1. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178124 by nalfeshnee on May 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm

""Hindus have a great deal of respect for British culture and are well integrated into the British way of life, so it's good to see evidence of how they are literally flying the British flag by choosing British Airways."

paraphrase as:

"Hindus have bugger all respect for British culture and are so far from being integrated into the British way of life that they can actually take offence merely because one of the food options on plane flights doesn't agree with their pet delusions. In this, we are literally pissing on the British flag by threatening to boycott British Airways until they bend the knee before us."

Or words to that effect.

2. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177700 by nalfeshnee on May 9, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I got as far as this gem:

"They think that even if they wanted to believe, faith is no longer an option for them."

and gave up.

Anyone who can write sentences like that is not worth my time.

3. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176108 by nalfeshnee on May 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today,

4. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175276 by nalfeshnee on May 5, 2008 at 4:43 am

Done two so far.

Question and answer combo with the greatest comic potential so far:

Question: I am assertive
Answer: I strongly disagree

*G

5. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174602 by nalfeshnee on May 2, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Here's a link to the article from Pittsburgh itself. here

I would ask why they are reporting on it now, three years after the event?

Nothing in the Pitt article suggests that there has been any progress or other discovery made in the meantime.

So why did the story wait until 2008, although it actually happened in 2005?

Seems odd somehow.

6. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174304 by nalfeshnee on May 2, 2008 at 4:29 am

If patience is a virtue then Richard is a saint! The answer to "Tim" was fantastic - beautifully illustrated with examples and the caller just hung up.

Ignorance retreats in confusion :=)

7. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173641 by nalfeshnee on May 1, 2008 at 3:00 am

I think it might well be worth taking another approach to the Hitler/Stalin thing.

As I see it, it doesn't really matter what Hitler and Stalin thought. I don't see any historical records stating that Hitler personally gassed millions of people, not that Stalin was personally involved in the persecutions and pogroms that littered the early Soviet Union.

It was the citizens of these countries that carried out these atrocities. In one case (Germany), you have a Christian democracy, where the Nazi Party was voted for by a broad cross-section of society*, and on the other hand (Russia), you have a populace who had been subject to an autocracy for hundreds of years** - with the head of state naturally the head of the Orthodox Church as well.

In no possible sense can one suggest that these citizens were atheists - and yet this is continually supposed by theists.

The unpleasant truth is that both Germany and Russia were populated by people only too ready to play "follow-my-leader", a habit far more prevalent among the religious than among the non-theists. And effectively non-existent among atheists themselves.

Ergo my reasoning: the atrocities of the 20th century were patently NOT committed by the leaders of the governments in force. They, instead, demonstrate man's inhumanity to man, whipped up in all cases by pseudo-religious fervor. I would therefore simply state to theists: "While the extent to which the religiosity of a country's citizens has aided the execution of historical pogroms and atrocities is unproven, it is nonetheless clear that no atheist democracy*** has ever been involved in such activities. Indeed, no atheist democracy has yet to been called into being."

Should it be the case that a country declares itself an atheist democracy - that is, not just one that has a separation of church and state, but one that established some of its principles with reference to atheism - then we can watch and see whether this state slides into atrocity and pogroms.

I for one hold such an eventuality to be unlikely. Atheists tend to be free-thinkers and highly individual, and one man doth not a pogrom make.

* Interesting snippet #1. According to this link (http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?article=66&topic=meu), women were more likely to vote Nazi than not. Does this somehow make all women Nazis?
** Interesting snippet #2. To give you a flavour of how the tsars of Russia viweed their monarchy, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar#Russia) and the full title given to rulers of Russia around the turn of the 20 century. (On Russia's claims to being the Third Rome and head of the Christian world, see the same article.)
*** The term is significant. Surely only a democracy can be truly held to account for its actions? While Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, it certainly began by voting the Nazi Party in as a democracy (and a Christian one, to boot).

8. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172705 by nalfeshnee on April 30, 2008 at 12:34 am

"book-length treatises from theologians, scientists "

Can someone point me to a book-length treatise written against Dawkins by a scientist? Sure, some scientists don't like what Richard and others are doing (Scott Atran comes to mind), but AFAIK none of them have published a book specifically countering the TGD.

Or does McGrath as a "scientist"?

9. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168536 by nalfeshnee on April 25, 2008 at 7:35 am

If I were the students, I would simply print off a run off 100 t-shirts with

"Alexander Neuxoll"

on it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The weirdness of seeing a bunch of people walking around with your name on them - and, specifically, without any explanation of why they are doing it - would weird him out enough I think.

Like the film "Being John Malkovich".

10. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168340 by nalfeshnee on April 25, 2008 at 4:04 am

Dennett's reply to the question about the evolutionary "use" of religions is truly superb.

11. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167540 by nalfeshnee on April 24, 2008 at 6:39 am

If the site was neutral, then it would be "understanding atheism" (or some such suitable synonym for researching, looking into, etc.).
"Investigating" atheism on the other hand seems to be suggesting that atheism is a criminal case that needs to be solved.

12. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166489 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 9:15 am

Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.

13. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166451 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 8:54 am

"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty."

WTF? Science is an "expression of man's uncertainty"? I kinda thought science was a head-on attack on uncertainty, with the aim of turning as much uncertainty into knowledge as possible.

Whereas religion is actually happier when it knows nothing. Because then it can add to the uncertainty by making stuff up.

14. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166446 by nalfeshnee on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

jonjermer said:

"Why do intelligent people believe such tripe? Are they that indoctrinated as children? Is there a part of the brain associated with critical thinking that just doesn't work as well for them?"

I have come to think that Christians -- and probably other believers -- don't actually HAVE any logical structure to their beliefs. They are in love, infatuated with the idea of God, and like any teenager falling in love for the first time they simply cannot bear any suggestion that their God is less than perfect in every way. This is why most rational arguments don't make any impact: they fail to penetrate this wall of infatuation. Lord Winston and his allies are simply dancing around, moonstruck, singing "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love with a wonderful Guy!" loudly enough to drown out any negative comments.

That suggests that the best approach to take is to treat a believer like a friend who is besotted with an unsuitable partner: try and show them as gently as possible the qualities which make the partner undesirable. Perhaps the next debater should patiently go through the Argument from Evil over and over again until there are signs it is starting to stick.

15. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #165743 by nalfeshnee on April 22, 2008 at 7:59 am

Who voted for the Nazis?

I think this is interesting line of argument - it's often conveniently forgotten that Germany was a Christian democracy at the time. For me, this is a far more interesting line of enquiry that what Hitler thought or did.

Look at this neat summary. Note how (Christian) women preferred the Nazis in the early 1930s!

http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?article=66&topic=meu

I think this point has to be made a lot more forcefully.

We have not yet had an atheist democracy cause an atrocity on this scale for the obvious reason that no atheist democracy has yet existed.

But we have certainly had a Christian democracy provide the basis for one.

16. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165691 by nalfeshnee on April 22, 2008 at 3:44 am

I just went and subscribed to their SciamDigital service. To say thank you.

17. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165677 by nalfeshnee on April 22, 2008 at 3:16 am

I LOVE the way they let him run his mouth off at the end - it's just priceless.

However, the interview should not be titled "interview". "The vivisection of Mark Mathis" would be more appropriate.

"I mean, I'm not a scientist, you know - come on!"

18. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #164988 by nalfeshnee on April 20, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Amusingly, the quote under his name on the website states

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center, a media watchdog organization that popularized the term "media bias."

Apr 20, 2008 22:59:29 /search.html Error:1194: Table 'search' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
SELECT 1 as COUNT FROM `search` WHERE `WORD` IN ("bozell") GROUP BY `TABLE`, `ID`

19. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163063 by nalfeshnee on April 17, 2008 at 11:54 pm

NOW I know why the astorkists were so keen on pushing their "Avian Flu" (a.k.a. "Stork is Dead") heresy!

20. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #162108 by nalfeshnee on April 16, 2008 at 6:58 am

In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith.

21. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #160566 by nalfeshnee on April 14, 2008 at 7:49 am

Richard's discourse on natural selection's short-term "vision" and its implications for our rape of the planet as an evolved mammal was quite superb.

And as a by-line pointing out the ultimate implications of species-level selection (a favorite subject of his).

Utterly brilliant - and kudos to the question-asker!

22. A New Flea

Comment #160347 by nalfeshnee on April 14, 2008 at 1:23 am

"This is his response. Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him..."

Yeah, right. So, Mr. Ward, you have such a low opinion of Dr. Dawkins that you subtitle you book after him?

Lackey.

23. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158954 by nalfeshnee on April 11, 2008 at 8:27 am

Why do most religions actively seek to convert others to their way of thinking? Well because their beliefs are the right ones of course! And if everyone else believed like them (i.e. knew the "truth") then the world would be a better place. Substitute the idea of "fittest" with "righteousness" as perceived by the theist mind, and it's easy to understand how they come to the conclusion that people who "believe" in evolution, will think it their duty to improve the human race through eugenics-style selective breeding.

This is a classic case of projection. Just like how most theists believe that atheists "want" there to be no God, just so we can run around "sinning" without any fear of repercussion. They simply can't imagine why someone would behave morally if there is no all-powerful sky-god to punish them if they didn't. It would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.

24. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158881 by nalfeshnee on April 11, 2008 at 6:26 am

Love the short example by PZ, but I must confess to not understanding the argument by theists.

So what if Hitler was a (token) atheist. While head of state, he certainly didn't go around murdering millions single-handedly.

The correct question to ask, surely, is: "What beliefs did Hitler's countrymen have?" Ones which enabled them to support Hitler as their leader and to serve in his armies?

To suggest that Hitler was leading armies of sworn atheists is simply ludicrous.

And yet it was these armies that did the killing and the gassing, not Hitler.

To put it more bluntly: there have been no atheist atrocities (large-scale slaughter) because there has never been an atheist democracy.

Yes, the word democracy is important: unless the populace is democratic, then it cannot follow that they have chosen their leader, ergo it cannot follow that they are doing what they are doing entirely freely.

However, in comparison, the Nazi atrocities were the acts of a Christian democracy (yes, the Nazi party was voted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power).

I rest my case.

(Edited again to make my argument more streamlined.)

25. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #158864 by nalfeshnee on April 11, 2008 at 6:07 am

Since this was an "informal online survey", who's saying these people are, in fact, scientists?

Any what does that word mean, anyway? Aged and respectable professors? Medical school freshmen?

Seems all a bit irrelevant if you ask me.

26. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157833 by nalfeshnee on April 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Artful Dodger wrote (sorry, I have no idea how to quote on here):

"In that sense the evil that he perpetrated flowed not directly from his absence of a belief in God, but rather from his setting himself up as god. But the question is, where did his setting himself up as god flow from? As Peter Hitchens very incisively pointed out, Stalin's making himself god was a consequence of God having been airbrushed out of the picture."

Eh?

I don't follow your argument here. If the concept of god had been airbrushed out of the picture, how was Stalin able to set himself up as one?

Was there an Atheist Interregnum in Russia that we do not find in any history books? Where the populace were purged of god and religion with wailing and gnashing of teeth?

No, of course not. A society paying religious lip service to a Deity (as do all religions, since they never abide by the laws they set themselves, and Orthodox priests are no different) changed overnight into a society paying religious lip service to a tyrant.

I see no gap. And certainly not an atheist one.

What *would* be interesting is if a tyranny should spring up in a secular democracy after it has been established that the society has been largely free of religion for an acceptable period of time.

That would be my condition.

Maybe we should watch Sweden and their well-known atheistic dictatorial tendencies and see what emerges.

27. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155054 by nalfeshnee on April 4, 2008 at 5:43 am

Paula,

"There was a very nice question from someone who said she didn't find it too hard to imagine how chimpanzees might evolve into humans (yes, I know that isn't QUITE how it happened!) but found it harder to imagine how bacteria might have evolved into chimpanzees - to which Richard gave an absolutely spectacular reply, outlining 4 billion years of evolution in about 3 minutes. And this got the other huge round of applause of the event."

That's what makes it worth coming to this site.

Thank you,


Ed

28. Thy will be done

Comment #154274 by nalfeshnee on April 3, 2008 at 3:03 am

"prayers are said in the presence of the mace."

Ah yes - as they were indeed in former times enforced by it.

29. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153775 by nalfeshnee on April 2, 2008 at 3:56 am

Might I respectfully point out that anyone who surmises "condemnation" from the statement "I think religion is a myth" clearly hasn't heard Hitchens expounding on this very statement.

30. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153042 by nalfeshnee on March 31, 2008 at 11:41 pm

My letter to the High Commissioner's office:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to express my dismay at the words of the High Commissioner concerning the film "Fitna" on the front page of your website.

While Mr. Wilders film is certainly not Oscar material, I fail to see any incitement in it to "discrimination, hostility or violence".

I have watched Wilders film and it is simply a lot of facts strung together -- somewhat inexpertly and hamfistedly. By no stretch of the imagination could it be assessed as "hate speech".

The only palpable hate in the film comes from those who wish to see Islam promoted by the sword.

These people are currently getting a nice boost from the West currently (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/D6AAED437FC007C1C125741A0071E9CB?opendocument), which is obviously too weak to say anything in return.

Perhaps it would be preferable that Mr. Wilders be murdered like Theo van Gogh? At least that would shut him up, I guess. Maybe it would then serve to make others too frightened to say anything about the foul things done in the name of Islam. How much better that would be!

Then again, maybe it would be simpler to just enact thoughtcrime, as common in the Islamic world?

Then the undertext of your press release (http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendocument) will become easily achievable:

"It is crucial that efforts be made by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace and social cohesion."

How utterly reprehensible a statement that is.

I consider it to be a far greater abuse of Human Rights than anything Mr. Wilders has yet said or done."

31. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #152644 by nalfeshnee on March 31, 2008 at 9:39 am

I just wondered if people knew about this archive of Nazi posters. English translations provided.

Some may be surprised how some of these use an explicitly religious theme.

For example:
"He who has faith in his heart has the greatest strength in the world. Adolf Hitler."
"The victory belongs to those who have the stronger faith."
"Ours was the faith - ours is the will. Adolf Hitler."
"We human beings are not to question why Providence created races; we are only to recognize that Providence punishes him who disregards their divine creation. Adolf Hitler."


Full archive here: http://library.marshallfoundation.org/posters/library/posters/browse_expanded.php?war=wwii&country=germany

Stuff like this carries more weight IMHO than things Hitler (and others) may have written in books. This is HOW they waged the Nazi "campaign", and it is repeatedly religious and anti-Semitic (a term that has little sense outside a religious environment).

Oh, and in reply to marshall1: I think this undermines your argument somewhat. Hitler is not appealing to atheism to stir up people's nasty tendencies, is he?

I would agree that it is perhaps hard to argue that religion CAUSES atrocities. But it can certainly be used to whip people up to perpertrate atrocities in a way that atheism cannot.

(Apart from anything else, 99% of theism promises people life after death, so atheism is a revolting concept for the masses precisely for this utterly understandable reason.)

32. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152468 by nalfeshnee on March 31, 2008 at 5:36 am

Interview with Wilders in English here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544347,00.html

I have translated Broder's article. Am waiting to see what Spiegel says about me publishing it.

Cheers,


Ed

33. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #150706 by nalfeshnee on March 27, 2008 at 9:33 am

"not all religion is creationism so not all of it can be approached in the same way."

As far as I have understood it, the mis-named New Atheism movement is in fact only really directed at the monotheistic - and hence creationist - religions.

Then again, in my ignorance I must confess that I can't really think of a non-creationist religion.

Is there one that does not posit a creator or a creation process that is in conflict with scientific opinion on the matter?

34. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #150586 by nalfeshnee on March 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

"Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister."

Isn't a question like this looking far down the road into the mists of future time to find a deliberately questionable (in both sense of the word) use?

I thought the bill was substantially about embryo research and usage, not "planned parenting".

35. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #150573 by nalfeshnee on March 27, 2008 at 6:08 am

Another goodie from Glumbert:

"Mormons owned by Christian":

http://www.glumbert.com/media/mormon

36. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #150570 by nalfeshnee on March 27, 2008 at 6:04 am

I can only be happy I wasn't drinking hot coffee at the time or my monitor would have had an impromptu shower.

Brilliant, brilliant stuff.

37. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150565 by nalfeshnee on March 27, 2008 at 5:48 am

"If God wills it,..."

Well that's the idea buggered before it began, then.

38. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149129 by nalfeshnee on March 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

McGrath was indeed interviewed for Root of Evil. The link is here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

If you watch the video to the end you will see why he did not want it included. Dawkins gets him into a corner and then slides the rapier home.

Or, as Damian puts it:

"Fantastic. For 45 minutes it's a gentle game of ping pong and then when it comes to the issue god and suffering McGrath's arms get tired and Dawkins switches to a tennis racket. At 50 minutes McGrath is undone."

The laugh is certainly on McGrath.

39. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149126 by nalfeshnee on March 25, 2008 at 6:42 am

Anyone who cheapens the grim reality of Protestant and Catholic violence in Ireland/Northern Ireland should be run out of town on a rail.

For the reality, see Hitchens, God Is Not Great, on Belfast.

40. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145749 by nalfeshnee on March 18, 2008 at 4:50 am

"If reason can explain everything, why can't it explain where things come from?"

It is highly revealing how Christian apologetics have to resort to childish "Why, Mummy, WHY?" questions in order to make a point.

My response to such questions is and always will be: "Define 'things'."

41. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #142914 by nalfeshnee on March 13, 2008 at 7:41 am

Regarding the Dante's Inferno Test that someone posted earlier, I think the headline on the results page was the best bit:

"Dante's Inferno Test - You Have Been Judged"

followed in small latters by

"Find a Girlfriend. [link]"

Not that this is necessary for me, of course, since, according to the judgment, I'm in with Cleo and Helen of Troy on Level 2.

I will enjoy spending eternity discussing the ins and outs of lustful heretics with them :=)

Literally, if possible.

42. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #142906 by nalfeshnee on March 13, 2008 at 7:30 am

"I am not sure if that was the original intent of the RD web site, but I must say I get more comedy out of this than any other web site I frequent."

I quite agree!

43. Two More Fleas

Comment #142871 by nalfeshnee on March 13, 2008 at 6:57 am

Wait, the Devil is an atheist?

44. Two More Fleas

Comment #142868 by nalfeshnee on March 13, 2008 at 6:53 am

"Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

The universe is not fine-tuned for life. If life cannot exist in 99% of the universe, how is this fine-tuned?"

I like that one and will be keeping it to bring out when confronted with a similar "question".

45. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135475 by nalfeshnee on February 29, 2008 at 2:38 am

My comment on this comment:

"However, one GOOD thing came out of this. I think after Bush got elected a 2nd time, the reports of voters between 18 and 25 are of record numbers. Perhaps the youth here have learned a powerful, costly lesson."

Any lesson the US youth might have learned pales into insignificance compared to what the rest of the world has had to suffer.

46. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #132673 by nalfeshnee on February 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

"I love the problematization of species concepts."

Thank you, Gunnar, that's precisely what I wanted to say.

I've just finished reading Origin... again and I was once more struck by the (intended?) irony in Darwin's title.

47. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #131791 by nalfeshnee on February 23, 2008 at 10:19 am

49:55

(Using the tennis analogy of one poster.)

"If God saved one child in the tsunami, as you say he does, then he clearly intervenes directly. Why then did he not do so directly for 9/11, as you also say?"

Dawkins serves an ace!

McGrath actually stops, wants to leave the question unanswered! But is forced to go on!

And double faults.

48. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #131786 by nalfeshnee on February 23, 2008 at 9:58 am

32:30

Dawkins: "Doesn't the horrible physical fact of Christ's death move you at all - in its actuality?"
McGrath: (paraphrase) "Basically, no. Its significance is much more important. God came to earth to show us some stuff. Jesus died. His problem."

49. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #131782 by nalfeshnee on February 23, 2008 at 9:41 am

Oh I'm enjoying this.

About 20:10 McGrath, realizing he cannot get any further once Dawkins points out that the last thing you would expect to find before the beginning of the Universe is an entity that is a) an intelligent designer and b) one that is prepared to die for mankind's sins, changes tack and declares that "ah well, in one sense [what sense? Has McGrath read Genesis? The Koran?] religion is not really about explaining origins, but is more about explaining what is going on now" (I'm paraphrasing).

WTF? The origin of life question is THE religious question par excellence!

The sophistry of McGrath is nothing short of staggering.

Dawkins rightly puts him right back on track.

50. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #131779 by nalfeshnee on February 23, 2008 at 9:27 am

Listening to McGrath makes me realize why people like him believe in God.

They are literally mentally incapable of involvement in rational discourse.

At 15:30 or thereabouts we get this pearl of clear-thinking wisdom: "It is not as if I believe in God because I think he is a good explanation. Actually, I believe in God for a number of reasons, and I find that there's this explanatory bonus to it, in other words, that believing in God does give me a way of making sense of things, even though I don't think that that's the primarily important thing about him."

What in the name of the FSM does the above mean?

No need to state that the "primarily important thing" is not mentioned.

All we know is that God brings an explanatory bonus, even though that in itself is not actually of major importance.

Or something like that.