Dawkins on tour

I've posted a summary which includes links to other summaries, including John Wilkins' blog post, where there is a lively discussion in the comments.

Here is the link to the Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins interview today on NPR. The audio should be available shortly. I haven't listened to it yet as I am being forced to work today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

I'll go to one of the New York events, but if this Dawkins guy denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he's getting a pie in the face.

I'll be there this Sunday at Stanford. Can't wait to meet the guy!

What no Cleveland/Columbus/Pittsburgh? Dawkins, sadly, is yet another flyover visitor. So what we got to hear Steven Weinberg thanks to Larry Krauss

Grrrrr. No Boston. It's not like we have a ton of colleges or anything for a college tour.

I sincerely wonder if Richard is getting bored with these talks. We know he's just doing it to sell his books. No disrespect meant by that, but I just feel the heat is gone.

I think if any of us plan on attending, get some interesting questions lined up, rather than the same old stuff. Maybe ask about his new semi-celebrity status, if he misses real science, his plans after retirement, or ask him some really specific biology question.

We have to save him.

Meanwhile, Anotny Flew goes on tour to present evidence of the resurrection.

Anyone have a link to get tickets to the Austin event?

Hmm. Berkeley tomorrow... might be able to make that. I saw Dawkins speak the last time he was in Berkeley as far as I know --maybe 7, 8 years ago.

The talk was excellent, and had nothing to do with religion or atheism. The title was "The Genetic Book of the Dead," and he went into some depth about the extended phenotype and some of the more convoluted examples of co-evolution, with emphasis on cuckoos.

Some friends went to see him last year in SF on tour for the God Delusion, and, y'know, I just couldn't get excited about it and didn't go. I'm in the choir, I guess, and didn't feel like being preached to.

In regards to Flew has he now gone from weak deism to full blown religionist?

Richard Carrier now anything about this?

I've had tickets to the Stanford one for a while. Laurence Krauss is also speaking, so it should be a great event.

... if this Dawkins guy denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he's getting a pie in the face.

Not a tomato?

Recently, at your suggestion some of us attempted to formulate a working definition of evolution, but no definitive verbal explanation was advanced that satisfied all seekers - not that a definitive definition was expected.

Perhaps, we could try the same with the "reason" in your posited "community of reason."

If we know what we are looking for, we should have a much better chance of finding it - so to speak.

While President Lyndon Johnson was carbonizing thousands hapless Vietnamese peasants, LBJ always pontificated that we (the murderers & the murdered) all had to "reason together."

The reasoning together paradox was exemplfied by the My Lai Massacre where "all reason was abandoned," or so some say.

LBJ's obvious (to some) murderous behavior was so paradoxical with his use of "reason" that it forced some wags, both scientific & literary, to try to account for the paradox that was inescapably deadly as well as bewildering.

Many strongly claimed that it wasn't just a language problem because death and destruction was a universal, at least to most scientists.

A workable hypothesis emerged claiming that Bill Moyers, LBJ's marketing guy, sold LBJ on the "reason frame" to assuage the horrendous murdering..

Moyers supposedly reasoned that "reason" was a terrific frame for mystification of the murdering, and nobody would actually know what it meant.

Maybe we could corner two semantic birds with one conceptual analysis here, and get to the bottom of this bewildering "reason paradox."

Anyone have a link to get tickets to the Austin event?
Posted by: JimC | March 7, 2008 2:15 PM

Looks like the Austin event is on a first come basis. I'm definitely looking forward to it and I'll be there early. It's good to see something positive going down in Texas.

You know, the thing that strikes me about Francis Collins is that he seems like a really good guy, at least from the Fresh Air interview. Dawkins vs Collins isn't so much a debate as it is approaching solid physical evidence, and pretty much agreeing on it, from different philosophical directions.

Now, having said that, I do reject superstitious thinking. But at least Collins forces his evangelical followers to think.

He even laughs pretty hard at YECs. I can't imagine he's very welcome at DI. But I still view him as an enigma.

What good is omnipotence if you can't use it to create a universe by saying, "Let there be light"?

I'll be there at Berkeley tomorrow. It's first come-first served, so I'll swing by in the early evening to check out the line situation.

Wow, Wilkins is in a certified froth about this one, perhaps he shouldn't go to anymore Dawkins lectures.

@JimC

I'm going to the Austin event. So far, someone from the host student group is just taking requests on the ACA yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atheist-list/message/28817

I would definitely drive the five hours to Austin if I could be certain of getting a ticket. However, with tickets being available at the door on a first come first served basis I don't want to take the chance.

What Richard Dawkins is propsing is a new kind of religion. Without religion morality is baseless and nihilism is the logical and inevitable conclusion. You won't find many of Rev. Dawkins's acolytes who will openly admit that they favor Rev. Dawkins's schemes to introduce a zeitgeist of allotheism (where we shall worship at the altar of Scientism) to our society. In fact, their viewpoints are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Rev. Dawkins maintains that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to carve solutions that are neither disdainful nor sleazy. Rev. Dawkins's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, mysticism is the last refuge of the rebarbative. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Rev. Dawkins and his expositors, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Rev. Dawkins can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could defy the rules of logic.

Sure, some of Rev. Dawkins's convictions are valid but that's not the point. Rev. Dawkins's hatchet jobs have caused widespread social alienation and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Rev. Dawkins's insinuations are like an enormous nepotism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must deal stiffly with the most juvenile card sharks you'll ever see who replace our timeless traditions with Rev. Dawkins's noxious ones because inasmuch as I disagree with Rev. Dawkins's accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Rev. Dawkins's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines.

If Rev. Dawkins's goombahs had even an ounce of integrity they would help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. There is no inconsistency here; Rev. Dawkins's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is his gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. If one could get a Ph.D. in Negativism, Rev. Dawkins would be the first in line to have one. He is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Rev. Dawkins and a pigeon is that Rev. Dawkins intends to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. That's why Rev. Dawkins's brinkmanship and tin-rattling is aimed at prodding the government into sanctioning his attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Rev. Dawkins to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Rev. Dawkins claims that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake.

I have taken the liberty of letting Rev. Dawkins know that I will stop at nothing to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. My resolve cannot fully be articulated but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that quarrelsome practitioners of obscurantism in general, and Rev. Dawkins in particular, intend to create a quasi-filthy world of guilt and shame. Of that I am certain because if Rev. Dawkins gets his way, I might very well play right into the hands of poxy clumsy-types. A central point of Rev. Dawkins's belief systems is the notion that Rev. Dawkins's mistakes are always someone else's fault. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that my current plan is to question his authority. Yes, Rev. Dawkins will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "characteristicalness", for example, and expect us to be scared.

To most people, the idea that Rev. Dawkins is a bad role model for children is so endemic, so long ingrained, that when others conclude that his speeches leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea, this merely seems to be affirming an obvious truth. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: For his stolid plans to succeed, Rev. Dawkins needs to dumb down our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. Sometime soon, schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "labyrinthibranchiate" and "auriculoventricular". They will be incapable of comprehending that I welcome Rev. Dawkins's comments. However, Rev. Dawkins needs to realize that he is out of control, like a runaway freight train. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him.

Well, let's get our facts straight. Rev. Dawkins plans to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. He has instructed his henchmen not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Rev. Dawkins knows he has something to hide.

You might not care that Rev. Dawkins's spineless, pouty intimations are responsible for the growth in teen pregnancy, the demise of the work ethic, the size of the federal deficit, and everything else that's wrong with our nation, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Rev. Dawkins to vandalize our neighborhoods. He is out to foster and intensify his drug-drenched drama of immorality. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. I don't think it would be unfair to say that he is incapable of rational thought about the real world. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.

It troubles and amazes me to think that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that no clear-thinking individual would have the temerity to promote the gormless projects of boisterous lowbrows. I was right when I said that Rev. Dawkins's attempts to lure the birdbrained into his claque will earn him automatic membership in Satan's inner circle. And I was right when I said that it's best to ignore most of the quotes that he so frequently cites. Rev. Dawkins takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, before he once again claims that we can stop racialism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for eccentric ignoramuses, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his buddies.

Why does Rev. Dawkins want to alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others? Because my earnest denunciation of his deeds must have failed to register with Rev. Dawkins as being legitimate sentiment. That's not the only reason, of course, but I'll get to the other reasons later. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Rev. Richard Dawkins read it and weep.

Tony Blair to preach at Yale about Faith and Globalization

I just returned from a 7 hour round trip attempt to get a ticket for the 11th in Madison, but all the tickets were gone.
Does anybody have an extra ticket, or know of someone who does? I'll pay handsomely for it.

Lev/#21: Why is it that you idiots must blather on and on for so long? Can you not simply make your point without resorting to sillyness like "Rev. Dawkins"?

Not to mention that your first sentence has a spelling error, and your second, "Without religion morality is baseless and nihilism is the logical and inevitable conclusion." is just wrong. Morality has a base in our evolution, in how our behavior and emotions have evolved to aid in our success. It's with this base that morality can be used to judge the god of the old testament one of the worst characters in all literature.

@21 I was right when I said that Rev. Dawkins's attempts to lure the birdbrained into his claque will earn him automatic membership in Satan's inner circle.

I prefer Satan's inner drum circle. That's where the real party is.

Re Lev

It is rare that anyone can blather on at such great length and with so little content.

Gerry, you fucking twit!"

Gerald Incubator Spezio, please be careful around the matchboxes.

A link to a thread on Jason Rosenaus' blog which is less then friendly toward Prof.Dawkins.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/03/dawkins_blogwar_part_5039108.php

You might not care that Rev. Dawkins's spineless, pouty intimations are responsible for the growth in teen pregnancy, the demise of the work ethic, the size of the federal deficit, and everything else that's wrong with our nation, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Rev. Dawkins to vandalize our neighborhoods. He is out to foster and intensify his drug-drenched drama of immorality. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. I don't think it would be unfair to say that he is incapable of rational thought about the real world. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.

My but that Dawkins fellow has been a very busy person. I will tell this, if I see Dawkins come into my neighborhood with a can of spray paint, I will stop him from vandalizing the place.

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says (or with everything that anyone says, for that matter). But if continued promotion of him and his book can either slow or halt the encroachment of the religious right on nearly every aspect of our lives, then hey, more power to him.

(Pssst. Lev. Over here! Wanna learn the secret handshake?)

Is Lev actually JAD? Sure writes like him, and and exhibits the same bizarre paranoia. Just sayin'.

Lev, clearly you are crazy. What was your diagnosis?

Uneducated and not very bright for sure. But there is something else wrong. Another schizophrenic?

Lev, clearly you are crazy. What was your diagnosis?

speziosis.

All that is offered is argumentum ad hominem.

Lev.
Hang on an minute...let me get my Tarot cards out and get my sooth-sayer and astrologist over here to figure out what the heck you're trying to say.

When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering some of Rev. Richard Dawkins's more contemptuous opuscula, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of mentally deficient stereotypes. You see, I clearly believe that Rev. Dawkins's overgeneralizations reflect an era in which cultures or attitudes different from one's own were dealt with through violence and mistrust. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that given a choice of having Rev. Dawkins trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.

While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because Rev. Dawkins's solutions have proven to be a complete disaster in both theory and practice. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, there are two types of people in this world. There are those who reap a harvest of death and there are those who take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Rev. Dawkins fits neatly into the former category, of course. You shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Rev. Dawkins.

The most moonstruck meatheads you'll ever see are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that Rev. Dawkins is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that he has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his army of batty, cold-blooded libertines loyal to him. Rev. Dawkins's principal myth is that the world can be happy only when his coalition is given full rein. The truth is that Rev. Dawkins is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

Rev. Dawkins pompously claims that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. There is a great temperamental and ideological divide between those who reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice and those who improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: His thralls actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of sadistic recidivists are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world by next weekend. In reality, of course, I don't know what makes Rev. Dawkins think that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that Rev. Dawkins would have us believe that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Rev. Dawkins is surrounded by bleeding-heart ignoramuses who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he is trying to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people just to prove he can. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive.

I don't know what sort of abuse Rev. Dawkins was subjected to as a child that made him such an ill-natured deadhead but I do know that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Rev. Dawkins. From a purely technical point of view, he honestly yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism.

All that is offered is argumentum ad hominem.
Creationism, thy name is projection.

Berkeley may be possible for me. Any one interested in a possible meet up before or after? I haven't been there for 20 or so years, so I have no idea where a good place to meet would be.

Shenda

I'm part of one the groups that is organizing the event at UT Austin (Atheist Longhorns). Most seats will be filled as people arrive, but there will also have some reserved seats.

Try contacting any of the officers at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6110320505

If you're a Pharyngula reader and/or making a roadtrip, chances are we can save you a seat.

Lev,
My Tarot cards are revealing to you: judgement card, the devil card, death card in order. Hmmm, sorry, doesn't look like your day, buddy.

My sooth-sayer says, you have to sacrifice your first born if you still wish to be saved and I'm still waiting for my astrologer...but while we are waiting; is the moon waxing or waning? Shit, I think it's waning....oh, boy...things are not looking too good for you.

Lev,

It's time to get back on the meds again.

I really wish he would swing by Florida way - we could really use some of his point of view down here. It's not likely I'd be able to get to any of those events.

And Lev, tl;dr

Lev - Do you just randomly type words on the keyboard or were you trained at some religious college to create English with no meaning? Or is it, perchance, that you Biblical-literalist-knucklehead-schizo types are getting just a teeny bit rattled? Huh? Huh?

Dawkins certainly isn't infallible by any means but he certainly seems to have you lot worried and, if so, then more power to him.

Lev,
If you believe and have faith: utter this incantation out-loud three times...it will definitely save you and give you life where there is no other:
...oh-waa-ta-nas-hi-hamb, oh-waa-ta-nas-hi-hamb, oh-waa-ta-nas-hi-hamb. May the grace of the universe be with you.

Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight,
And burned is Apollo's laurel bough,
That sometime grew within this learned man.
Faustus is gone; regard his hellish fall,
Whose fiendfull fortune may exhort the wise
Only to wonder at unlawful things,
Whose deepness doth entice such forward wits
To practise more than heavenly power permits.

Maybe ask about his new semi-celebrity status, if he misses real science, his plans after retirement, or ask him some really specific biology question.

Or maybe somebody could ask him why he hasn't apologized to Mary Midgley and Ullica Segerstråle for telling lies about them, as it sounds like he's still doing on this tour (any guesses about who the reviewer was that allegedly "didn't read past the title"?)

That was so untethered, a good stiff breeze will blow it to the horizon. Lev, it would be a good idea to base your charges in reality.

"All that is offered is argumentum ad hominem."

You seem to think you deserve better. Interesting.

I was planning on seeing Dawkins last night at ASU but unfortunately I had to take my cat to the vet. Nothing big but still missed it. Looks like it was a good talk. Glad to see the place was packed.

I swim near summer shadows
glide over dappled shoals
keeping to the fluid shallows
reminiscent of the womb
where I learned to swallow
gulps
of tantalising air

in the amniotic sac
where I shed scales
preferring skin and
hanks of auburn hair
upon my head
where I dispensed
with fins and gills
grew hands and feet
with which to tread
and push away
from muddy banks

I've no desire to wallow
in the rushes

no human need

the thin sharp reeds
knot and tangle
cut and pierce
my derma layer

I can dance
below the surface
upon the rocky sand
I shall dangle near
the river bottom
suspended, floating free
like the embryo
I used to be.
by Sharmagne Leland-St. John

I would have liked to hear him speak at the AA convention here in town, but since I don't celebrate Easter, and since I could use the overtime, I'm working the whole weekend.

At Stanford March 9, the event is billed thus on the Dawkins web site:

Against Ignorance: Science Education in the 21st Century with Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins
at Aurora Forum at Stanford University
The Aurora Forum at Stanford University will host a discussion with the physicist Lawrence Krauss and biologist Richard Dawkins. Sunday, March 9: 2.00 -4.00pm

I believe a video will be made.

The weather is nice in Berkeley now so, even if I can't get in to the TGD talk, it'll be fun to walk over to Wheeler Autitorium to see what's going on (Mar8). Of course, I'll wear my just received "A" pin.

Lev, are you trying to suggest that Dawkins cut a deal with Satan in exchange for knowledge? You do realize that Faust is a work of fiction?

I read John Wilkins' critique of Dawkins. This was the reply I posted:

John,

You seem to overlook an important point.

Most, but not all, religious people allow for some form of divine intervention, be it creationism, virgin birth, intercessory prayer, resurrection or miracles. When they do that they are rejecting science. Thus anyone who accepts that divine intervention does not accept science without reservation, since science excludes divine intervention as an explanation.

So who is left out of the religious who do accept science ? Well those who think god is just the rules by which the universe works. But then you have the problem that this is not the god Dawkins talks about, in fact he is quite explicit on that point.

I cannot understand your position here. You must realise that those religious people who allow for divine intervention do reject science at least, in part, and those who do not are not the target of Dawkins' ire. So who are these religious people you are talking about ?

I hope that's "Lev" for "levity" because you do the the best satire of Gary Busey-esque troll ramblings -EVER. It takes talent to come up with the most pretentious and least well written post I've seen in a long time. I see through your little ruse, though. It's a little too over the top to be taken seriously though, even if the posts are wonderfully layered in an pseudo-intellectually precocious but deranged sort of way.
LOVED the "cuckoo juice" riposte and the " ...inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion." Just like the character on "In Living Color" whose bravado rantings are one hilarious malaprop after another. Priceless!!! Perhaps you can be known as Rev. Pedant B. Imprimatur. (I see now, it's addictive!!!)
Really, way to go Lev! You're one funny son of a bitch. (But seriously, shorten things up a bit. Overkill tends to bore a reader so the nuance of your humor gets lost)

"Lev, are you trying to suggest that Dawkins cut a deal with Satan in exchange for knowledge? You do realize that Faust is a work of fiction?"

In the same way that Dawkins writes fiction, yes.

I will spoil our game and point out that I was writing in jest (as #55 pointed out) and I actually feel slightly bad if I have wasted your time and I shall waste no more of mine.

All that is offered is argumentum ad hominem.

Sure. Of course. All you deserve. Posting to a crazy troll takes up whole seconds and minutes that could be used for a zillion more worthwhile activities.

Besides which you never answered the question. What was your diagnosis? I vote for schizophrenia, the delutions and general incoherency is symptomatic.

Ooh, Jeff @6, that was so close to a groovin Spinal Tap quotation; and, appropriately enough for this website, from Ian Faith no less!

Lev,

your comments are much too long. That would be forgivable, if they weren't also boring and stupid.

I can't help you with most of your problems, but perhaps I can help you with this: you use "Rev." all wrong. "Rev'd" would be better, but "Rev." is acceptable. Your real mistake, though, is that this is not a form of address but merely an honorific adjective. The proper form is, for example, "the Rev. Mr Jones", never "Rev. Jones"; and in direct address, it's simply "Mr Jones". (I may not be a Christian any more, but I remain protestant enough to know that we don't tart clergymen up with funny titles.)

Dawkins is not in orders, so calling him "reverend" is simply wrong. But if you insist on being wrong, do try at least to use the language correctly. If you want to be all formal, it would have to be "the Rev. Prof. Dawkins".

I went to the lecture in Arizona last night. It was very good. And you got a shout out PZ! Unfortunatley, he botched the courtiers reply, but he told everyone to check out pharyngula to read it themeslves. Woot!

Just barely made it for Madison tickets. I look forward to a PZ shoutout.

Fellow non-theists. We have local DJs here who love to push peoples buttons such as declaring on air,"Have you ever noticed that there are no states that end in an "a"?"

It will be mere seconds before the switchboard lights up and some livid indignant caller is informing these "stupid ignorant bastards that "YES THERE WERE STATES THAT ENDED IN "A"!!! Hadn't they heard of OKLAHOMA or NEVADA or ALASKA??? How long had they been in the states, fuckwad, dumb-ass, shit-for-brains asswipes?" (It was fairly easy to fill in what was being bleeped)

A few weeks later the same DJs would announce how odd it was that no state ended in the letter "s" and laugh and laugh at the pissed-off indignant pious calls that poured in from overly serious people who couldn't tell when their chains were being yanked. Every few weeks another letter was questioned and those pretentious callers never caught on.

Even if Lev despises Dawkins, he still got the hyperbolic knee jerk reaction he wanted, even if he paid for it with typing fatigue.

Sigh. No Washington. No Seattle. What's this world coming to?

Why? WHYYYY?

He's coming to UT on the 19th.
I'm leaving town on the 18th.

Porque Senor Dr. Dawkins?

Is there anyone to email for a ticket for us road trippers that I don't have to join facebook to contact?

Yes...but when is he coming to England Damnit?
Seems he spends more time trying to convince you americans than he does us...