1. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139738 by kevin_2050 on March 6, 2008 at 12:54 pm

It may not be the Bible belt, but there's need for him in Berserkeley, where there's more ill-judged support for religous nuttiness than you might suppose. To give you an example: on the tenth or twentieth anniversary of the Iranian revolution, I saw prominently posted all over Berkeley many fliers exhorting the masses to celebrate the accession to power of the theocratic Ayatollah Khomenei and his murderous mullahs. Many Berkeleyans seem to support any force in the world that hates the USA, no matter how toxic or irrational. This sort of thing needs to be countered with a dose of such lucid thinking such as Prof. Dawkins has been known to provide. I hope to attend.

2. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

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.

3. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99847 by kevin_2050 on December 17, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I love Hitchens' gloves-off, no-punches-pulled manner of expressing himself on this topic. Seeing him slam the theocrats makes me feel good. His quill is his sword.

I feel DalaiDrivel has cited the most pertinent quotes from Huckabee and his sinister supporter. The religious right want to consolidate their already excessive influence into lasting power, if not total control. A dark age is what they long for.

4. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96440 by kevin_2050 on December 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm

"We believe that Christ is the reason for Christmas..."

Wrong. Christmas is a Christian ripoff of a pagan holiday. Historical revisionism and associated lies seem to be an intrinsic attribute of the faith.

"I feel like this is an attack on my beliefs as a religious person."

I feel like most religious people's beliefs are an attack on my sexuality as a gay person, and with good reason, if the Bible is their source.

"Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them," Houser said.

By this standard, anything is an attack upon people of faith which does not ceaselessly coddle their values without the slightest hint of criticism.

"Himes also says that the picture of the Twin Towers is meant to show that without religion, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. A suggestion that has upset Muslims, as well."

What must make it particularly upsetting to them is that the implication is so self-evidently true.

5. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96057 by kevin_2050 on December 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Yes. Optional surgery is for those who have attained years of sufficient discretion to decide for themselves whether they want it or not, and without undue parental or other social pressures at that. All these other, cultural considerations are so much chaff and twaddle.

How many males of adolescent age or older, given the choice, and without societal pressures brought to bear upon them, would freely choose circumcision?

How many parents would happily accede to their children choosing to, say, have their tongues slit or their earlobes severed? Damn few, I'll bet. Parents generally don't allow their kids that kind of discretion over their own bodies. They might consider, rightly, that that sort of thing is not likely to age well, and that their child may in time come to regret it. Even children getting ears or noses pierced is doubtless an issue for many parents.

Yet the same parents gladly inflict upon their sons a genital alteration that can never be adequately reversed by any subsequent decision by the boy. What is the difference between these two forms of bodily mutilation, one by choice, and therefore not a violation of the child's will, the other an irreversible change in which the child is seldom or never consulted? How much doubt is there, really, that the essential difference is religiously-based tradition?

I gather there are some instances in which legitimate medical reasons require circumcision. I'm not talking about those cases. With relatively few exceptions, baby boys' prepuces are snipped only and exclusively because Abraham and the various one-and-only ruler[s] of the universe that he services want them snipped.

6. Fear Is Stronger Than Hope When It Comes To Fitness

Comment #94523 by kevin_2050 on December 5, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Makes perfect sense to me. However, I've gotten to the point where the fear that motivates me to exercise isn't that of not looking good, but that of dying sooner.

7. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92139 by kevin_2050 on November 30, 2007 at 12:01 am

I agree one hundred percent with the views expressed by professor Dawkins on sexual jealousy and so-called "morality". I have no problem with polyamory. That religious values foster sexual jealousy goes hand-in-hand with a jealous god, such as that of the Bible, who demands complete dominion and control over everyone at all times, perpetually monitoring their behavior. I've never thought much of marriage or sexual relationships conceived in terms of a mutual ownership society, and I've never felt any respect for persons, real or fictional, who commit murder for reasons of sexual jealousy. It's a notion that has its roots in ownership of all beings by Yaweh/Allah/Jehovah.

8. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91633 by kevin_2050 on November 28, 2007 at 6:30 pm

To grant Turkey EU membership when it criminalizes and prosecutes any serious criticism of religion would jeopardize Enlightenment values within the European Union itself: for once admitted to the EU, that nation would then set a precedent for other states within the Union. Therefore this should have a definitive and decisive bearing on Turkey's candidacy for EU membership. It should not be considered eligible until all such laws are explicitly and unreservedly repealed. Personally, I feel a similar policy should apply to Turkey's continuing official denial of the Armenian genocide, and to laws about "insulting Turkishness." If they want to join the civilized world, they ought to get their heads into a place where the sun shines.


I notice that the law invoked contains language relating to "incitement to religious hatred." I gather that several (I hope not all) western European nations have laws involving similar phraseology, including, I believe, France, where as I recall a well-known writer was charged under that law two or three years ago. It seems to me they would do well to get rid of these.


That phrase also reminds me of American laws allowing prosecution of so-called "hate speech." This morning I heard a radio report that a Muslim group is pressuring advertisers to withdraw funding from the flagship station hosting radio personality Michael Savage because he slammed Islam. I heard a segment from the relevant broadcast by him, and agreed with him heartily. The protesters involved aren't invoking any law so far as I know, but they are using the phrase "hate speech" to justify their attempted censorship. Beware of people trying to push through "hate speech" laws! Whimpering and hand-wringing poor-little-us theocrats will be among the first to use them to silence any criticism or dissent, if not the very first.

9. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85440 by kevin_2050 on November 5, 2007 at 10:24 pm

That's a nice rendering of Professor Dawkins as Jesus. His expression is mild, and the halo most becoming. That monkey on his shoulder is a dead ringer for the Holy Spirit: just the way Leonardo would have painted it if he'd dared!

10. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81043 by kevin_2050 on October 24, 2007 at 12:30 am

Mind Rebel, GREAT avatar picture. I'm a Lennon fan, as you might guess.

Can't stand d'Souza. 'Nuff said for now.