Kali Yuga.."As I can understand Jiddu Krishnamurti always denied he was an atheist, even for fifty years he said it, whereas Mr Dawkins advocates "militant atheism." Also Jiddu Krishnamurti, to my knowledge said not to abandon religion but find out what is true religion and what is God. And Mr Dawkins points the other way. For him God is the delusion at the "root of evil."

I don't understand why anything Dawkins says on the subject of religion should be given any more credence over anyone else's. What makes biologists the "go to" guys on the subject? Why not consult a meterologist or a chemist? If I wanted to know how to dissect a frog, I'd go to Dawkins. Apart from that, why bother? That's like asking my plumber about quantum mechanics.

And it's funny to hear the atheists and the evolutionary biologists speaking about "rationality", as though it exists independently of the activity of the brain, when they, themselves, deny the existence of mind or an "entity" that can produce or shape "rationality". It's just too laughable, really.

ken

lidlo lady wrote: Dawkins sees conventional religion as pathology and couldn't give a rat's ass about Krishnamurti's definition.

¶ There is no objective, scientific test to determine whether or not a belief is pathological. Dawkins cannot be that foolish. The only thing he can determine is whether or not the brain is functioning healthily, and there are tests to determine this, the same way we go about ascertaining if the liver or heart is healthy. But that would tell us nothing about the validity of a given belief.