Our problems are traditional and societal, not legislative and institutional. The CofE gets to appoint Lords; imagine if the Baptist Church got to directly appoint a number of Senators! Faith schools are also directly supported by tax monies in the UK.
Mammon on the other hand he doesn't serve either. He could make a lot more money than he does, but he often waives speaking fees and he donates to charities. Simply making a good living, even a very good living, is not the same as worshipping money.
Dawkins isn't primarily trying to convert believers into atheists; he's trying to level the playing field so that it is as acceptable to criticise or even mock a religious or otherwise superstitious belief as it is to criticise or mock a political belief or any other kind. He is also trying to raise opposition to the institutional legislative advantages religion, particularly the Church of England, has in government, such as the seats in the House of Lords which are automatically assigned to CoE bishops, and to end the practice of governmental support of faith schools.
He's also made it quite plain that he doesn't dislike "religious people" in general - he is in fact close personal friends with many, including prominent bishops and other clerics.
Yes, it's actually considered a positive thing (not a "commandment" but more along the lines of a mitzvah) among LaVeyan Satanists to mock any and all dogmas in the world, as I understand it.
No, I think you're straw-manning their view, though not necessarily deliberately. The ones I've spoken to are quite serious about their philosophy, not just poking fun at Christianity (though there's a little bit of that too). They also don't worship Satan in quite the same sense; the Satan figure is overtly symbolic, not taken to be a literal personality as the Christian deity is.
It's a bit weird and to my point of view unnecessarily so, but they do seem to be mostly serious. They're not (at least for the most part) a joke religion along the lines of Pastafarianism; it's a bit more nuanced than that.
It's funny because it's true. I was dead serious, it works for me.
Nah. Buy good tools, crap tools are an invitation to frustration.
To avoid pilferage, paint them pink, and optionally add a little glitter as well.
His stuff is dark, complex, deep (no pun intended), and philosophically best described as brutally objective.
You can download just about all his backlist for free from his blog at rifters.com too.
At some point you have to accept that risk can't be eliminated, only mitigated.
I'd like to see some public questioning of these ”other methods” but I don't suppose that will happen until they fail.
True. I was replying to the comment that the 9/11 type attack couldn't be done today. That simply isn't true; perhaps the security theater has done something after all, if it has given people that much of a false sense of security.
The fortified cockpit door doesn't help if the pilot or copilot employed by the airline is the terrorist. He kills the other occupant of the cockpit, if necessary, and flies the plane into the target. The passengers, even if they realize what's going on, can't do anything about it because they're locked out of the cockpit.
The changes make it more difficult. They don't make it impossible.
The British Medical Journals do a spoofy article around Christmas every year, in which they pick an absurd subject and whomp up serious-looking studies on them. They do it at Christmas I guess because April 1st is just so obvious.
"Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study" BMJ 2001;323:1491,
"Ice cream evoked headaches (ICE-H) study: randomised trial of accelerated versus cautious ice cream eating regimen" BMJ 2002;325:1445,
"How long did their hearts go on? A Titanic study" BMJ 2003;327:1457,
"The case of the disappearing teaspoons: longitudinal cohort study of the displacement of teaspoons in an Australian research institute" BMJ 2005;331:1498.
This article would fit right in to that tradition.
Binary is the way to go; it is the only irreducible base system.
This is useful for looking at close up stuff if you're nearsighted (it's equivalent to magnifying the image from what it would be), and also for conveying disbelief that someone made a dumb comment or asked a question whose answer should be obvious. This withering facial expression is only available to the bespectacled.