> On 12 May, 04:37, "Peter T. Daniels" verizon.net> wrote:

>> On May 11, 7:23 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On 11 May, 19:59, csamp...@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) wrote:

>

>>>>      To me, Dawkins is the epitome of the concept of "jerk".  Why do I
>>>> say that?  Suppose I were in Dawkins' position, a reknowed biologist
>>>> with access to platforms to expound my ideas, but (being me) with my
>>>> social leanings.  From my knowledge of science, biology in particular, I
>>>> have come to the conclusion that religion is hokum and that people who
>>>> have any sort of religious belief are just scared and using it as an
>>>> emotional crutch in the face of the big nothingness (le grand néant) to
>>>> come.  I wouldn't use my platforms to tell these misguided souls (or
>>>> beings; Dawkins wouldn't say "souls".) how silly they are.  What would
>>>> be the point of taking from such people something that gives them
>>>> comfort and the will to struggle on in this mysterious state we call
>>>> "life"?  Dawkins, being an überjerk, has no such qualms.

>

>>> Clearly you are too damn fucking stupid to know who Dawkins is and
>>> what the fuck he is doing.

>

>>>>      Stephen J. Gould, a scientist of standing at least equal to
>>>> Dawkins, wrote a book "Rocks of Ages".  In it he argues that there
>>>> shouldn't be any conflict between religion and science because they
>>>> address areas of inquiry that have nothing in common.

>

>>> But he was completely wrong. Whilst religion claims to know how life
>>> emerged on planet earth it inevitably  brings it into conflict with
>>> science

>

>> What (contemporary) religion claims that?

>
> Judaism
> Islam
> Christianity.
> Sikhism
> To name a few.

> Like I said ... read a book!-