Comments on: Keith Kloor lumps me with Dawkins as sneering, strident, and simplistic

By: gbjames

gbjames — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:42:32 +0000

You are not correct regarding your complaint about Dawkins. He is very much in favor of teaching children aboutreligion religion. He says that indoctrinating children into a religion is a form of child abuse. And I agree with him. If your "teaching" is intended to inform children about the huge variety of religious ideas that humanity has held over millennia and if you give honest time to why some people don't believe a lick of it, then Dawkins would be fully supportive. This position is not sneering. You may think it is strident, but stridency is in the ear of the beholder. So weep if you like, christian person, but please try to be accurate in your statements.

By: Frank Keefe

Frank Keefe — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:54:00 +0000

“Really? Kloor does not, of course, give any examples of the sneering and stridency, and that’s par for the course”

Look I haven’t got all day to give you all of the examples of the sneering stridency you say Kloor hasn’t given you..here is just one to start you off by your man Dawkins…saying that teaching children about to religion is a form of child abuse….will be back to supply you the rest…mind you please take a look at P Z Myers website aaaah such intelligent arguments it brings this Christians tears to my eyes.

By: Tyle

Tyle — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:45:19 +0000

Agreed, he’s a good voice on GMOs. Too bad he’s so mushy on this. Loses some respect from me.

By: Botanylife

Botanylife — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:55:12 +0000

I had Discover Magazine on my daily Pulse news scrolls, until I read the numerous articles they posted from the hack Keith Kloor. His articles have nothing to do with science, they are essentially a marketing scheme for GMOs and nuclear power and every other shitty and destructive idea from the rightwing. He provides no evidence for any assertion, he just has a quote basically saying GMOs and nuclear power are great for everyone and everything. End of argument anyone who disagrees with that is anti science. Maybe he should talk to Japan about the settled science on nuclear power, and about every conservation biologist on earth about GMOs.He can start with me. I would bet a lot of money that the sell out KK is funded by invested interests in GMOs and nuclear energy. As long as they publish KKs inflammatory bullshit, they will be Discover the Anti Science Magazine in my eyes.

By: Funny names, strange thoughts: Kloor, Higgs « Choice in Dying

Funny names, strange thoughts: Kloor, Higgs « Choice in Dying — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:36:26 +0000

[...] “Keith Kloor lumps me with Dawkins as sneering, strident, and simplistic.” Turns out, not unsurprisingly, that Kloor is the one being particularly simplistic. We have now reached the 28th December, but the story is far from over, because [...]

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:58:40 +0000

Okay, gotya. Thanks for the follow-up.

By: wilzardthespy

wilzardthespy — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 04:22:51 +0000

I had to go (way) back up and read what my 3rd paragraph was in response to.

You wrote ““scientistic atheism” – I mean atheism motivated by a total commitment to empiricism. We know there is no God, because there is no evidence, and if the God claims were true there would be evidence.”

What I mean is that I have no dog in the race. I cam not totally committed to empiricism, per se, but accept empiricism as the most accurate way of knowing (so far). If there was a better method, I wouldn’t be the only one nor the first one jumping to it like a rat trying to escape a sinking ship.

So I suppose, at the most basic level, I objected to your hyperbole about being totally committed to empiricism.

By: wilzardthespy

wilzardthespy — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 04:16:50 +0000

Ian – “How do you show empirically that a non-empirical ‘knowledge’ is unsound, without first assuming that only empirical knowledge is sound?”

What I meant is that instead of ruminating about it, you do some actual experiments.

I guess I don’t understand your objection to that, unless you want to keep this discussion to the epistemology of empiricism vs non.

It is not naive, it is simple, and some things can be just that simple to describe.

By: Dominic

Dominic — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:02:54 +0000

I am sneering & strident – religion is a garbage bin of lies duping the credulous.

There, I said it.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:56:33 +0000

I’m always confused by people saying religion is about subservience. As an ex-catholic and coming from Germany, I’ve learned that being a good catholic means to stand up against tyrans.(like the “Widerstandskaempfer” during the third Reich, some (the well known ones) of them priests). From what I learned, kindness towards others and protecting the weak trumps subservience.(like Jesus did…)
But then again, maybe that’s why I became atheist.