751. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100661 by Richard Morgan on December 19, 2007 at 4:39 am

Oh dear, once again I need to point out to so many of you guys the sloppiness, the imprecision of your reasoning.
For those of you who have forgotten, or who prefer to ignore, this debate is about singing Christian songs with Christians (moderate, Anglican/agnostic or whatever.)

This debate is NOT about listening to the Saint Matthew Passion, admiring the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
It IS about actively participating in the perpetuation of a Christian ritual.
Of course RD and anybody else is free to sing all the carols he wants. And in the same breath condemn religious education as child abuse.
But please, do not expect to be taken seriously if you are prepared to be seen singing "Oh come all ye faithful" and then publicly declare the dangers of moderate christianity, not to mention "faith"-heads.

OK - so there are pleasant feelings associated with singing carols (but don't forget to wear your Atheist t-shirt at the same time in case people get the wrong idea.)

But if you do not have the moral integrity to say, "I enjoy carol-singing, I don't believe in the words I'm singing, but maybe I'm sending the wrong message, so I accept to deprive myself of the joys of carol-singing ON PRINCIPLE." then clearly you expose yourself to accusations of hypocrisy at best or double-talk, at worst.

Since we live in society, sometimes we do need to "not only avoid evil, but also avoid the appearance of evil."

Without forgetting that today the spectacle of Richard Dawkins singing Christmas carols is a wonderful Christmas present for Christians the world over. The Fundies are chortling today...
I hope Richard Dawkins has the moral fibre to say publicly, "OK I got it wrong on this one. If I need to sing in the future, I'll stick to Jingle Bells until people start flying open sleighs into skyscrapers in the name of Santa. Then I will also stop singing "Jingle ALL the way".

752. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

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!)

753. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

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.

754. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100488 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 5:55 pm

CJ22 - you're right. The professor is wrong this time. But he's been right so often that his fans will prefer to overlook this untypical lapse.

755. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

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

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

756. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

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...

757. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100080 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 8:19 am

I've just been e-mailed by someone in England who apparently heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 call Christianity a "harmless myth".
Can anyone substantiate this scandalous rumour?

Please, someone, anyone, tell me it's not true.

758. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100066 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 7:35 am

I've just been e-mailed by some-one in England who apparently heard Richard Dawkins on Radio 2 call Christianity a "harmless myth". Can anyone substantiate this scandalous rumour?
Please, someone, anyone, tell me it's not true.

759. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99990 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 3:03 am

Once again, most of you are missing the point when you compare pop songs and fiction written as fiction with religious rituals. If that doesn't give you a cognitive dissonance migraine then you need to go back to Philosophy 101.

So, let's try to define our limits using your reasoning:

Singing Christmas carols? OK.
Saying grace? OK
Attending Midnight Mass with the family? OK.
Saying prayers before going to bed? ...errr
Partaking of Holy Communion with the family? ...errr
Baptizing baby to give him a name, with god-parents and the whole caboodle because "it's the tradition in our family"?...um
Can you really justify all of that with "Well, we don't actually believe it, so it's OK?"
(Thankfully I haven't yet heard, "We slit the throats of miscreants because it's a tradition in our family.")
Somebody has asked for an Atheist Etiquette list. Good idea. (Something else to argue about endlessly.)

May I ask my RD friends where THEY would "draw the line" in perpetuating christian rituals please? (I'm not clear myself, and I freely admit it. But I do hate hypocrisy.) At what point does "harmless" become "harmful"?
Over to you.

760. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99891 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Cartomancer - I love your last sentence.
Having read that and wiped my eyes, (I think you just out-Benwayed Dr Benway) I can forgive you all the rest! Let me give you a big hug.

Mwah!

There.

761. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99888 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 6:36 pm

My last word in this ridiculous debate : Thank heavens for Dr Benway.

762. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99881 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Ok, skepticato, that is a reasonable question. I am not "against" songs or music or art that come from ANY religious tradition. And I most certainly don't despise them, though I admit my language is often of a spiteful nature. (Thank you for pointing that out to me.) My problem is with the (apparent) hypocrisy of those who violently condemn what they call "moderate religion" but in the name of culture and tradition (and good nosh, booze and a family knees-up)actually take part in the rituals, thus perpetuating them.

I have never said "Bah, humbug" to Christmas - rituals and festivities are vital to healthy civilizations.

But as to singing "Oh come all ye faithful" with the faith-heads, well I have a problem with that.


EDIT : Poor ol' Cartomancer. Getting everything mixed up again. Fiction is written as fiction. Religious texts are written as religious truths.
You cannot compare the two.
Could you justify singing Nazi songs in the same way? ("Of course, I don't really mean it, but it's a nice tune, and culturally interesting and I am distancing myself from it.")
Aw, come on...

763. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99870 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm

You guys (RD included) really don't see the hypocrisy in all you're saying about "cultural Christianity", do you?
So - let me get it right:
Fundamental Christianity bad;
Moderate Christianity is bad (leaves the door open for the extremists);
Cultural Christianity is OK (doesn't leave any doors open for the moderates).
I rest my case.

I'll ask my local priest if he wouldn't mind putting on a special Midnight Mass for Atheists. Book your places now.


EDIT : Goldy :"As it is, all the words of the carols are of good news" And what, pray is the good news referred to in these carols? It sure ain't Ronald Macdonald...


(Oh shit, wrong thread...oops!)

764. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99865 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Goldy - I don't thinking people are throwing bombs at each other over the tenancy rights of female senior citizens living in over-sized Reeboks...

765. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99859 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Chispita : I still do it and will probably continue to enjoy it for as long as I live.

But will you teach your children to sing "Away in a manger" and "Once in Royal David's City"? If so, how will you explain the words to them?

766. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99852 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 5:24 pm

So, Cartomancer, you need Christmas to lift you from the "monotonous depths of disappointment" (your brother's girlfriend? your drunken parents? what else?)
But what do you have to say to people who need their God lift them out of the depths of anguish and despair?
CHRISTmas is OK but CHRIST isn't?

And perhaps you should go back to your psycho-analyst to talk about your compulsive record-keeping and cataloguing.

767. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99846 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 5:09 pm

So the sneering critic of "faith-heads" is happy to sing "Oh come all ye faithful?"

Shouldn't it be : "Oh, come on, all ye faithful"?
Would he teach carols to children? Or is carol-singing to be restricted to consenting adults?





Cartomancer :
I hope to make a career denouncing popular misrepresentations of the Middle Ages. Does this mean I am forbidden from finding Monty Python and the Holy Grail funny?

No. It means that you've had lousy career counselling.

768. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99837 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Let me get this right - the keenest critic of moderate religions and "faith-heads" is happy to sing:

"Oh come all ye faithful?"
"Hark, the herald angels sing?"
"Most highly flavoured gravy?"
"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

Would he do it in front of small children, or just with consenting adults?

Madonna's Starbust:
they must have felt like the earth was dying and they had to have some way of "bringing the sun back"

And it works!!! That's a relief, at least...

769. Highway to hysteria

Comment #99666 by Richard Morgan on December 17, 2007 at 9:20 am

I've seen this kind of stuff in the UK. It's kinda fun, and doesn't give you a hang-over. I've even spoken in tongues and had "words of prophecy" which turned out to be true.
I have healed by the laying on of hands, fasting and prayer (OK - more prayer than fasting). I have had dreams and visions... all in the UK.
I have seen the power of the Holy Ghost cast out demons and Income Tax Inspectors.
Oh - excuse me, my nurse is here telling me it's time to take my Abilify and then go down-stairs to continue my basket-work.

770. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #87436 by Richard Morgan on November 12, 2007 at 5:52 am

Another asinine subject. Unless you're saying that God and my ex-wife are on the same level? You are? OK - I can go for that.

771. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #86971 by Richard Morgan on November 10, 2007 at 7:14 pm

"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty interesting questions." - Woody Allen

I'm surprised that this asinine question has even been proposed as a subject for discussion here. Unless I've inadvertently stumbled onto the page for the under-nines. Now they can give some pretty good answers. Once, in a class discussion (9/10 year-olds) a pupil asked this same question "Why does everything exist?" The answer came from the back of the class-room "What's to stop it?"

That'll do for me.

I'll get back to looking for the serious pages on this site.

772. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78581 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 4:35 pm

He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.

OK. As long as you don't mind my starting with Catharism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Are you ok with that, Bish?

773. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78571 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Thanks for pushing up the book sales figures, Bish.
Beckham couldn't have done better!

774. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78569 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Lauregon-but-not-forgotten :

What a friend we have in cheeses.

Brilliant.And now for:
"Roquefort of ages"

775. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78482 by Richard Morgan on October 13, 2007 at 6:43 am

The intellectual rough'n'tumbles engaged in by DG and steve99 have become for me an amusing spectator sport. A long game that has no winners and only ends when one or the other antagonists leaves the arena.
But I am getting a little tired of reasonable arguments, philosophical parrying and thrusting, verbal pillow-fights and the like.

Veronique(and this is typical of her) has brought humanity back into this thread.
She has brought in words like "suffering" and "compassion", strangely absent from our intellectual hanky-pankying thus far.
Why should the religites have exclusive rights on the access to human feelings - things like "love", "tolerance", "sympathy", "despair", "hope", "joy","understanding" and all the rest? Religion has taken root in hearts, but atheism is attacking minds.

People don't care how much you know,
Until they know how much you care.

You will have noticed that in the expression "the winning of hearts and minds", the heart comes before the mind. (Yes, I know where this expression was popularised, and, no, I do not approve of the context, but that is not the point here.)

At least in these discussions, most of you guys come across as:
humourless,
unfeeling,
cynical,
supercilious,
semi-lobotomised word- and idea-processors.
Before the the knickers set a-twisting, no, not everybody and not all the time.
Thank you Veronique.
From the bottom of my heart (which isn't very far to go, I'm afraid.)

You remind me of that old ditty:

He drew a crcle,
That shut 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.

Probably nobody will react to this post. You will all say "Oh, it's that prick Richard Morgan again - nothing interesting there."
Well that's ok folks. I realise that many are far too busy trying to appear smarter than the previous poster - not always an easy task here.
Religion poisoned my life for many, many years. Richard Dawkins helped "set me free". I will never deny that.
But where are the "nice guys"?
Are they mostly on the "wrong side"?
Once again, thank you, Veronique.
Thank you,Corylus, for calling me "cariad" (a nice touch that went straight to my heart!)
Thank you Dr Benway - I will always admire a guy who can talk about corroborative evidence and the length of his penis in the same thread.
Thank you Danielos (all of you!) - if I had to share a bedroom in the psychiatric hospital with you or a rabid atheist, I'd choose you every time!
Thank you Stanyard and IanG - yours is a gentle intelligence.
To most of you I would say, not "Get yourself a life" but "Get a heart." Or rather "Give your heart a chance."
Give meditation a try - you might need less beer and/or cigarettes.
Thank you Veronique for opening your heart to us.
I'll send you my new T-shirt : "Atheists have hearts too."

776. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78274 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 10:44 am

DG

On the other hand one cannot reason while doubting one's own basic cognitive capacity.

...God is not only a person but also the whole of reality, which of course cannot be fully captured by our limited cognitive capacity...

Eureka! The ultimate proof that DG is not one individual, but a small committee doing shift-work. However, I think it would be wiser not to change authors in the middle of a post.
I'm sorry for all you DG (Delusional God?) haters, but you've gotta love these guys. Even though I have a slight preference for the evening shift. They're generally funnier, don't you think? For me, they're way up there with Bill Bailey, Bill Maher, Rowan Atkinson, Monty Python, the Grimethorpe Colliery Brass Band and the Chesterfield Junior Granny-Hurling team. Good family entertainment - as long as you don't have children.

777. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78263 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 10:22 am

592. Comment #78237 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 12, 2007 at 8:18 am

Oops.

False dichotomy.

Some evidence can be corroborated; some can't be corroborated.
Some hypotheses have been proven false; some have survived repeated tests.


Drat! Dr Benway's all-purpose rebuttal doesn't work everywhere.
Thought it was worth a try anyway.


PS : Is one of you the Dianelos Georgoudis of FROG fame?

778. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78175 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 3:41 am

DG

It's a terrible thing, anger. It's worse than a mental virus; it can ultimately convert human minds into zombies.

You're right!
And that makes me so angry, Dan!

779. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78171 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 3:17 am

DG

Take the best naturalistic model you can find or think of, take the best theistic model you can find or think of, and then compare them one to one using a consistent set of criteria. Once you're done choose the model that fares better as the model of reality that is more reasonable to adopt among these two.

Nice one, DG. I'll try it out when there's a lull in the conversation in my next vernissage :
observe the observable;
observe the invisible
subtract your mother-in-law's date of birth, and
find truth in the model that feels best to you.
That should warm things up a bit, don't you think?

EDIT:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious what "ethically empowering" means. An experience is ethically empowering when it makes it easier for one to do the right thing.

*Blushes with embarrassment* Of course it does. Sorry about that. No excuses for me this time...

780. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78156 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 2:44 am

IanG

"We cannot welcome this courageous initiative too much or praise it too highly...
....making such a dialogue the central plank of the hope for a new, more peaceful world is just conceptually ill-founded and self-deluding."

I love your style and all your comments, but I'm not sure that you're quite ready for the diplomatic corps.

781. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78144 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 2:01 am

DG

And indeed it is satisfying to express gratitude. Anybody who has honestly said "thank you" knows that.

Agreed - it is one of those "feel-good"experiences that has nothing to do with truth.
But let me suggest a rather more mature attitude:

And you receivers -- and you are all receivers -- assume no weight
of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives.

Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings;

For to be over mindful of your debt, is to doubt his generosity.
The Prophet Khalil Gibran

I agree with him (S.H.) on the usefulness of meditation and on the spiritual dimension of life.

Just for your interest, have you read : L'esprit de l'athéisme : Introduction à une spiritualité sans Dieu
by André Comte-Sponville.?

782. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78091 by Richard Morgan on October 11, 2007 at 7:17 pm

revcort

sound argument from Scripture

This is called an oxymoron.

783. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78084 by Richard Morgan on October 11, 2007 at 6:45 pm

revcort

If the death of certain people cause others to turn to God, was that evil? Not necessarily according to God's definition.

So let's fly planes into the Twin Towers, right? Halleluiah.
This comment shows that you are potentially a very dangerous person,Courtney! I hope you realise that.

God inspires people to pray for the very things that He intends to answer

Like the King in Saint Exupery's "The Little Prince" who was always obeyed because he only commanded people to do things they were going to do anyway? Wow, divine wisdom is really something!

784. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78069 by Richard Morgan on October 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm

The problem with you guys is that since you don't pray, you don't get "ethically empowered".
(Poe's Law, folks!)
Ok - I realise that people who know me have developed the (probably healthy) reaction of ignoring my posts, but am I the only person here who is curious to know how prayer gets DG "ethically empowered"?
This guy is clearly very intelligent and very well-read, usually nicely-laid-back in his approach (his years in Brazil?) and often an entertaining writer (sometimes inadvertently, but what the heck?).
None of this stops him being basically wrong about some important things but if, on top of all his other qualities, he is also getting "ethically empowered" then I think we'd better watch out.




BAEOZ

The trolls will be back when they need to feed their narcisistic egos.....

Talk of the devil.....Hi, everybody!

785. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77874 by Richard Morgan on October 11, 2007 at 1:23 am

Dianelos Georgoudis - I've changed my mind again. I'm happy for you to keep posting because frankly - you are a very entertaining read!
I found myself chortling with real amusement as I read your letter of consolation and encouragement to steve99.
You, of all people, advising steve99 about his moral rights and internet social behaviour!
Priceless.

I also particularly enjoyed this :

In my experience praying is a very useful thing: It's an expression of gratitude so it's ethically satisfying. It's a form of meditation so it sharpens one's insight. And finally, whether one asks for it or not, it's an ethically empowering experience.

"ethically satisfying"?
Er, well, yes, if you say so.....
"meditation that sharpens one's insight"?
You should be talking to a young guy called Sam Harris.
And the best of all : "ethically empowering".
I've tried to imagine what that could mean, how it could feel, if it could be compared to, say, Viagra or caipirinha or perhaps Mahler or even John Milton.
I've tried to find it in my Umberto Eco collection.
I even tried looking under my son's bed. (If you don't believe in parallel dimensions, you haven't seen my son's bedroom.)
But I give up. Go on - tell us what it is.
Please.
I think I want to feel ethically empowered.

786. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77683 by Richard Morgan on October 10, 2007 at 6:48 am

phil rimmer

Atheism doesn't begin to explain who and what I am angry about.

100% my feeling too. How sad that we need to feel angry, don't you think?

787. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77565 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Dr Benway :

Imagine demanding that people deny real experiences they actually have.

Isn't that what Abilify is for?

I've a confession: I like crazy people.

OK.
That explains it.
I was wondering why you came here so often.....
Keep coming, please.
We crazy people need you.

788. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77541 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 3:14 pm

53. Comment #77450 by coretemprising
Ian wrote:
"By the way I took Richard Morgan's post as being complimentary. I read it as wryly appreciative, but maybe I just missed the point. In which case I guess I'm just not "bright" enough!

IanG did not miss the point.
coretemprising, as usual, did.
But for those of you who think that a "Sense of Humour" is an Australian deodorant, let me be a little less abstruse.
IanG's posts are amongst the clearest, the most perceptive and perspicacious I have ever read.
I wish I could think and express myself like him.
What he says is always to the point, balanced, insightful, an perhaps most importantly of all - darn useful.
That is what I was trying to say in the comment that so shocked the blinkered ones on this board.
IanG has the gift of being able to grasp the larger vision of a question and place the issues in their correct perspective.
coretemprising's reaction?

Personally, I'd like to be able, in person, just once, to slap the smirk right off his face. GOD, that would be great!

How very revealing...

789. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #77343 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 5:13 am

Simon Packer :

I may be mistaken, but I doubt...

Your comment got off to a good start. What a pity you spoiled it with all the rest of the stuff you wrote.

790. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77305 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 2:13 am

Oh, no!
Is this the beginning of the "Durum schism" we all dreaded?
If so, I just won't be able to believe in atheism any more.
Which will make me a non-theist anti-atheist?
Shit, this is getting complicated, brethren!

791. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77294 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 1:13 am

You should all go and check out revcort's Myspace page. He posted the link so I guess he feels that he has nothing to hide.


CLICK HERE

It's full of priceless stuff like :

Who I'd like to meet:
God- in person. I've already met Him in Spirit. And I'm getting to know Him better daily. :-)

and

Music : I pretty much listen to Christian music only

and this real gem :

Television : T.V. is a waste of my life, but I still watch it at times, unfortunately.
I like sports like UK College Basketball, UT College Football, St Louis Baseball, Psych, Monk, CSI, Andy Griffith, Star Trek: the original series and The Next Generation

followed by (in his Blog)

Do you realize how much television robs you of your ability to know, understand, and experience true life? Are you aware that television itself is a lie? It is a false reality. Things are presented there that are portrayed as real, but they are not real. How can a man truly enjoy his wife if he has been looking at "perfected images" of women on television? (do you think those women even look that way in real life?)

Not forgetting this lovely confession : "I've pretty much made a mess of things at every point that I attempted to things FOR God." followed by "...I want to take as many of you with me as I can."
Amongst all his activities (he's a real busy guy for God!) he nowhere mentions the hours he spends posting here.
Hm...

It seems to me that this guy, and people like him, are doing as much for the cause of atheism as many of our regular posters here. Or does this kind of contradictory gobbledygook make some kind of sense to people in the USA? And THAT is a genuine question not just one of my typically snide remarks.

792. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77284 by Richard Morgan on October 9, 2007 at 12:39 am

Richard Dawkins :

We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

The word "atheist" defines me as far as all the gods that I have have heard of are concerned.

Perhaps we at last need to place this word in various cultural contexts in order to effectively measure it's usefulness.

I can't go very far here - we're going to need help from other posters in different time-zones.

"I am an atheist." would likely be understood, or provoke the following reaction

USA : "I have no morals, masturbate in the toilet and eat babies for breakfast."
France : "....So what?"
Australia :...
New Zealand :...
Romania :...
U.K. :...
etc


(I'm not sure about the USA version. I'm just guessing based on what I've read - here, and elsewhere. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
EDIT : Overhead in the RD Net clothing department : "If everybody starts agreeing with Sam Harris, what the fuck're we going to do with the 230,000 T-shirts we've got left? Do you think this guy Myers will buy them?"

793. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76703 by Richard Morgan on October 6, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Comment #76684 by RandomMutation
...it gets positively perverse!
I like tits as much as the next man

Thank you for being frank and honest.
And stop reading discussion boards when you're supposed to be working!!!
I just happen to live in a country where boobs are bared on all the beaches and atheism really IS the default attitude.
I loved this little snippet of interview. It's all good stuff for the Zeitgeist.
If you are offended by my avatar, please take a couple of minutes to watch Bill Maher on "FRANCE" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ

And if you're still offended - SCROLL PAST!

For all rugby fans :
French atheists 20 - HAKA 18.

Comment #76696 by MarkSmith

woww that avitr i rly distractg. whre am i im dizy ilikeit

Don't worry, Mark, I have it on good authority from Christopher Hitchens that you won't go blind. Which reminds me of a question I have for RD : In what circumstances do "balls bang together"? You're talking about a snooker tournament, right?
Yep.
What else...

794. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76559 by Richard Morgan on October 6, 2007 at 9:03 am

Who said there was no proof that God does not exist?
Australia has just been eliminated from the Rugby World Cup by the English. What more proof do you need that there is no Justice?
What did you say?
Speak up.

Oh - OK.
It just proves that we've still got the Old Testament God.
The sadistic pervert one.
Yep.
That figures.
Let us pray...

Our Father which art in heaven, kindly piss off. Amen.

EDIT : After the second match of the day :

French atheists : 20 - HAKA : 18

Now if you STILL believe in God after that...

795. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76473 by Richard Morgan on October 6, 2007 at 1:04 am

keith Maybe I should reply to your post in a private message, but, what the heck, as the old ditty goes :

What's the point in owning something,
If there's no-one to whom you can show it?
What's the point in knowing something,
If nobody knows that you know it?

Our differences all boil down to one detail : you're basically a nice guy, and I'm basically a bit of a prick. (Just ask my ex-wives!!!) I'm the sort of guy who,when given a rose, will complain about the thorns before appreciating the beauty of the flower.
Also I have had a huge quantity if life experiences which have made me very sensitive to the use of words which means I'm far too liable to get my (low-cost,supermarket) knickers in a twist instead of standing back to appreciate the general message.

Your comments do in fact help these discussions to advance usefully - mine are usually little better that "court jesterisms".
And yes - I do find myself too fascinating. But at least I often feel in good company in that respect, here on this discussion board.
Oh shite, there I go again...
Keep posting, Keith.
Though I know you don't need my encouragement.
Oh, if anybody is wondering why I bother coming to these discussions, the truth of the matter is that Dawkins' books actually changed my life.
Right.
I was even more insufferable before becoming an atheist, if you can imagine that!!

796. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76398 by Richard Morgan on October 5, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Comment #76364 by TylerJames
Everyone should check out the response by PZ Myers

Oh fuck!
Oh deary me!
Merde, alors!
Sorry about this folks. Once again I've been shouting my mouth off, insulting people (sure, ignorant people, but all the same...!)who don't have the same opinion as me, and after five minutes' reading I find I was completely wrong. Well, almost.
So - thank you TylerJames;
and thank you PZ Myers.
Why was I so wrong? And why only "almost"? Same answer to both questions. I had been forgetting that the word "atheist" is so loaded with meaning in the USA and the UK.
I live in a country where if you say you're atheist, people wonder why you feel the need to talk about the existence of God!
I suppose the equivalent in France would be Front National. Millions vote for them, but very few are prepared to admit the fact publicly.
Just one little nit to pick, all the same, in the form of a question : for all you guys living in the wrong countries, does "I'm an atheist (noun)." bear the same message as "I'm atheist (adjective)"?
Because from where I stand, the two do not have the same impact. The noun is well-represented by the in-your-face red-letter T-shirts you guys were spilling your beer onto in all those photos.
Whereas the adjective seems no less accurate but a lot more ... reasonable. I am not defined by my atheist world-view. My world-view leads me naturally to an atheist point of view.
Could you guys give me some feed-back on this please? Particularly if you live in Birmingham Alabama, Mullumbimby New South Wales, or Betws-yn-Rhos.

797. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76297 by Richard Morgan on October 5, 2007 at 11:37 am

keith

Lastly Richard Morgan, I have to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with your ex-wife.

Having read your last post I can understand that. You have a lot in common. She too was/is capable of missing important points in serious discussions.
Some examples :

Sam's idea of 'going under the radar' sounds like a recipe for making us more invisible than we are now and thus easier to ignore, though we really might win a few more arguments with Sam's approach.

It sounds like you have no idea what "going under the radar" is used for. It has certainly NEVER been used just for the purpose of "winning a few arguments."

I bet Sam could quite happily have strangled him had he been within arm's length.

This crass (albeit well-intentioned) remark reveals more about your personality than Sam's. Do you really believe that Sam, for one second, harboured hopes of changing anybody's ideas or opinions? He has surely debated more obtuse faith-heads than you have eaten quarks for breakfast! (OK, I'm exaggerating a little...lol)

However, simply being happy with not changing the world for the worse seems to be aiming pretty low.

Have you read Sam's books? Does Sam ever write, speak or act like someone who is "happy with not changing the world for the worse?

Still, it's more than possible that I've misunderstood what is actually involved.

At last you say something accurate and verifiable. Though the silly, mocking pseudo-questions that follow this (welcome) admission of ignorance confirm what we all know : being an atheist doesn't necessarily make a person intelligent.


EDIT : Jack Rawlinson : you are a lovely sounding guy, and each one of your posts is proof of your moral fibre. I'd employ you as my body-guard any day!
But ( you were expecting that, weren't you?)however strongly you wish to defend the fact that you are an atheist, are you fighting the good fight against religion simply because you are an atheist? Or are you an atheist on account of what you are basically - honest, rational, realistic and reasonable? Surely your "atheism" is one of consequences of the way you consider your life?
My sister is a Keynesian economist. But her actions in defence of the homeless and the unemployed are motivated by the principles in her heart, in her guts - not because she's a Keynesian!! See what I mean?

798. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75989 by Richard Morgan on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 am

Comment #75964 by Jack Rawlinson
I couldn't resist a little satire, folks...
The Problem With Independence
(with apologies - but not too many - to Sam Harris)

You should have resisted. This is a cheap and facile trick which is so badly done it's an embarrassment, Jack!
From reading some of the posts here I realise that the "point" is in no danger, since so many of you are missing it.
Like our friend weaver here:

Comment #75985 by windweaver
...if a buddhist monk were found who could demonstrate paranormal powers while meditating, it would be huge news around the world and the guy would deserve the Nobel prize for demonstrating a new law of physics. Also, Buddhism would benefit enormously from such a revelation and become the dominant religion in the world. Still, the claims keep being made...

If a Buddhist demonstrated a law of physics it would become science, and would thus move out of the realm of the "miraculous" and "religious". It just wouldn't be paranormal any more!
Also the chances are it would be bought by some multi-national, copyrighted, and turned into an optional extra in some excessively powerful German car.
Religious conversions do NOT work the way you seem to think they do.

799. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75927 by Richard Morgan on October 4, 2007 at 4:59 am

Véronique!
Véronique!
Véronique!
You are not hallucinating.
I have just posted your cards.
Really.

800. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75923 by Richard Morgan on October 4, 2007 at 4:50 am

Véronique - your post reminds me of an old French joke :
What do you call the experience of going home after a hard day's work, to a beautiful, smiling woman who is happy to see you, who sits you down, takes off your shoes and brings you a nice glass of red wine?
It's called - "You're in the wrong house, buddy!"

There have been some articles here about how psychologists can reproduce the "out-of-body" experience, with links to little experiments you can try out yourself. Lol!
I myself had a spectacular out-of-body experience when I had an N.D.E. in 1979. It was fun!
Except that my wife at the time snarled : "Near death experience? Not "near" enough to my liking. Try going the extra mile next time, OK?"