*If they want to address the cronyism and irrationality of our society, for instance, why don’t they come out against capitalism?*

Oh come on Squeers. Dawkins just happens to be a tall poppy, so you
little poppies who are largely ignored, might just have your noses
out of joint a little, because you rate as little but wannabees.

Lets face it, people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Bill Maher, who
openly question religion, have every reason for doing so.

The topic just happens to be religion. If you wander off and want
to discuss Capitalism, by all means do so, but don't hold it against
Dawkins because he's focussing on the issue up for discussion.
That tells us more about your own frustrations of being ignored.

If you want to relax, just watch Bill Maher's "Religulous" and take
a look at some of the kooky people praising their god/gods.

<Oh come on Squeers. Dawkins just happens to be a tall poppy, so you
little poppies who are largely ignored, might just have your noses
out of joint a little, because you rate as little but wannabees.>

So, don’t consider what I say, just dismiss it as sour grapes, Yabby? Ok mate, whatever you say. Don’t you see though how you’re precisely parroting the “common sense” of our competitive system?
I’ll concede the point though, rhetorically, since it’s true that a competitive ideology based on punishment and reward—or at least non-reward and lavish-reward—is inevitably reified socially, unless you’re a Ghandi or a Buddha (or a Squeers : )
< Lets face it, people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Bill Maher, who
openly question religion, have every reason for doing so>
Yes, absolutely, indeed such is implicit in my post—that institutional religion is equally predicated on a “common-sensual” ideology. I’m not defending “religion”, I’m criticising the New Atheism for the holier than thou rhetoric they employ while they’re simultaneously oblivious of their own beliefs and irrationalities. That is a) belief in their rationalism as something pure and worthy, and b) their implicit devotion to a profoundly irrational materialism and its sustaining ideology.
I could be just as scathing of institutionalised religion, for instance the way it’s popularly used by detestably-naïve adherents to ignore, deny and rationalise both the horrors and disparities that are so commonplace in God’s creation, and their own comparative ease.
However there are two points in favour of the religious impulse, “at its best” and outside its corrupted ideological institutions. A) it’s based on humility, compassion and genuine aspiration; and b) the religious impulse is arguably a mysterious part of the human condition (ideological/material nexus) that’s indulged in faith as intrinsic, rather than pseudo-objectified and haughtily denied as irrational.
This last bit is a rumination written in haste, but I have to run—not to speak at the conference, and no kudos attached : )

Hi George,

By redefinition of "nothing" I referred to a swing from metaphysical meaning(such as discussed at your link and is found at http://www.friesian.com/nothing.htm)to the physical(quantum vacuum). Krauss preempted criticism with the circumspection that metaphysics' claim to ground broken by physics maintains it impregnability to science (my interpretation).

If you wish to angle down the path that metaphysics subsumes physics, I am not your man for that discussion.

Squeers, your shining light analogy where superstition gradually gives way to scientific understanding misses the point I am making above. If physical laws are were taken as "proof" of a creator by us both, your analogy works. However, that is no less a matter of faith to me than believing god must be angry when a volcano erupts.

I return to probability. Subtracting 6.9 recurring from 7 gives an asymptotically diminishing likelihood of a creator, not zero, leaving me dangerously close to being labelled a cowardly agnostic atheist. My only reservation to committing to 7-out-of-7 is not a belief that god may exist but that his existence can't be proven.

Therein lies the problem with your continuum, Squeers. At one extreme it must proven god exists while at the other it must be proven god does not. An inevitable discontinuity ensues and I'm with Joe Loudmouth on this.

... I erred sorry, end of the second last paragraph, that "..his non-existence can't be proven."

Hi Luciferase,

>>If you wish to angle down the path that metaphysics subsumes physics, I am not your man for that discussion. <<

No, let me repeat for the third time: “the path I wanted to angle down” was that Leibniz (1646 – 1716) lived 300 years before Krauss, hence he could not have “redefined” whatever Krauss wrote. And Leibniz’s question - that Krauss quotes in the title of his book - is about metaphysics, not quantum physics. Of course, you can call the question meaningless, many do, but that is not what I objected to.

“Materialism is the most popular metaphysical theory among those who don't believe in metaphysics, don't think they are ever doing it, and would be indignant if they were accused of making metaphysical assertions, just because of their naive and uncritical materialist views.” (from the link you provided, a source I did not know about, and for which I am thankful).

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13417612/doctor-barred-for-doing-male-snip/

The above story is a great reason why we do in fact need a group of
atheists to combine to ensure the rights of non believers.

The Catholics build another hospital, no doubt with some Govt funding
thrown in. Next they ban all medical procedures, such as the snip,
from being performed there.