is especially in evidence in the fundamentalist conservative rejection of the mounting evidence for anthropogenic climate change. There's nothing in the Bible to conflict with the proposition that humans have reached a stage where they can alter the climate to everyone's detriment, but the accumulated hostility engendered by decades of creationist attacks on mainstream science as ungodly, has made it easy for oil company front groups to use similar tactics of the creationists to win them over. Well, here's what we do know from neuroscience: people with brain damage have provided evidence for many decades that our personalities, our memories, and our abilities to think naturally, are skewed by very physical processes going on in the brain, and have provided evidence that mind is not something immaterial that exists outside of the physical realm. Just the fact that anti-psychotic drugs can change the behaviour of someone who is psychotic, tells us that what is going on in a damaged mind is a physical process, regardless of how well it is presently understood. And damaged minds, such as severe epileptics, who in the past were subjected to radical surgery that separated the two hemispheres in the cortex, functioned as if they had two separate, independent minds, and yet they still conducted themselves as if they believed they had a unified mind. This tells us that our sense of unified mind, free will, and our thoughts, are self-reported information that has nothing to do with the actual workings of the mind, that is created through a complex array of neurons that are generating conscious states of mind. What do we know about "thoughts?" Except that they seem real to us, and separate from the physical function of the body. But, if we discount the thoughts of a schizophrenic off medication, how much more reliable are the thoughts of mostly rational people at telling us how the mind works? Atheism comes from inductive reasoning, since there is no way to prove the non-existence of gods or anything supernatural, since something supernatural is by its own definition outside of nature, and therefore outside of the ability for a scientific process to prove or disprove its existence. But, when the believers in gods or ghosts or souls make empirical claims that there are proofs; they offer up no evidence that withstands a rigorous examination....no surprise that this feeds the hostility to science! If a believer says God causes earthquakes, causes winds to blow, lightning and rains to fall, and the sun to rise and fall in the sky every day (which are past claims btw) and natural explanations have been found to explain these phenomena, that never seems to qualify as a disproof of the God-claim to most people. Same thing when both paleontology and molecular biology find correlated evidence that all present life on Earth has common origins, that does not disprove God to most people. God either becomes a different form of understanding the world, or for the literalists - God retreats further into the gaps of scientific evidence....so creationism devolves into intelligent design! Now, the reason I felt the need to mention all this is because you seem to have no understanding what the atheist position is, or why some of us adopt an atheist position, rather than believe in God. Science may not prove atheism, but science has not proved the existence of any gods either! Some of us are inclined to believe anyway, and some of us are not without some evidence that is a little more convincing than what's been offered up so far....and that's basically what the theist/atheist divide boils down to in the end, our approach to understanding and finding meaning in the world. I doubt that there was any such thing as an atheist, in the modern understanding of the term, before the The Theory of Evolution provided a natural explanation for the development of life, and modern cosmology started providing natural hypotheses for how a universe, or many universes exist. In ancient times, 'atheist' meant not believing in the right God; so many Roman writers called the early Christians atheists, because they didn't accept the Roman Pantheon.

Found it! There's no need to pay idiots money to post crap all over the place when it can be done more quickly and efficiently by a machine: Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda. A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world. The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives. The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.

Now here's an awesome Rand Paul video! Rand Paul Mocks Newt Gingrich: ‘He Has More War Positions Than He Has Wives’

But, even if you get insulted and abused, what good does it do to return the same in kind to your opponent. That is besides having the opportunity to vent. I don't think there are many examples of people changing their minds when they encounter hostility. It's more likely that they become more deeply entrenched in their views.

More proof that what people do is a lot more important than what they believe in! Some of the antitheist atheists who look forward to a world without religion, should consider that it might also be a more self-centered world with very few great acts of charity also. Yes, it's not a battle between secular and religious forces in most of Latin America; it's more of a struggle between church leaders who serve the dictators and wealthy landowners, verses the heroes like Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was shot after telling soldiers they had a duty to disobey orders to kill.

In principle, everyone should aspire to being better people, and not just being as bad as everyone else. If new atheists are right about a better future without religion, then atheists should be better people than the religious crowd. My suspicions are that many atheists function value-free and don't live up to lofty humanist principles in their everyday lives. For a lot of churchgoers...that is those who actually listen to the sermon...they may be reminded that they have to focus on bigger things than personal gratification. At its best, Christians who actually walk the talk, and live like the early Christians described in the Acts of the Apostles make the world a better place. I just came across a good example yesterday: this small group of Mennonites who went to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina to help with the rebuilding, and are still there! Not born on the bayou, but staying for good A community of Mennonites has brought their way of life to the bayous of Louisiana. When it comes to selfless devotion, they are a pretty formidable example for anyone to follow.

Or maybe she believes that we are presently heading on a course to ecological disaster, and the lame-ass issues the big three are yacking about this time around will be long forgotten in ten or 20 years.

Once again it seems that real change starts from the ground up, not the top down! I think we in Canada are fast approaching the situation they have in the U.S., where politicians answer to the money, not the people! I was hoping for the best two years ago, when Obama came along, because he had a chance in the wake of the banking meltdown to be an FDR, and really overhaul the system. But, even then that didn't seem likely because a lot of his major contributions were coming from Wall Street. When it comes to foreign policy, nobody crosses the defense contractors, Republican or Democrat. It's uncanny how U.S. foreign policy plods along seemlessly from one administration to another, with little, if any change. If anything, Obama is worse than Bush on many issues, such as the further eroding of civil rights, increasing the number of private military contractors (mercenaries) and drone attacks (many of which are actually Tomahawk cruise missiles)...check out the laundry list provided by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com When it comes to this situation in Libya, who doesn't smell oil behind this policy of arming the rebels! Just happens most of the oil reserves are in the eastern half of the country, that has always been teetering on the verge of revolt against Gadaffi. If it's not about oil, why was it so important to stop Gadaffi's army from invading Benghazi, while staying silent about the mass shootings of protesters in Yemen and Bahrain by U.S. trained forces? There's not much of a valid reason for the intervention and new war in Libya on humanitarian grounds, since, if there was no oil, the most that would have been done would have been to secure a corridor for refugees to flee Benghazi into some makeshift refugee camps set up on the Egyptian border.

You were the one who raised the point! If there are deaths as a result of this disaster, and evidence of criminal negligence, then manslaughter charges, or the Japanese equivalent, should apply...just like with BP.

I'm sure I've quoted this article previously to you, yourself on the subject of atheism; so how can this possibly be the first time you've read it, or heard of the term "new atheism"? So, you've never heard of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett before, or the term "new atheists!" See, the truth is these are the kind of atheists that fundamentalists can relate to! Most atheists don't care if people believe in God, an afterworld, or a created universe as long as they can incorporate the regular scientific updates that come at us in the Information Age, and even more crucially - are able to live in harmony with others who believe differently, instead of trying to drive wedges or exacerbate the divisions that already exist in this world.

I read the damn piece, so don't call me a liar! I've posted comments all over the place here using that article, but comparing your giant quote to article on Wired, I would say that you've copied at least 3/4's of it. Except for omitting some background material, Dawkins's explanation of memes, and evolutionary theory, most of the original article has been copied. And, I could say the same thing: I didn't give any comment on purpose! I've already commented on my thoughts on new atheism previously, and your excuse is just to justify creating another pointless thread, while neglecting to respond to posts in other religion threads you've created.

And why shouldn't there be manslaughter charges if there is evidence to back up charges that safety reports were falsified and some tests and inspections were ignored. The company didn't exactly have a spotless record before the disaster.