Comments by Richard Morgan

701. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106754 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 12:06 pm

jeepyjay:

I take the view that humans are part of nature.

I guess you've never met my ex-wife...

702. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106748 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 11:49 am

that we may trust in God as He brings Scripture to our remembrance in the time of temptation.

And my brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man. You mean scriptures like that?

703. Changing my Mind

Comment #106742 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

upside dawn :

I became fascinated by the entymology on Merriam-Webster online...

Some spelling mistakes are, well, just, er, priceless!

704. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106615 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 7:48 am

Affront :

The question which currently interests me is, given the ,my last point and the strength of cognitive dissonance/closure, why do we atheists even exist? Why don't we all use strategies based on cognitive dissonance/closure to provide easy answers and, therefore, live happier lives?

As is often the case, the answer is in the question - we atheists weren't "happy" with the fairy-tale happy-endings/answers. The feel-good principle didn't work with us. Our brains misfired into rational thought.
Darn it!

705. Changing my Mind

Comment #106565 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 6:41 am

Roger Stanyard :

The very meaning of the word...

Tut, tut, Rodge, are we forgetting our Wittgenstein? "Words don't have 'meanings', they have uses."
That's my share of Morganic pedantry for the day. Now I can get back to being generally unpleasant, which will be a relief to the many hundreds amongst you who were beginning to feel ignored.

706. Changing my Mind

Comment #106559 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 6:30 am

Steve Zara :

Saying I am an atheist is not enough for me. It does not say why I don't believe, and why I would like to promote rationality.

You know, sometimes I'm almost envious of you guys who live in countries where being an atheist makes a difference!
You all know what a cantankerous ol' geezer I am, but where I live (Toulouse, France) nobody gives a monkey's winkle whether you're atheist, Calvinist or relapsed catholic. (Though having an English accent can raise a few disapproving Gallic eyebrows.) So I have to irritate people on other, less urgent, matters, like genetically modified Union leaders, or the effect on global warming of eating too much cassoulet (mostly fart-producing beans, like Brazilian feijoada)
You know, I honestly do believe that in the last analysis, the best way to promote rationality is to simply be rational. (Perhaps being handsome, sexy, rich AND rational could make a greater difference, but it's never helped me.)
I try, only try, to have this attitude with the deluded of this world:
He drew a circle that cut me out,
Heretic! Rebel! A thing to flout!
But Love and I had the wit to win,
We drew a circle that took him in.
If being rational, and showing compassionate love doesn't work,
I generally piss on them.

EDIT : Talking about flatulence (this is not off-topic) there is a French verb péter which means "to fart", and a very ordinary, common-or-garden noun pétard which is a small "banger" (the fireworks variety, not pork or beef) or Chinese "cracker".

707. Changing my Mind

Comment #106549 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 6:08 am

Grumpy Max

But I don't know what you mean by "to thine own self be true"- I suspect you mean "follow your heart" or something similar, albeit less trite than the phrase I chose. I think this is a popular misreading.
There. Pedantry over. Sorry it was off-topic, and I welcome any correction.

"Sorry?"
"Love means never having to say 'Sorry'. (Film "Love Story")
"Sorry seems to be the hardest word...." Elton John.
"Love means having to say "Sorry" every fifteen minutes" - John Lennon.
Seriously, accuracy is not pedantry and I very much appreciate your correction. I have re-edited my comment as a result.

708. Changing my Mind

Comment #106441 by Richard Morgan on January 3, 2008 at 12:40 am

Some of you seem interested in techniques for dealing with JayDubs and Mormons who come cold-calling. This is certainly an appropriate thread for discussing this issue, because those guys are on your doorstep with the intention of changing your mind.
I find it hard to believe that there is any virtue in politely criticising their proselyting techniques. From 1972 to 1974 I was a Mormon missionary in France! (Yeah, I know... but I could make even more horrendous confessions about my past, but I'll save them for another discussion...)
For these mind changers the slight unpleasantness of disturbing honest folk by ringing their door-bell is nothing compared to the importance of their message. It reminds me of the old marriage guidance counsellor's advice - "Never shout at your wife, unless the house is on fire."
As "new" atheists, our business is about Zeitgeist"changing, not JayDub-bashing.
Here are some suggestions for helping to change the Zeitgeist:
1. Write a best-selling book about atheism.
2.SELL (or, in extreme cases, give away) best-selling books about atheism.
3.Make lots of babies and educate them in a reasonable way.
4.Never vote for anyone who has never heard of Paula Kirby or Richard Dawkins.
5.EDITED:Know thyself..
6.NEVER give door-to-door evangelizers the impression that they have anything interesting to say, and NEVER invite them in. (Don't forget - they've got God on their side, so they ain't bothered by your rebuttals or your atheistic reasonableness and/or politeness.)
7. Avoid discussing religion with theists if you have bad breath. (Think about it. There might be a whole new market out there for Breath-Fresheners for Atheists)
Education is the key.
And, as Paula has suggested, for new outers perhaps we have a human responsibility toward them in the After-Sales Service department.
EDIT : I have just hung out the washing to dry. In my family everybody has an even number of feet. Every time I hang out the washing, there is an odd number of socks. So, fellow atheists, let us remain humble : science can't explain everything.

709. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106327 by Richard Morgan on January 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Affront :

So as I say, I think this is about more than just feelings, it's to do with how our brains function as a whole.

I most certainly agree.
I was about to post this remark when I read your comment :
Believing in invisible gods is what brains do.
And "feelings" have a an awful lot to do with handling cognitive dissonance.
My brain has evolved in a way that makes it easier for me to accept the hope of eternal salvation rather than the finality of death.
I know that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, but for practical every-day purposes, I still "feel" happy with notions like sun-rise, and sun-set, even "the sun has come out from behind the clouds".
The Sun has put his hat on.....? No, I'll draw the line at that. ;-)

710. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105991 by Richard Morgan on January 2, 2008 at 9:01 am

Paula Kirby :

So here I am. Atheist. And angelic. Allegedly.

Evidence, please.

711. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105990 by Richard Morgan on January 2, 2008 at 8:59 am

AtheistJon I don't know how anybody could be not nice to you.

Ah, the joys of internet...
(But if you need lessons in not being nice to angels, I'm your man!)

712. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105731 by Richard Morgan on January 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm

EvolvedDNA : I stopped to lend a hand in Aberfan in 1966, since I was passing though at the time. What a nightmare.(My mother's family comes from Merthyr Tydfil). Alas, at the time, I did not have your intelligence to see what was really going on.
Thank you for your comment. It only took me an extra thirty years to understand the reality of Aberfan, human suffering and life itself.

713. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105729 by Richard Morgan on January 1, 2008 at 5:05 pm

AtheistJon : I appreciate the clarity of your thoughts.
You quote Sagan as saying that he didn't think with his gut.
Probably true for scientific matters, or anything that needs to be approached by reasoning.
You know, I don't really mind what religious extremists think. I couldn't care less about their private fantasies. Consenting adults and all that stuff.
What does matter to me is the transition from thought to action. I have noticed that for most so-called "believers", their religious beliefs don't interfere much with their day-to-day behaviour.
I'm sure you wouldn't really mind all that much if I fantasised about having an endless supply of charming virgins after my death, but you would object to my flying a Boeing into a sky-scraper in order to obtain those virgins as a reward.
My point here is that what I actually do is often the result of my thinking with my head and/or my gut. Sure, my intellectual reasoned thoughts can be changed according to the data available. But since religious beliefs are more (uniquely?) rooted in gut (emotional)processes than rational processes, many people can not be reasoned out of their beliefs.
As I have said before elsewhere, the ultimate answer to The God Delusion will be education. Education based on reason, of course. When religious ideas are presented to a reasonable mind, without all the emotional over-tones of family, tradition etc, I think our sky-scrapers and throats will probably be a lot safer.

(Paula - HELP! I'm not expressing this very clearly. Could you translate for me please?)

714. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105701 by Richard Morgan on January 1, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Change your mind?
Change of heart?
My wife still loves me even after having found out what I'm really like inside. Thank heavens for that! Well, in this context, at least.
Inasmuch as religious beliefs (and love) are much more an affair of the heart than the mind, reason alone will not be enough to stop a person clinging to his irrational beliefs (or my wife clinging to me).
I would like to know how many new atheists among us actually had to give up a deeply held "belief" in order to follow the voice of reason. I used to think I was a believer, but discovering I was in fact an atheist seemed more like a realisation of the obvious than a radical change of mind.
What about you?

715. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105605 by Richard Morgan on January 1, 2008 at 7:47 am

Happy new year to everyone and their uncle.
Special thanks and appreciation to Paula Kirby
(who, for me, has been the
Voice of reason in 2007),
Véronique,
BAEZ,
Dr Benway,
Steve Zara
and AllanW.
You have all helped me change my mind about many things.
I thank you most sincerely.

716. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105535 by Richard Morgan on December 31, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Paula Kirby :

Religion: tackling 21st century challenges with Iron Age solutions.

Energy-saving tip N�1: get religion and eliminate the need to use brain-power to think.

717. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105078 by Richard Morgan on December 30, 2007 at 2:10 pm

You must believe in free will; there is no choice.

- Isaac Bashevis Singer

718. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104961 by Richard Morgan on December 30, 2007 at 7:05 am

In 1972 Dr Anthony Storr published a book that I found totally fascinating, but which horrified many of my "artistic" friends : "The Dynamics of Creation." Using words like introversion", "neurosis" and "psychopathology" he tries to explain in a very rational way what Leonardo da Vinci had already said centuries before : "All great art is born of inner conflict."
The shock-horror reaction of many creative artists was mainly due to a natural aversion to anything that resembles reductionism : "It's only chemicals in the brain that make you feel passionately in love" etc.
The human race has lived for so long with the need for awe and mystery that we feel we are being robbed of something precious when a simple explanation seems to explain away something important. (The "God" notion is very handy here, of course.)
I sense that one of our problems could resemble something which we criticise the Fundies for - they see God in everything, from the creation of the universe to the weather forecast.
We seek, and generally find, evolutionary explanations for nearly everything. Well, for guys like Dawkins and Dennett, you could say that's their job. But inasmuch as natural selection is only concerned with the survival of the species (favouring the ability to attain reproductive status) rather than the quality there's a whole pile of stuff going on that neither helps nor hinders the evolutionary processes.
Being able to give birth is very useful for the survival of a species, but giving birth painfully is neither here nor there.
(Sorry, my Fundy friends, I'd almost forgotten that God had cursed Eve :I will greatly increase your pains in childbirth; in pain you will bear children.)
Do we really need to find evolutionary advantages in all artistic creativity? I think not.
Dennett provides us with some elegant reasoning which could explain the mechanisms used in artistic creation, and that is all fascinating stuff..
I was equally fascinated the first time I read Freud's 23rd Introductory Lecture on Psychoanalysis:

An artist is once more in rudiments an introvert, not far removed from neurosis. He is oppressed by excessively powerful instinctual needs. he desires to win honour, power, wealth, fame and the love of women, but he lacks the means for achieving these satisfactions. Consequently, like any other unsatisfied man, he turns away from reality, and transfers all his interest, and his libido too, to the wishful constructions of his life of phantasy, whence the path might lead to neurosis.

Art, like shit, happens. It's what human beings do. Natural selection provides the tools but not necessarily the raisons d'�tre
Waddya think?

719. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104891 by Richard Morgan on December 29, 2007 at 10:39 pm

"Under the law, practitioners must have piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life."

So it takes at least four different people at the same time to carry out one exorcism?

720. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104140 by Richard Morgan on December 28, 2007 at 1:46 am

"You don't have enough faith!"
"You're not praying enough!"
"You haven't truly repented!"
"You should study the scriptures more!"
"You need to get baptised in the spirit!"
How many times have I heard those explanations given to people who haven't received the blessings they were promised.
This is indeed one of the more disgusting aspects of American-style christianity. The Mormons do it in a tidier fashion - give ten per cent of your income to the Church and God will "open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" (Malachi 3:8-10). But don't hold your breath.
I read about these religious crooks and frauds, and ask myself, "Why am I not surprised?"
(If you want to make a fast buck, you could always write a book attacking the "new atheists". But you'd better move fast before the market gets saturated.
"The fool hath said in his heart : There is no god." The completely deluded say out loud that there is one. The shrewd man writes best-selling books about it.)

721. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #104055 by Richard Morgan on December 27, 2007 at 5:40 pm

robotaholic:

I appreciate your concise locutions, but the snideness is irking.

Oops - be careful about cultural differences. Don't forget that the USA and the UK are two countries separated by a common language.
Paula Kirby is NEVER snide.
I think I have a virtual monopoly on snideness on this site. (Altho' I admit that many of you beat me in silliness.)

722. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103863 by Richard Morgan on December 27, 2007 at 6:31 am

kirisking :

How can we be sure that we believe what we believe?

Although this is a fundamentally silly non-question, being a fundamentally silly, non-person myself, I'd like to suggest an answer.
I long ago learned that if you want to know about a person's belief structures, one of the least reliable methods is to ask them, "What do you believe?"
The most reliable method is to simply observe them. Watch them living for, say, six, months. The you'll have a pretty good idea about their basic belief structures.
That's the luxury of believing in God -for most people, you can declare a belief without having to do anything about it.
That is also why "theology" is as interesting and useful as astrology - you can talk about it endlessly ( a sort of intellectual masturbation) without letting it affect your daily behaviour in any way whatsoever.
You can worry for weeks over the "Johanine comma" but it won't stop you needing to go for a crap from time to time, paying taxes, getting irritable with those close to you, or putting petrol in your car to make it work.
I "believe" that if I click on

Submit

then this message will get posted.
And here's the proof!

723. Man and God

Comment #103463 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Radesq :

But I don't see any certainty that Abrahamic religions will be replaced anytime soon or that they will necessarily be replaced by reason and the scientific method.

Perhaps you're right on this one. Or perhaps the change is happening with an evolution-like slowness.
As to what will replace the monotheistic religions, I'm not going to try to guess on that one - human beings will be human beings for a long time yet, I imagine.
But the neurosciences are largely replacing exorcisms, the work of Pasteur went a long way to dispelling the myth of divine curses, the solar system has stayed heliocentric...
These are not proofs, but encouraging indicators, I feel.
Dawkin's beloved Zeitgeist is on the move - quite perceptibly if you consider the last fifty years or so.
Let us never forget that editorial commentaries have the same raison d'�tre as everything else in a newspaper - selling newspapers. And with a title like "Man and God", you are likely to attract the attention of theists and atheists - which instantly doubles the potential readership.
I can understand your pessimism, but there are hopeful signs - I believe.

724. Man and God

Comment #103444 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Just a reminder:

256. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27809 by Richard Morgan on March 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm

#27790 by justme : When you say

Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation

...All I can reply is :
OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere.
Clearly, the fact that you need to conceal your identity in this way is a very powerful argument for the need for books like TGD!

725. Man and God

Comment #103442 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential.

The faith-heads loving saying things like that, as if saying the words made them true. But has anyone ever shown us an example of "power and potential" that is exclusive to religion?

It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics.

This is beautifully silly. But why doesn't the writer go all the way? The principles of evolution concern species, not individuals, and no species is destined to exist for ever. Not even Man. United supporters.
Sure, very non-random mutations are trying to help religion adapt to new environments, but it is clear we are witnessing the death-throes of the species called "religion".

726. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103042 by Richard Morgan on December 24, 2007 at 8:44 am

"Christian God is not to blame"
Absolutely correct.
I'm fed up of getting the blame for everything.

Merry Memas everybody!
Joyeux No�l!

727. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102949 by Richard Morgan on December 24, 2007 at 3:08 am

Paula Kirby

I just can't think of any good reason for me to hide behind an alias and I'm increasingly coming to the view that we atheists need to stand up and be counted.

YAY!
But do you remember the reactions I got when I started saying something similar here a few months back?
At the same time, my sympathy and total support for those who clearly dare not reveal their true identity. Their fear is one of our "raisons d'�tre".

728. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102594 by Richard Morgan on December 23, 2007 at 9:20 am

Eekie :

I celebrate it because that's what my culture does.

Kind of the traditional thing, huh?
"Les traditions permettent d'éviter de réfléchir."
"Traditions enable you to avoid having to think."
So, yes, I guess you're being coherent.

729. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102585 by Richard Morgan on December 23, 2007 at 9:10 am

decius :

Could then Blair actually turn down Bush's demands, no matter how senseless?

Darn it, when didn't I think of that? Of course, Blair had to come to Bush's aid in defending the USA against the threat of being attacked by Iraq.
What did you say?
The USA weren't being threatened by Iraq?
Well, George W.Bush though they were, so that's the same thing.
Isn't it?
I mean, Saddam might have had weapons of massive destruction, mightn't he?
And Blair did have some sexed-up intelligence reports indicating that...

730. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102476 by Richard Morgan on December 23, 2007 at 1:34 am

I think we need to respect personal choices - like converting to Catholicism, or helping the US invade Iraq. You know, these things are nobody else's business. Are they?

731. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102475 by Richard Morgan on December 23, 2007 at 1:24 am

Eekie :

The actions of modern Christians aren't that offensive compared to it's peers such as Islam.

It's kind of reassuring to have proof that the Fundies and extremists do NOT have the monopoly on crass idiocy...

732. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #102240 by Richard Morgan on December 22, 2007 at 6:27 am

The adorable Steve Zara :

If you don't want to be associated with Creationism, then don't use its phrases.

Exactly.
If you don't want to be associated with Christians, don't sing carols.
Sorry - I know it's the wrong thread, but what the heck...
Post, and be damned, is what I say.

733. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #102238 by Richard Morgan on December 22, 2007 at 6:14 am

But in 2007, observing North America, parts of Europe, the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent, our confidence is faltering.

If religion has one great enemy, it is education. On a global scale, people are getting a better "education" and amongst the educated, religion is receding. But it is a long, slow and often bloody business.
The religious, feeling (justifiably) threatened, are lashing back with all the weapons that 21st century technology makes available to them.But there is still a feeling that these extremist atrocities are a sort of last ditch death spasm.
When all Western leaders realize that building schools is more effective than dropping bombs (with God's blessing!) civilization will have taken a great step in the right direction.
This can be of little comfort to the bereaved - be they in New York, Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. I understand that, and I weep with them. (Members of my wife's family are amongst the victims that come to mind...)
But I suspect that if Parris takes a step or two back to observe the wider picture, he will see that he can keep confidence in the way things are evolving.
I doubt that he or I will live to see the day when "monotheistic religion" has become part of history, but I do believe that nothing will stop the forward march of Reason. In spite of the Fundies, the extremists and MacDonalds.

734. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #102225 by Richard Morgan on December 22, 2007 at 4:30 am

ridelo :

his patience is close to godlike. Is he only human?

This is called "force of habit" - nothing more.
Please, let us not get into the "hero-worship" thing about RD.
(Believe me, if you had the same earnings through royalties, you'd be capable of "godlike patience" too!)

735. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #102007 by Richard Morgan on December 21, 2007 at 11:35 am

Copernic :

although the sexual lust is a good parallel.

I've just left the "For the Love of Christ" thread. So I was just wondering where masturbation would fit into this comparison...
Or is it just a misfiring of my need to make babies?
Any ideas? (I love working metaphors to death!)

Woody Allen : Don't knock masturbation. At least I'm having sex with someone I love.

736. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101769 by Richard Morgan on December 21, 2007 at 12:17 am

Work-outs AND masturbation cured me of frustration! Until I got married - at which point I had to eliminate the work-outs.
I never cease to be amazed at what people will do to get on television. Does he know there are specialised private clubs in Paris where he can get whacked with chairs (or anything else) whenever he wants? Heck, for a dollar and a kiss, even I would whack him with a chair.
When do we get our "Wankers for Jesus" t-shirts?
Give a new meaning to "the laying on of hands?"
(Ha! My spell-check didn't recognise the word "wankers"! Among all the words it suggested was "bankers". I'll go for that!)

737. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101621 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 3:27 pm

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

The unbelievable compels us to believe? Really? I must be the odd one out here then : for me, lack of evidence kind of compels me to NOT believe. Am I that weird? (Don't answer that, PK!!!)

738. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101607 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Anyway, in the interview RD said he hadn't been in a church for years, and then only for a wedding or funeral.

And in neither case did he say whether it was his own or not.

739. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101593 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Frankus 1122 :

That's kind of a dumb scenario.

If you take it out of the context of my reasoning, something we usually accuse Fundies of doing.
Pity you didn't read my post in its entirety - like - to the end.
"If not, why not?"
Since you need me to spell it out for you, I will do so without malice aforethought.
JOINING IN THE SINGING WOULD LABEL YOU AS A CHRISTIAN and would earn you a second mouth-hole further down your neck.
So if you insist on carol-singing as an atheist don't push your principles too far, or at least learn to sing very pianissimo in certain situations.
I am terribly sad for Annabanana. I have never lived in a country where I risked real persecution for my beliefs. You say that it is not a "war" but you then go on to describe a "pre-war" situation.
Be sure that here you can find friends who will support you as best they can. RD only risks a few insults and jeers at best by admitting he sings carols. I understand that your situation is infinitely more dangerous.
But I replied to your "harmless fun" remark. Please understand that.

SARA :

If you sang "Bess, you is my woman now" would that make you heterosexual-black-guy sympathizer?

If you sang "All fags deserve to die, trala -lala -laaah -lela le la." would that make you a homophobic?

740. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101505 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Steve Zara :

Enough from me, I think.

Never!
Got it?

741. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101502 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 12:59 pm

annbanana :

Therefore, I will not cause myself any mental anguish by not being able to participate in mostly harmless things that I enjoy.

You sound like a lovely girl. But the "mostly harmless" in this last sentence is saddening and a little worrying.
As in : "Go on, just one more... Really, just one more won't do any harm...."
I'll let you imagine the kinds of situations in which this has been said with sometimes fatal consequences.
Yes, this is a war, and we do need to stand up be counted.
You know, I would not wear a swastika, even if it was tiny, cute, in solid gold with little diamonds and couldn't possibly offend anybody.
It is simply adult and responsible to recognise the fact of human nature - sometimes we need not only to "avoid evil" but "avoid the appearance of evil."
Can you honestly be aware of all the atrocities committed in the name of the (fictitious)Christian god and still sing "Praise God!" ? I personally do not have this schizoid faculty for putting "the evils of religion" in one part of my brain, and a "jolly sing-song knees-up in the other".
If you don't belong to the enemy camp, don't wear their uniform and don't perpetuate their rituals. If you ignore this advice, don't expect to be taken seriously - however lovely, innocent (and na�ve) you may be.
Let me put it even more brutally : If you were with a group of carol-singers, and masked men arrived brandishing long, sharp sabres and announced they were here to slay all the Christians they could find, when the singing started up again, would you still join in?
If not, why not?
Get it?
Joyeux No�l.

742. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #101264 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 6:52 am

Tintern :

A published author really should know better.

Quite. A person who sets himself up publicly for a cause has greater responsibilities than the rank and file wallahs like myself.
In fact all this fuss is not over the fact that Richard Dawkins sings songs in praise of the fictitious Sky-bully; it's because he announces it publicly. He does want to influence the way people think about religion, he makes no secret of the fact, and when you're actively working to influence the Zeitgeist you do have to be careful about what you say in public.
I've said it before - carol-singing is for consenting adults in private... if you're a public atheist.
So come on Richard D. - none of us would think the less of you if you publicly back-tracked on this one.

743. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100891 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 2:29 pm

bujin :

I, as an atheist, can say "God is my saviour and I worship him".

Where and to whom?
And if you are happy to say meaningless things (my ex-wife's mother positively revelled in it!) how do we know when to start giving credibility to what you say?
Please re-read Northern Bright.

744. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100887 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Northen Bright : very sincerely, thank you. What a relief you are there.
I know I owe you. Do you accept American Express, or are you going to ask the impossible, like asking me stop being snide, cantankerous, supercilious and sneering?
Well, believe it or not - if you ask me, I'll try.

745. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100875 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 1:56 pm

wednesdayguevara :

It's obvious a strong hand is needed to guide us plebes towards the light of ideological purity. Why not yours?

If the price is right, and Dr Benway approves...

sanctimonious old stuffed-shirts who, when not extolling their own moral and intellectual superiority, told everybody what they could and could not do. Good thing we have none of those around here, what?

How can you have forgotten about me so quickly?

746. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100782 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

Northern Bright - thank you for putting your finger on the real problem here. In a way - you have said it all. So I won't try to add to it.

Irate atheist - yes, your intuition concerning my past experiences with moderates is spot on. Thank you for saying that.

747. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100715 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 am

When many intelligent, reasonable people tell me I am wrong, I have this weird reaction - I tend to believe them. I go back over all my previous assertions in the light of refutations and insults received. And, unlike many who post here (and nearly ALL Fundies) I am able say, "Yes, in fact I was quite wrong on that point. Thank you for putting me right."
This time I am asking you to point out the errors in my reasoning. This is one case where I would be relieved to be proved wrong. (Yeah, in a way I would be relieved to be proved wrong about God, but I'm not holding my breath.)
Point by point, then:
The horror of 9/11 happened;
Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion;
Amongst other points he was trying to make in a very heartfelt way was this: "God does not exist so stop the slaughter in his name."
He has described the Abrahamic god of Jews, Christians and Muslims in very unflattering terms (genocidal, amongst others).
Let us, for practical purposes call him SKY DICTATOR.
SKY DICTATOR is a fiction. Believing this fiction to be a reality can cause good men to do evil.
Dawkins et al have published long catalogues of atrocities committed in the name of this fictitious SKY DICTATOR.
BUT it is harmless to sing "Christ by highest heav'n adored, Christ the everlasting SKY DICTATOR."
It is innocent fun to sing "SKY DICTATOR rest you merry, gentlemen."
It is inoffensive to sing: "And praises sing to SKY DICTATOR the King."
I can be an atheist and sing "Silent night, Holy Night, Son of SKY DICTATOR, love's pure light."
If I have failed to make my point, let us take things a step further: if you can sing them, can you say them?
If you can't say them, what transformation takes place when you put the words to music to sing them?
Seriously - if there is flaw in my reasoning, I would be happy and relieved to have it pointed out to me.
Even by AllanW (whose reasoning powers and command of the English language are largely superior to mine, even though he has a tendency to sulk, and see trolls where there is only a cantankerous old Welshman.)
But preferably by Northern Bright whose calm reasoning is always balanced and perfectly refreshing to read (though it costs me to admit it, as she knows!)

748. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100703 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

AllanW: your failure to see is just that - a failure to see.
Your "Bye" is a sad (and surprising) cop-out.

749. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100680 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

Diacanu :

The Fundies are chortling today...
Screw 'em.

Do you realise what you are saying here? Have you any idea how difficult it is to find a good-looking Fundie you can screw? Man, you and I do not live in the same world.
Or perhaps I just don't have the right technique. Any hints?

750. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100678 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 5:15 am

Allan W:

'Hypocrisy at best, double-talk at worst'; have you any idea how muddled this is?

Yes.I was unhappy about that when I wrote it. I realise that I am losing my grip on the English language. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I guess your point is that it might be thought hypocritical to fail to believe in sky fairies if you then enjoy songs about them.

Allan, stop being silly. Are you doing this on purpose? If people started slitting throats (on a massive scale) in the name of sky fairies I could not enjoy songs about them.