Robert Wright takes on the “New Atheists”

http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/wheres-best-place-to-buy-zithromax.html wheres best place to buy zithromax

http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/online-ordering-of-canadian-viagra.html online ordering of Canadian viagra

http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/sildenafil-online-paypal.html sildenafil online paypal

sildenafil lignocaine cream

Where To Buy Duphaston In Australia

http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/xenical-120-mg.html xenical 120 mg

how to hide viagra from your wife

buy cialis online for emirates

http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/amoxicillan-no-prescription-fast-shipping.html amoxicillan no prescription fast shipping

This entry was posted in atheism, christianity, commentary, history, islam, judaism, politics, religion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Robert Wright takes on the “New Atheists”

  1. Rob T. says:

    cheap online india finasteride USP without prescription

    http://sandystone.com/blog/wordpress/buyprednisonewithoutprescription.html buyprednisonewithoutprescription

    trusted united pharmacy

    Based on the public opinions of men like Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris, what is clear and noble about them all is that they support causes based on logical, moral, scientific thinking. And what Wright fails to note, is that on many issues (albeit mainly domestic ones), this goes head-to-head against many conservative viewpoints. Does Mr. Wright really believe that advancing the cause for gay rights, stem cell research, or evolution literacy are legitimate issues that most American right-wingers would be inclined to support? As a resident of a Bible-belt red state for 25+ years, let me succinctly answer that rhetorical question for him – Hell naw!

    Perhaps Mr. Wright hasn’t read or heard enough from the leaders of the atheist community to appreciate their positions on these important social and political matters – for I believe if he did, then he would surely not equate their opinions to being supportive of right-wing ideals. Or, perhaps it’s simply that he chooses not to look at issues like these as ones with a religious bent or bias – although I find it hard to believe that he would truly be that naive.

  2. Daneel says:

    “Don’t get me wrong…I was referring to buying unoccupied tracts of jungle, not the forcible taking of Brazilian territory.”

    Erm.. Do you realize that those “unoccupied tracts of jungle” ARE Brazilian territory?

  3. OK, I’ll try again. I’m talking about a voluntary transaction between two parties. The Brazilians would be willing participants. Just as the United States purchased Alaska from a willing Russia, so the Zionists would purchase a tract of land from a willing Brazil.

    But you’re completely missing my point. Instead of Brazil, it could be Canada, or Australia, or wherever. The point is the Zionists could have established a homeland someplace other than Palestine, thus avoiding the unsolvable religious problems they’re dealing with now.

    Do you understand now?

  4. Daneel says:

    Yes. And I do agree that in order to stablish a new country the best way is a willing arrangement between two parties. But what I don’t really know is which country would be willing to sell a part of its territory to make a new country. In my opinion this whole idea of a “Jewish state” is bullshit to begin with.

    But, anyway, I recognize that I was nit-picking.

  5. Pingback: American Freethought » Blog Archive » Defining Anti-theism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *