My comment: I find the psychopath label insulting and would want to see the measure. I certainly could be a psychopath if I am expected to love family that hates my sexuality because of their beliefs, or pressures me to marry, or delays my sexual activities to promote a sexist agenda. How do you measure incredulity - with a psychopath yardstick? I certainly find the cocooning cottonwool white-dove fluffy cloud factory not my definition of deep-conscious emotion either. I would say that 70% LGBTI homeless teens says it all, that they were expelled from their families heartlessly. I would say that women forced to carry the children to term of careless men and rapists were forced to do so heartlessly. And so much more. Atheists don't stone women for adultery, don't prevent them from driving, don't work in all-male enclaves while turning a blind eye to the humanity of women and children. Religious people think atheists are amoral because morality comes from (god). That's what lies behind this 'science'.
Dawkins has become outspoken in his atheism , coining the word "bright" (as an alternate to atheist), and encouraging fellow non-believers to stand up and be identified. intelligent design is creationism redressed creationists are right that evolution is hostile to evolution statistical improbability of the complexity of design - intelligent design but the intelligent designer wouldn't have made such a hash - why would the designer be bothered with disapproving of our sex lives, favor our side in the war Dawkins suggest rocking the boat - attack religion as a whole taboo of speaking ill about religion - Douglas Adams said, sacred ideas at the heart of religion, holy cows, you can support any operating system you want, but the challenge of religious ideas is off limits science and religion are corrosive to each other - religious explanations are trivial and improbably, teaches people to accept authoritarianism takes the example of famous scientists and imagines
Comments