1. Comment #100303 by AllanW on December 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Another nice example of RD getting 'snippy' with fatuous interviewers. Good man, keep it up :)

I hope that listeners who are uncommitted on the issue of faith and who have a modicum of intelligence and haven't yet read TGD (although in the UK there can't be too many of those by now, surely?) will begin to think that they should read it after hearing RD in this vein.

Other Comments by AllanW

2. Comment #100317 by Matt7895 on December 18, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Another nice example of RD getting 'snippy' with fatuous interviewers.

I don't think Jeremy was being fatuous... out of all the presenters and journalists there are on the BBC, he's hardly one of the worst.

I think he was playing devil's advocate rather well here, whereas in the other interview the CBC interviewer went above and beyond that position, actually being aggressive and dismissing in his questions to Richard.

Other Comments by Matt7895

3. Comment #100326 by Storeo on December 18, 2007 at 1:53 pm

lovely stuff

Other Comments by Storeo

4. Comment #100329 by communsensetoldme on December 18, 2007 at 1:56 pm

"i dont worship sherlock holmes but i enjoy reading about it"...well...THATS THE FKN POINT ISNT IT???!!!!!!

Other Comments by communsensetoldme

5. Comment #100336 by GhostPool on December 18, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Oh come on Matt7895, he asked the same question again and again, to which Richard gave the same answer again and again.

I did find the following line funny though: "You sound like the kind of person who sends Christmas cards to the Archers". :D

Other Comments by GhostPool

6. Comment #100342 by daddydowse on December 18, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Mr Vine really showed his true colours. That was not the usual show of "devils advocate". He actually sounded angry and very hostile towards RD. he may as well have come out then and there on the radio "how dare you question my god and mock me by singing my hymns". It was just about un-professional journalism in my eyes. The BBC is supposed to be impartial!!!

Other Comments by daddydowse

7. Comment #100355 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

This is a pretty important point. As a former theist I completely grasp the bemusement and borderline hostility Richard is getting on this issue.

Imagine a true believer (tm) muslim, and a true believer (tm) christian, singing each others songs. Now that would be wierd.

This is exactly how the true believer (tm) theist feels. It's as if they think there is a "God of Atheism" that Dawkins is profaning, and of course their particular deity, from their perspective, quite real and tangible, is being mocked.

What they don't get, is that from the atheist perspective, it's all good, no harm done, and clean family fun had by all;-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

8. Comment #100360 by daddydowse on December 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm

You have to admit, RD is smirking a little. Go on Richy baby, admit it, it was just a little fun....

Other Comments by daddydowse

9. Comment #100376 by maton100 on December 18, 2007 at 2:35 pm

We're rollin' this season.

Other Comments by maton100

10. Comment #100387 by Eventhorizon on December 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Dont take this too seriously, its meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. Jeremy Vine is really rather good and quite often gives his religious guests a pretty hard time. It wouldnt surprise me if the two of them laughed about this interview afterwards (Cue Dawkins slipping Jeremy a tenner)

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

11. Comment #100395 by Zaphod on December 18, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I think Christmas carols are for children. I find them awful.

Am I worshipping Arcade fire when I sing along to them or Tchaikovsky when I listen to his 1812 overture.

I think not. Silly interviewer.

Other Comments by Zaphod

12. Comment #100412 by spiderdancer on December 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Not bad but not quite as good as the excellent CBC performance. Just a little bit aggressive, not relaxed enough for my liking (though in response to Vine perhaps anyone would be).

Other Comments by spiderdancer

13. Comment #100419 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 3:24 pm

"You sound like the kind of person who sends Christmas cards to the Archers".

I didn't get this reference. What does it mean?

Other Comments by heathen2

14. Comment #100424 by Nihilistic on December 18, 2007 at 3:33 pm

It's difficult for me to tell whether the interviewer was being disingenuous. I mean, what's so difficult to understand that one can appreciate music no matter what words are sung to it? For me, as it is probably with most music lovers, the lyrics are of secondary importance anyway.

Other Comments by Nihilistic

15. Comment #100428 by AdrianB on December 18, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Listen to the whole article, which starts at 1:37 in the programme. The comments by GP Taylor after Richard Dawkins slot are painfully hilarious, including the following:

"Radical atheists like Dawkins should start having the courage of their convictions and keep their mouths firmly shut."

Eh?




Other Comments by AdrianB

16. Comment #100445 by notsobad on December 18, 2007 at 4:02 pm

"You sound like the kind of person who sends Christmas cards to the Archers".

I didn't get this reference. What does it mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archers

Other Comments by notsobad

17. Comment #100446 by an_ant_under_a_penny on December 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

heathen2: The Archers is a soap opera that's been broadcast by the BBC for about half a century.

Here's a link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers/

Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny

18. Comment #100450 by TIKI AL on December 18, 2007 at 4:11 pm

I wonder if Vine thinks you have to be a Neo-Nazi to listen to Wagner?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

19. Comment #100453 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Thanks, notsobad and an_ant_under_a_penny.

Other Comments by heathen2

20. Comment #100458 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 4:28 pm

There seems to be a lot of anger (from some theists) around atheists enjoying or participating in Xmas festivities. As if they own it. They don't. But the anger is really interesting. More like outrage, is my sense. It's like they are saying "you atheists are speaking out against the god part and all of the other religious evils, so how dare you presume to enjoy the fun parts of it".

Other Comments by heathen2

21. Comment #100460 by GordonYKWong on December 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Twenty years ago, my family and I immigrated to Australia near the tail end of the year. I was put in an English intensive school and as such I was heavily drilled in basic English as well as taught Christmas Carols as a creative exercise.

And I absolutely loved it! "Silent Night", "Twelve Days of Christmas", "Jingle Bells", "Santa Clause is Coming to Town". The beautiful melody, the joyous lyrics is all very heartening.

Of course, I have no idea who this "baby Jesus" is and whether he is the "kings of kings" nor do I know how he got fat and why he moved to North Pole for. Suffice to say "South Park" have educated me somewhat now :-)

I still enjoy Chistmas Songs a lot, though I now listen to more "White Christmas" and "Let it Snow" rather than the quaint carols. Doesn't mean I want a White Christmas nor do I wish for it to snow.

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

22. Comment #100462 by mlb1984 on December 18, 2007 at 4:37 pm

I listen to lots of religious pieces of music by composers such as Vivaldi, Mozart and Verdi. The fact that their content is not true doesn't diminish the enjoyment. It's rather silly to assume that one must believe in it all to enjoy them.

Other Comments by mlb1984

23. Comment #100466 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm

"...Christianity is not that offensive."
"It is fiction, it's harmless..;"
You heard Richard Dawkins say it.
The same Richard Dawkins has said:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins has correctly pointed out the fact that the OT or Abrahamic God is the God of Christianity.
Not that offensive?

Please pass me my cognitive dissonance migraine pills...

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

24. Comment #100470 by BigC on December 18, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I like Jeremy Vine and I disagree with the people who think he was being hostile towards Richard.

He always asks the questions that he thinks the listeners will want him to ask. There would have been no point in asking him the sort of questions that we would ask him, so he tries to portray the argument of the faith head because that's the best way to get Richard to articulate his feelings.

It was devil's advocate and nothing more.

Other Comments by BigC

25. Comment #100472 by DNAtheist on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I wish theists would make up their minds. If we don't want to celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. If we do celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. The only way we could stop insulting them would be to become Christians.

This is, of course, their goal. They simply know that they can't get away with saying it out loud. Christianity seems more like Islam every day.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

26. Comment #100473 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

So, Richard, you disagree with the description of the OT God?

Other Comments by Goldy

27. Comment #100479 by TIKI AL on December 18, 2007 at 5:27 pm

How can they claim something that was a Pagan holiday to begin with?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

28. Comment #100482 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Goldy - which "Richard" are you addressing please? Morgan or Dawkins?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

29. Comment #100489 by Barnacle on December 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I would like to think that what Richard Dawkins was saying is that he doesn't think Christmas is that offensive (I think most agree it's more fun than offensive) and that, as long as we recognise the fictional character of carols etc, it is quite harmless to sing along to them - in the same way as we can appreciate any work of fiction. I think the key is that Dawkins recognises the fictional nature of Christianity and is not, therefore, going to act on whatever suggestions the associated stories make.

Of course, that's just my wishful interpretation. It could also have been the result of some unusual back-track. I think it even more likely that it was just a case of spur-of-the-moment-response syndrome (i.e. he didn't think his words through to the same degree that we're analysing them).

Now this might seem pedantic but I want to also point out that the quote about the OT God is quite incosequential. That is a character in the fictional story, if you like, not the story itself. It's like saying that a character in some other fictional story is very gifted or has a good sense of humour. To then say that the story itself is terrible (or wonderful or has had widespread influence etc) has no bearing on the description of that character.



Other Comments by Barnacle

30. Comment #100490 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Given the time between our two comments, Capt'n Morgan, and the lack of contribution from Richard D, take a wild stab in the dark on this one...
But OK, I'll start again.
Do you not agree the OT god is as described? Isn't Christianity the worship of Jesus who is given to us as a milder, more loving god?
So really, isn't Christianity relatively harmless?
OF course, a few South Americans and other religions would question the harmlessness - but if we are going to go into tiny point picking...
You get a lot of migraines?

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #100493 by da1nextdoor2no1 on December 18, 2007 at 6:02 pm

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins has correctly pointed out the fact that the OT or Abrahamic God is the God of Christianity.
Not that offensive?
---

In comparision to Nazism.

Other Comments by da1nextdoor2no1

32. Comment #100495 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 6:07 pm

da1nextdoor2no1 - you should read what you quote : there's the word "genocidal" in there.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

33. Comment #100499 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Genocide?

Were the Israelites merely justifying their aggression/xenophobia?

When the Israelites destroyed a population, they were acting as God's tools, not taking matters into their own hands. God made it clear to them that he was the one behind their victories (Jdg 7:2-3, Josh 5:13-14). In many cases, the nations were defeated by miracles of God (Josh 6, 10:8-14), and in all cases the Israelites were victorious only because they were following God, who gave them the victory (Josh 10:42).

Furthermore, God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 9:1-6, "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations." He had also given them several laws concerning treatment of Gentiles/foreigners, including, "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt" (Lev 19:33-34). (For more on this, see Exclusion of Gentiles in the Old Testament.) Only nations that were guilty of great wickedness were to be destroyed; the Israelites were instructed to first offer peaceful terms to other cities they attacked, and to only kill the men if they ended up going to war (Dt 20:10-15).

God held the Israelites accountable for their sins also. When they sinned, they were unable to win any battles (Josh 7:1-12). When they later fell into the same evil acts that the punished nations had committed, Jerusalem was beseiged and its inhabitants died or were exiled (see the article on Jeremiah).


Can the genocide in the OT be used to justify genocide or mass destruction today?

Genocide, murder or any killing that is not necessary to defend another person's life is not justified. God alone has the right to take human life in cases other than defense. The only reason the Israelites were right to destroy cities in the OT is because they received a clear, direct command from God to do so. Any reason short of that, including humans deciding on their own that God wants them to kill others, is not enough to justify it.

From http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html#today

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #100500 by kevin_2050 on December 18, 2007 at 6:14 pm

This reminds me of a television interview I once saw of the great painter Edward Hopper. In that case also, the interviewer was a bumptious boob who chose to be snide and condescending to an individual who was clearly his moral and intellectual superior by several orders of magnitude.

Other Comments by kevin_2050

35. Comment #100504 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Goldy - thanks for that information. How silly of me not to have thought of that.
So, let me get this straight - if God says "Kill 'em all" then it's not genocide. In fact it's OK. In fact, God will help you get every last one of those little bastards.
And it's also OK if Richard Dawkins sings hymns/carols which were written to praise/glorify this non-genocidal God-wallah, because he doesn't believe He exists.
Like it would be OK to chant racist slogans because you're only doing it in order to have a healthy family experience? (because you're not really racist, of course!)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

36. Comment #100506 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Errr, going through your points...
Yes - apparently.
Moot point - carols and the like were made in praise of Jesus (who is, apparently also God, but different). Jesus might have existed - there's debate about that. Still, you can believe in Jesus and not believe in God :-)
Apparently yes too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_(American_duo)
And I do seem to recall watching Alf Garnett doing so on national TV for family entertainment :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #100509 by RickM on December 18, 2007 at 6:49 pm

No way. I am not a "Cultural Christian".

Okay, so you have the right to believe whatever you like. However, I think your belief in a ridiculous late Iron Age copy-and-paste superstitious mythology is sick, insane, absurd.

You will not get a Christmas card from me. No, it's not alright for me to play nice-nice and reinforce your stupid belief that it's your fabricated, fictitious, Greco-Roman spin-off superstar's birthday.

And as far as the public square; it's light and sound pollution. I'm sick of it being stuffed down my throat.

I love Prof. Dawkins as a champion of science and reason and a fighter against superstition, but I disagree with him on this one. We need to break the spell.

Other Comments by RickM

38. Comment #100512 by Goldy on December 18, 2007 at 6:54 pm

RickM, you're right and wrong. It is part of our heritage - we been under the spell for so long.
I am culturally a Christian - I even got baptised though no one asked me my opinion. I can't help doing things which people describe as "Christian" because that is what I was taught all my life. I know the actions are not Christian at all, but what can I do or say to convince others.
We do need to break the spell but heck it'll be hard. The Chinese have broken the spell of Mao, but he's still enthralling them now...

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #100535 by Paine on December 18, 2007 at 8:41 pm

RickM, you're completely missing the point. It should be obvious.

There is a difference between praising a god who does not exist and chanting about racism which very much DOES exist.

What will you say next? That nobody should say they are 'heartbroken' because then they are endorsing medieval superstitions about the heart being the source of emotions?

I cant believe this even has to be explained!

Other Comments by Paine

40. Comment #100552 by dragonfirematrix on December 18, 2007 at 9:50 pm

That was an enjoyable interview.

Yes, Virginia, Santa Claus is fiction, the Easter Bunny is fiction, Cupid is fiction, the "Alien" is fiction, and yes, Virginia, religion is fiction. However, you may enjoy each as you wish.

I love sci-fi and sci-fi horror, but it is fiction, and though I really dig it, I do not pray to it.

I immersed myself into sci-fi-ish epic adventure like "Star Wars" or "Lord of The Rings," or "The Golden Compass," but there is no magical "force" or heavenly "Lord" or mystical beings controlling everything. It is all just great entertainment from the imaginative minds in Hollywood.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

41. Comment #100555 by dragonfirematrix on December 18, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Ref: 40. Comment #100552 by dragonfirematrix on December 18, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I need to add one point to my earlier post.

I disagree with joining in with religious services. I have experience where casual engagement with the religious is their way to promote their narrow-minded positions to others.

I love music, and I do understand Dr. Dawkin's idea, and his idea is an interesting debate, but I disagree. I think we need to avoid showing the even the appearance of acceptance of religion. To do so only gives the religious the political-edge they want push their fantasies on others.

Religion is fiction, but I feel we non-religious must be very careful not to give the other side anything.


Wayne

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

42. Comment #100559 by Liveliest Crib on December 18, 2007 at 10:28 pm

23. Comment #100466 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm
avatar"...Christianity is not that offensive."
"It is fiction, it's harmless..;"
You heard Richard Dawkins say it.
The same Richard Dawkins has said:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins has correctly pointed out the fact that the OT or Abrahamic God is the God of Christianity.
Not that offensive?

Please pass me my cognitive dissonance migraine pills...

Dr. Dawkins' statement struck my ears as well, though my suspicion is that it smacks more of equivocation than dissonance.

I certainly can't speak for Dawkins, but I imagine that while he certainly recognizes the practice and worship of the Old Testament god as offensive -- especially when the faithful try to force their beliefs on everyone else -- but that participating in what have become innocuous rituals like caroling, gift-giving or decorating trees isn't offensive despite the practices' origins. My suspicion is that Dawkins would use the word "Christianity" in the latter sense in the audio clip, and in the former in his book.

Nevertheless, the equivocation did muddy the waters somewhat, and the conversation between Dawkins and the host didn't clear much up. The host's admittedly far-fetched analogy of someone singing along with Nazi tunes was absurd not so much because the Nazis were obviously and particularly offensive, as Dawkins answered. Indeed, that did lead Dawkins to have to concede that Christianity wasn't offensive, which might have surprised the host, who might have thought Dawkins did find it offensive. Perhaps the assumption built into the analogy explains why the host didn't seem to understand Dawkins' explanation that Christianity was fiction. Perhaps he wasn't quite able to articulate the retort, "But it's offensive fiction, right?"

The reasons the analogy fail, which I think Dawkins was trying to argue, are that (a) unlike the Christian god, the Nazis were very real, and actually did commit genocide within the lifetimes of people currently walking the planet; and (b)Christmas celebrations have long ceased to be devout religious ceremonies, and references to a fictional, albeit offensive, god are but mere residue of previous times; today they're merely cultural nods to heritage amid a time of traditional celebration.

Having spelled it out like that (and again, I certainly can't speak for Dawkins), I'm not sure I agree. I was raised Jewish, and was implored to be at least "culturally Jewish" if I weren't a genuine believer. But after a while, I simply couldn't bring myself to go to Seders, and happily recount the way god murders innocent Egyptian children, and somehow only draw the inspirational lessons about freedom and slavery. The stories simply appalled me, and I couldn't participate, even as a "cultural Jew," one who clearly believed none of it.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

43. Comment #100563 by Jamougha on December 18, 2007 at 11:07 pm

I think Jeremy was entirely in line. Perhaps some of the Americans here don't understand British etiquette for interviews - the interviewer is expected to be aggressive and challenging.

Other Comments by Jamougha

44. Comment #100570 by AdrianB on December 18, 2007 at 11:24 pm

20. Comment #100458 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 4:28 pm

There seems to be a lot of anger (from some theists) around atheists enjoying or participating in Xmas festivities. As if they own it. They don't. But the anger is really interesting. More like outrage, is my sense. It's like they are saying "you atheists are speaking out against the god part and all of the other religious evils, so how dare you presume to enjoy the fun parts of it".

25. Comment #100472 by DNAtheist on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I wish theists would make up their minds. If we don't want to celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. If we do celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. The only way we could stop insulting them would be to become Christians.

These are my thoughts exactly on the way Christians are trying to argue their case. It's seems rather childish to be honest.

This led me to write the following on The Forum:

"It seems to me that with each passing Christmas, Christians are behaving more and more like a fictional character. "Sméagol Christians" still remember how Christmas is about friendship and love, peace and undertanding, while "Gollum Christians" are slavishly protective of Christmas and will lash out at anyone who tries to take it."




Other Comments by AdrianB

45. Comment #100601 by TeapotTheist on December 19, 2007 at 1:20 am

In #100466, Richard Morgan noted
Dawkins: "...Christianity is not that offensive. It is fiction, it's harmless.."
Morgan: You heard Richard Dawkins say it. The same Richard Dawkins has said:"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: etc..

Fiction is not offensive, though certain characters in that fiction may be highly unpleasant. RD stressed this point in the interview. Didn't you understand either?

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

46. Comment #100612 by Liveliest Crib on December 19, 2007 at 1:49 am

20. Comment #100458 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 4:28 pm
There seems to be a lot of anger (from some theists) around atheists enjoying or participating in Xmas festivities. As if they own it. They don't. But the anger is really interesting. More like outrage, is my sense. It's like they are saying "you atheists are speaking out against the god part and all of the other religious evils, so how dare you presume to enjoy the fun parts of it".

25. Comment #100472 by DNAtheist on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I wish theists would make up their minds. If we don't want to celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. If we do celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. The only way we could stop insulting them would be to become Christians.

44. Comment #100570 by AdrianB on December 18, 2007 at 11:24 pm
"It seems to me that with each passing Christmas, Christians are behaving more and more like a fictional character. "Sméagol Christians" still remember how Christmas is about friendship and love, peace and undertanding, while "Gollum Christians" are slavishly protective of Christmas and will lash out at anyone who tries to take it."

I thought people might like this old Onion article. It seems apropos. :)

Religious Cousin Ruins Family's Christmas

MONTOURSVILLE, PA–The arrival of devout Christian cousin Barb Krueger has "for all practical purposes ruined" the Langan family's chances of having an enjoyable holiday season, sources reported Monday.

"Christmas Day is something our whole family greatly looks forward to, drinking egg nog, opening presents, sitting around the family room in our pajamas and robes, and sipping hot cocoa throughout the day," said Marv Langan, 51. "Well, you can forget about that this year, with Barb hovering over us with her Bible."

Follow the link for more.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38622

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

47. Comment #100616 by daddydowse on December 19, 2007 at 1:56 am

I am sure that when RD talks of Christianity being "mostly harmless" he is talking of our church go'ers today.

Anyway, back to the point, xmas (of which i no-doubt upset someone by ommiting the word christ)(there i go again, forgot to capitalise it!)

Christmas is, as a festival, is no longer really i celebration of the birth of christ, it is a media frenzy based on some fat bloke in a suit who is generous to children. The question is, is it fair to decieve our children by letting them think that 1 man can circumnavigate the entire planet in 23 hours 59 mins delivering billions of presents? and in the same breath preach the atheistic view that there is no god and probably no jesus?

It is harmless to allow children to believe in Santa because ultimately we know that one day our children will realise the fact that he does not exist and we would not sway them from this decision. The same should be said for hymns and the nativity. My children are not disuaded from singing songs about jesus and wise men. these are mostly harmless and ultimately will be forgotten about or dismissed as 'stories'. However, i would not sit and read the OT to my children as Dawkins rightly states, god is extremely unpleasant. (and not provable)

Other Comments by daddydowse

48. Comment #100627 by Diacanu on December 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

RickM-

Meh, even if we broke the spell, as it were, and turned everyone to atheists tomorrow, what are we gonna do with ourselves, work all year at our dumb little jobs?
We're gonna need days for swapping prezzies, and gorging on grub and booze.
And those days are pretty much going to look like the secular/consumerist christmas anyway.

And somewhere, someone's going to whine that that new secular holiday is "shoved down their throat".

Well, y'know what?
Go listen to Morrisey and cry.

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #100631 by Incredulous on December 19, 2007 at 2:46 am

Fiction is not offensive, though certain characters in that fiction may be highly unpleasant. RD stressed this point in the interview. Didn't you understand either?

Come on guys it's not that difficult to understand what RD is saying, is it?

The bible is part of our cultural heritage, in much the same way that Bram Stoker's Dracula is, the way Coronation Street is - I don't watch that, honestly.

Jehwah is fiction's most odious character, if we reduce him to a mere cultural object and part of a historical flow then we belittle his alleged influence.

The theists won't like their imaginary leader reduced to little more than Iago or evil Uncle Claudius. They're just fictional characters too, and cultural objects.

Other Comments by Incredulous

50. Comment #100648 by flying goose on December 19, 2007 at 3:46 am

I can't quite see what all the fuss is about. In my mind there is nothing offensive about an atheist singing Christmas Carols. Some might think it hypocritical but that would be uncharitable.

I love singing and have done so all my life, singing a well known carol with others can be a wonderful thing.

Some people don't like singing, some 'strange' people don't like music. Thats ok, but let the rest of us sing.
'For in sweet music is such art that killing care and grief of heart, fall asleep, or hearing, die'

Other Comments by flying goose