Briar > Recent Status Updates

More talking up his plan. I wonder if my big concern will even be addressed. One thing not addressed so far is also that often the poor pay more for various items. Most examples he has used so far are people living outside their means and ignoring their debt. What about those that live in their means but get a huge bill?

He keeps promising it will work. I don't like that. This also seems more aimed at people that have money already to some extent.

Poorly explains mutation, leaving out the neutral ones. Confuses abiogenesis with evolution. Hand waves away incest being okay until Leviticus. Explaining the opposition badly then giving us one source (the Bible) for your own idea does not prove your case.

I am glad he does think there was a relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings. However, I am disappointed that he thinks it could have been equal in France. It was still a master slave relationship and she was a teenager. Disgusting.

Not even to the meat and potatoes and already worried. I hope the 'this book is not politically correct' is not a dog whistle...

More on the USSR and this time an attempt at refuting his brother and Dawkins. He brings up their claim of religeon being child abuse. While I do not think religion is always that extreme, he made no counter claim. I think this chapter illustrates how little he has poked at more serious isssues.

More on the USSR? This is getting ridiculos. I am reading this for a good argument. He does a poor job agaist his brother even when he is sticking to the topic. Bsed on the topics I am more familiar with, I am not sure if I can trust what he is describing.
Also, considering the state of most religeously affiliated schools, no private schools seems like a good idea.

This chapter is confusing. It starts out as a bit of an attack on faith based Charlatans and the skeptics that want to expose them. Then turns its ire to the USSR with a load of claims that attack both it and science. 'Holding tightly to the idea that what science cannot explain does not need explaining' is not something I have heard from a scientist. I wonder at who he has met to get this perception.

I think that Peter does not have a good grasp on what atheism or secularism is. Peter, I want your ideas, not your brothers. I have and am reading him. This book so far seems to be lacking and squabling with Christopher is not helping you.

I was wondering when morality would come up. Peter, even with a god I don't think morality is objective. God is a subject by most definitions. However, we can agree on a principle, say harm reduction? We do not need a cosmic judge. That does not free us from responsibility as you think it does, I think it gives us more. Also, I think you could have addressed Christopher's claims better.

Making a strawman to knock down? Religion has an impact on war but I have met few that would argue it causes all war. Adding nuance to explain this does not help you. 'God is the leftists’ chief rival' is a reductionist statement. Not all on the left are atheists. Secularism and an atheistic state are two different things. Atheists Western countries are more familiar with Christianity so will focus their ire there.