|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2007 03:21:28 PM · #701 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
All those things that you think come from your god (security, strength, moral compass) exist in exactly the same way for people who do not believe in god - they are consequences of being human, not being a believer. |
You're forgetting the most important aspect of 'security' - that of an afterlife. The thought of game-over death *is* scary to most people, as non-existence is impossible to imagine. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:22:33 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would encourage anyone to spend some time looking at the world as if god does not exist and come out of it thinking that people who do not believe in god are "mad". It is not so scary a place. All those things that you think come from your god (security, strength, moral compass) exist in exactly the same way for people who do not believe in god - they are consequences of being human, not being a believer. |
I think this probably works on a two-way street principle.
Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion). Actually that's not the problem. The problem comes when readers transfer his clear expertise in evolutionary theory onto his body of knowledge about religion.
Take Gould. He waxes eloquently about things other than evolution, but he always returns. I enjoy reading Gould.
I still don't have a clear answer as to what the atheist uses to gain their security, strength, and moral compass. And an interesting question would be to ask if whatever the answer is does not represent their own "god"?
EDIT: I found this in the wiki of Stephen Jay Gould. I think it sums nicely why I like Gould and dislike Dawkins:
In his book Rocks of Ages, Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[42] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[42] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[42]
In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[42] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[42]
A similar position has been adopted by the National Academy of Sciences. Its publication Science and Creationism states that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[43]
Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion argues against the logic of the NOMA principle in shielding religions from scientific scrutiny. According to Dawkins, "the God Hypothesis," that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us," is a scientific hypothesis, and is therefore not exempt from scientific examination. Dawkins suggests both that NOMA is wrong and that Gould did not believe in it, but simply wanted to pay lip service to certain aspects of political correctness. With the exception of identifying Gould's motivation, Sam Harris has suggested the same. Paul Davies, on the other hand, has suggested that NOMA is flawed because "science has its own faith-based belief system."[44]
I disagree with Dawkins' presumption that just because you can state something to sound like a scientific theory, it is. "that I find my wife beautiful" is also a statement, but hardly something that can be put to the scientific method. "that the avoidance of cruelty is good" would be another example.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 15:32:31.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:34:24 PM · #703 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion). |
What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis? At least Dawkins has a background in the alternative view he proposes. Lewis was neither a scientist nor a member of the clergy, and no more an authority on either subject than Mark Twain. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:43:24 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
As an Atheist in a Catholic society, I would say that you should 1st challenge your un-belief. Having done that, and still an unbeliever, then you woe it to yourself, to stand firm and acclaim your un-belief for all to hear. God after all gave you a choice. You should shout yours from the mountain tops. |
Flash, if you were a Christian living in a society that was predominately non-Christian, would you feel that you "should" (that is have some responsibility to) challenge your Christian belief? If not, why "should" an atheist in a Catholic society have any more need/responsibility/desire to challenge their non-belief, than a Christian in a Muslim/Hindu/atheist society would have a need/responsibility/desire to challenge their Christian belief? |
Although I am on an imposed hiatus from this forum, this question was directly asked of me, so I will respond.
1. I think it is both a good question and a fair one.
2. I think anyone should question and "recheck" their beilefs as I am of the opinion that it is how we grow. Having been a christian, then an unbeliever searching for "Truth", then a follower of Christ again - yes challenging ones beliefs is essential.
3. I cannot answer your "If not" question for the reason that I believe
one should challenge their beliefs.
Hope this helps.
edit to add: it just occurred to me that you are just joining this thread. Upon seeing your subsequent posts below, I will wait until you finish reading the previous posts, before I decide to add anymore replys.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 16:39:40. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:52:33 PM · #705 |
Originally posted by Flash:
As an Atheist in a Catholic society, I would say that you should 1st challenge your un-belief. Having done that, and still an unbeliever, then you woe it to yourself, to stand firm and acclaim your un-belief for all to hear. God after all gave you a choice. You should shout yours from the mountain tops. |
To Shutterpuppy's point, I'd like to see Flash shout his disbelief of Islam from a mountain top in Riyadh for all to hear... |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:57:34 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion). |
What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis? At least Dawkins has a background in the alternative view he proposes. Lewis was neither a scientist nor a member of the clergy, and no more an authority on either subject than Mark Twain. |
Because Lewis' education was in the philosophical/literture world while Dawkins' was in science. Interestingly they both studied at Oxford. I have to dig up what Lewis exactly read (ie majored) but I believe it was both Philosophy and english. Dawkins read zoology. Lewis was known to be a hugely prolific reader and had mastered greek and latin before he was out of schoolage merely so he could read the classics in their original language.
And don't forget that Lewis was also a former atheist, so I don't think you can claim Dawkins "had a background in an alternative view" any more than Lewis.
EDIT: Here it is. To even get one first-class degree at Oxford in that time was impressive. "After four years of study Lewis ended up with three first-class degrees from Oxford: Greek and Latin literature, classical philosophy and English language and literature."
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 16:02:20.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:14:44 PM · #707 |
| Dawkins was a former Anglican and notes, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" As PZ Myers put it, "Being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to have read learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear before claiming that the Emperor is, in fact, naked." |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:17:32 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical... |
Just want to clarify. Do you contend that the bible is the literal word of God and must be taken at face value? Or do you contend that the bible is a work of allegory to be interpreted and not taken literally? |
It is both. A stated elsewhere, the problem is knowing which is which. I am aware that some maintain that All Scripture is the direct literal word of God. I maintain that, since Christ taught using parables, and Christ is God the Son, then some scripture has a very high probability of being figurative. It at times can be both literal and figurative. For example, some parables are specific to the day, yet applicable through the ages - thus both literal and figurative. |
How do you separate what is allegorical from what is literal? And if you accept that parts are allegorical, how do you justify your interpretations of what is allegorical?
As an atheist I can read the Bible and take moral lessons from its pages, just as I can read the works of any great thinker/philosopher and take moral lessons from that. This does not mean that I have to accept the paranormal aspects of a divine Christ/God, accept the book as a literal account of history, or even give credence to the allegorical teachings of its pages that no longer synch with modern moral standards that have been arrived at after centuries of increases in human understanding.
How do I sift through and make choices as to what is helpful, useful, or applicable to my life? I test what is there against my own moral understandings and impressions. But how do I arrive at these moral understandings? They are a product of my upbringing, study, and what I would argue is the core human aversion to suffering. (Note that I say "core," but certainly not uncorruptable.)
This point is made by Dawkins, Harris, et. al. as well. It is actually the morality that comes first, not the doctrine, the doctrine is derived from our own moral impressions. Whether a theist or an atheist, the "truth" of religious doctrine is derived from our own moral impressions, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:18:22 PM · #709 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still don't have a clear answer as to what the atheist uses to gain their security, strength, and moral compass. And an interesting question would be to ask if whatever the answer is does not represent their own "god"? |
Well, I do have them and I very definitely do not rely on god to provide them. I would anticipate that if you stopped believing in god that you would retain your morality and you would not suddenly become incapable of relying on your inner strength.
It would seem to be grasping at straws to suggest that there is a personal "god" in anything other than the most analogous of fashions. Rather than being evidence of an objective, external god this would seem to be evidence that people are regularly misled about the origin of commonplace feelings, which are (deliberately?) mystified.
I would suggest that it is deeply misleading to say that non-believers do not have exactly the same inner resources and strength as believers. I would question the motives of anyone who tried to preach that to me, and the tenets of any religion that held that to be true.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:30:48 PM · #710 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The main problem I personally have with atheistic rational atomism, i.e. this notion that we are all just combinations of atoms behaving according to certain laws, is my own awareness. Awareness cannot be explained by paricles (or waves, for that matter, or even strings). However, there is no logical reason to assume that the people who have this mysterious awareness would also have the explanation of that awareness "revealed" to them. |
This troubled me for a long time as well, as I moved toward my eventual acknowledgment of my atheism. However, when you begin reading about brain chemistry and the extent that our "awareness" is subject to biological and environmental factors (such as chemical balances, trauma, and the like), the more a "mechanical" idea of awareness becomes plausible, and the more tricky it becomes to hold on to the idea of a set and steadfast idea of "self." This is disconcerting, but also fascinating. I would suggest starting with some of Oliver Sacks's writings, like An Anthropologist On Mars.
The human mind still remains one of science's great mysteries, but it becomes less and less mysterious all the time. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:47:47 PM · #711 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Dawkins was a former Anglican and notes, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" As PZ Myers put it, "Being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to have read learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear before claiming that the Emperor is, in fact, naked." |
Cool. We got like four conversations going on at once. I should say that I did back up and say that Dawkins is plenty able to make his own philosophical opinions, my beef is with people who give them too much credence as coming from "an expert" because his expertise is clearly along other lines. I'm perfectly free to write a treatise on why Hemi engines are better than regular ones, but I'm not sure I'd hold much weight at a convention of auto engineers.
I still contend Dawkins completely misses the boat by trying to disparage religion through the eyes of science. He simply cannot step out of his scientific realm and that, I think, is his great weakness with regard to philosophy.
Now if you see Lewis suddenly publish a book from the grave on the evolutionary development of the wing, I'll be happy to hear the same criticism about him.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:51:25 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a matter of the logical outcome of each worldview. Theism allows for the logical possibility of a moral pole, ie. all morality is defined by the supreme being; he is the absolute authority of morality and all activity can be judged compared to him. Materialism (and atheism) does not logically allow for a moral pole. While it certainly can be true that materialists have moral codes, there is no reference standard to judge the fitness of the code. The result, like I said earlier, is that one atheist can not claim a more fit moral code than another. If one atheist's code allows for female circumcision, another atheist cannot claim authority to say that such an action is "wrong" or "less fit". They can merely say they disagree with it.
EDIT: I add that this is pretty far from what I wrote (an atheist has no morality) and I'm fairly embarassed that my internal editor did not catch it when I wrote it, I am going back to change it to reflect what I meant. |
Just to play "devil's advocate" here: What is the standard by which a theist judges the acceptability of his or her supreme being's right to establish the "moral pole"? Even if we accept that a supreme being exists, what proof do we have that his/her/its moral teachings are correct? This is the question that troubled the Gnostics. If the only evidence we have for the morality of the supreme being is his/her/its say so, then it still falls to us to make the ultimate moral decision as to that claim's correctness.
This brings me back to the point I made above. A person's morality is the beginning of that person's doctrine, not the other way around. The atheist makes claims to moral correctness based upon his or her own moral impressions, intuitions, and observations. The difference between the atheist and the theist is that the atheist tries to persuade others of his or her moral determinations through rational argument, the theist wants to persuade simply by reference. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:56:41 PM · #713 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It just occurred to me that you are just joining this thread. Upon seeing your subsequent posts below, I will wait until you finish reading the previous posts, before I decide to add anymore replys. |
Wow. That was a lot to wade through. I think I feel a little bit woozy. I believe that I'm all caught up now, Flash. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:58:41 PM · #714 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's a matter of the logical outcome of each worldview. Theism allows for the logical possibility of a moral pole, ie. all morality is defined by the supreme being; he is the absolute authority of morality and all activity can be judged compared to him. Materialism (and atheism) does not logically allow for a moral pole. While it certainly can be true that materialists have moral codes, there is no reference standard to judge the fitness of the code. The result, like I said earlier, is that one atheist can not claim a more fit moral code than another. If one atheist's code allows for female circumcision, another atheist cannot claim authority to say that such an action is "wrong" or "less fit". They can merely say they disagree with it.
EDIT: I add that this is pretty far from what I wrote (an atheist has no morality) and I'm fairly embarassed that my internal editor did not catch it when I wrote it, I am going back to change it to reflect what I meant. |
Just to play "devil's advocate" here: What is the standard by which a theist judges the acceptability of his or her supreme being's right to establish the "moral pole"? Even if we accept that a supreme being exists, what proof do we have that his/her/its moral teachings are correct? This is the question that troubled the Gnostics. If the only evidence we have for the morality of the supreme being is his/her/its say so, then it still falls to us to make the ultimate moral decision as to that claim's correctness.
This brings me back to the point I made above. A person's morality is the beginning of that person's doctrine, not the other way around. The atheist makes claims to moral correctness based upon his or her own moral impressions, intuitions, and observations. The difference between the atheist and the theist is that the atheist tries to persuade others of his or her moral determinations through rational argument, the theist wants to persuade simply by reference. |
I'll work backwards. I disagree with your final statement on two fronts. A) Theists have plenty of rational arguments about interpretation of moral laws. B) Atheist trying to persuade others through rational argument will still base those arguments on irrational assumptions (by irrational I mean they are not based on anything external).
However, I will agree with you that in the practical world the theist is almost in the same boat as the atheist. My implication is that if the theist worldview is correct, then there can, in theory, exist a real and true Absolute Morality by which to judge others. We may have trouble knowing what it is, but it can exist. (just like the seafloor can exist under the oceans on certain moons of Jupiter). Atheists do not have a theoretical basis by which to claim an Absolute Morality. So while we may personally agree and disagree with different codes to different degrees, all moral codes are philosophically on equal footing.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:06:41 PM · #715 |
| An excellent read for those wishing to explore being atheist in a Christian society: Where can one go to say that one is atheist? |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:12:54 PM · #716 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The difference between the atheist and the theist is that the atheist tries to persuade others of his or her moral determinations through rational argument, the theist wants to persuade simply by reference. |
I'll work backwards. I disagree with your final statement on two fronts. A) Theists have plenty of rational arguments about interpretation of moral laws. B) Atheist trying to persuade others through rational argument will still base those arguments on irrational assumptions (by irrational I mean they are not based on anything external).
However, I will agree with you that in the practical world the theist is almost in the same boat as the atheist. My implication is that if the theist worldview is correct, then there can, in theory, exist a real and true Absolute Morality by which to judge others. We may have trouble knowing what it is, but it can exist. (just like the seafloor can exist under the oceans on certain moons of Jupiter). Atheists do not have a theoretical basis by which to claim an Absolute Morality. So while we may personally agree and disagree with different codes to different degrees, all moral codes are philosophically on equal footing. |
To the extent that theists have rational arguments about the interpretations of moral laws (and I agree with you that they do), they are not basing their adherence to those laws on their theistic belief. A rational argument, by definition, would mean that whether I agree with their faith-based belief in a theistic being or not, the moral law should still be followed because it makes rational sense. This is persuasion through argument. It is not persuasion through reference, aka "God said so."
Further, why isn't my belief in the innate human aversion to suffering a theoretical basis for a claim of absolute morality? If what you mean is that there must be some being as the basis for the claim to absolute morality, what makes that being's claim better than my rationally based one?
If the being's claim to morality is simply one of "it's moral because I say so," that is a pretty spartan and desolate view of morality. If it is something more than that, then there must be something outside of the mere existence of the being (God) that provides it with that moral authority and that can be found through rational examination.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 17:16:26. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:16:11 PM · #717 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with Dawkins' presumption that just because you can state something to sound like a scientific theory, it is. "that I find my wife beautiful" is also a statement, but hardly something that can be put to the scientific method. "that the avoidance of cruelty is good" would be another example. |
That's probably fine up until the point that you (well, not you perhaps) want to teach intelligent design in a biology class, I suppose. It sort of falls down around then otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:25:20 PM · #718 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still contend Dawkins completely misses the boat by trying to disparage religion through the eyes of science. He simply cannot step out of his scientific realm and that, I think, is his great weakness with regard to philosophy. |
Dawkins' contention is that there IS no other realm but science. Thus, he's no more stepping out of it than you would be by claiming fairies or Greek gods don't exist. Do you need a degree in mythology to disparage Zeus?
Your analogy with Hemi engines is faulty because it requires technical/engineering knowledge, whereas the entire Bible is a collection of "somebody said or witnessed something" anecdotes, so the only real authorities on the subject would be the actual witnesses or authors who aren't around anymore. There's really nothing you can "know" about the subject but reading what someone else wrote, which only requires a degree of literacy. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:28:48 PM · #719 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still contend Dawkins completely misses the boat by trying to disparage religion through the eyes of science. He simply cannot step out of his scientific realm and that, I think, is his great weakness with regard to philosophy. |
Dawkins' contention is that there IS no other realm but science. |
And in this he is isolated and alone. To deny there are questions which cannot be answered by science is completely ridiculous. To deny that these questions do not occupy us and are important is also ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:29:50 PM · #720 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with Dawkins' presumption that just because you can state something to sound like a scientific theory, it is. "that I find my wife beautiful" is also a statement, but hardly something that can be put to the scientific method. "that the avoidance of cruelty is good" would be another example. |
That's probably fine up until the point that you (well, not you perhaps) want to teach intelligent design in a biology class, I suppose. It sort of falls down around then otherwise. |
Agreed. ID has no place in a science class. Vetting evolutionary hypotheses, by all means. Intelligent Design, no.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:39:26 PM · #721 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still contend Dawkins completely misses the boat by trying to disparage religion through the eyes of science. He simply cannot step out of his scientific realm and that, I think, is his great weakness with regard to philosophy. |
Dawkins' contention is that there IS no other realm but science. |
And in this he is isolated and alone. To deny there are questions which cannot be answered by science is completely ridiculous. To deny that these questions do not occupy us and are important is also ridiculous. |
I don't think this is ridiculous at all. I think you have misplaced Dawkins insistence on reason and rationalism for an insistence on "science." By "questions which cannot be answered by science," I assume mean questions of philosophy. But philosophy can certainly be based on rational discourse, it need not be based on religious dogmatism.
This is the core of Dawkins writings, and insistence on rationalism and reliance upon evidence and a rejection of the irrationalisms of belief that are grounded in dogmatic proclamation. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:40:57 PM · #722 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Agreed. ID has no place in a science class. Vetting evolutionary hypotheses, by all means. Intelligent Design, no. |
I just had a thought. With all the furor about creationism and the like. Do students at US schools study religion ? That would seem to be the perfect place to discuss things like ID. But I'm guessing they don't given all the fuss. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:45:48 PM · #723 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, I will agree with you that in the practical world the theist is almost in the same boat as the atheist. My implication is that if the theist worldview is correct, then there can, in theory, exist a real and true Absolute Morality by which to judge others. |
I guess what I'm really getting at is a practical objection. I honestly don't understand what this gets you, practically, in the real world. It is one thing to talk about the benefit of a religious-based moral authority in small societies with homogeneous belief systems. I have no problem believing that when groups share a core moral belief system, those groups tend to be more cohesive and less prone to internal violence and division. That is practically tautological.
But we don't live in that situation. One has only to look around to see that claims to theistic moral authority are both: 1)rampant and 2)unpersuasive. We (as a species) do not rationally engage each other on questions of morality, we instead seek to impose our dogmatic proclamations on those who disagree.
Indeed, I would argue, along with Dawkins, Harris, et. al., that this insistence on a theistic origin for moral authority actually inhibits any achievement of a shared rationalistic morality. As long as people do not have to base their belief systems on evidence and argument, there can be no consensus.
To bring this around to the OP's original intent, this is why atheists in Christian societies have a responsibility to be open about their non-belief. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 06:01:15 PM · #724 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
To bring this around to the OP's original intent, this is why atheists in Christian societies have a responsibility to be open about their non-belief. |
722 posts later, and we bring it full circle. Thank you shutterpuppy! ;-) |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 06:02:01 PM · #725 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Dawkins was a former Anglican and notes, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" As PZ Myers put it, "Being expected to debate the finer points of religious scholarship as an atheist is like having to have read learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear before claiming that the Emperor is, in fact, naked." |
Or, more fully, The Courtier's Reply:
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed ΓΆ€” how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry ΓΆ€” but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 10:57:25 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 10:57:25 PM EDT.
|
