Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dr Benway


751. Man and God

Comment #103435 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Can natural selection account for the number of human heads filled with more wool than sense? Survival of the warmest, perhaps?

rod-the-farmer: And this is the first I have heard about a flawed understanding of genetics, by Stalin. Anyone else heard of this?
Cons are the easiest to con. Men driven by wishful thinking are especially vulnerable to any sell that plays to their hopes.

From Stalin's perspective, Lysenko must have seemed like a dream come true - a hard-working prole without formal education who seemed to know how to increase crop yields. Thanks to Stalin's blessing, the entire Soviet bureaucracy made way for Lysenko. Anyone with an unkind or questioning word was purged. From Wikipedia:
In 1927, at 29 years of age and working at an agricultural experiment station in Azerbaijan, he (Lysenko) was credited by the Soviet newspaper Pravda with having discovered a method to fertilize fields without using fertilizers or minerals, and with having proved that a winter crop of peas could be grown in Azerbaijan, "turning the barren fields of the Transcaucasus green in winter, so that cattle will not perish from poor feeding, and the peasant Turk will live through the winter without trembling for tomorrow."[2] In succeeding years, however, further attempts to grow the peas were unsuccessful.
Stalin and Hitler took advantage of the poor, gullible, disenfranchised masses in their countries. Both leaders were ultimately brought low and now stand as objects of hatred and ridicule for their silly ideas.

Stalin and Hitler lesson learned: gullibility kills.

752. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103423 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Know what I think is gross? People with advanced cancer. That sickly sweet smell of rotting tumor is nasty. It's even worse if you visit a cancer patient just after chemo and you get a nose full of vomit stink. As far as I'm concerned: NO THANKS!

Know what else is gross? Guys who've had their prostates removed. Now, I'm sure it's no fun dealing with incontinence all the time. But sitting next Mr. Depends in some restaurant ain't no picnic either.

Hey, why are you frowning at me? Am I not "PC" enough for you? Well tough titties. I can't help my natural, automatic reactions to certain things.

Oh wait! I almost forgot the most disgusting thing of all: clueless egocentric wankers who think "social graces" are a buncha whores named "Grace." Yuck! Gag me with a spoon!

753. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103039 by Dr Benway on December 24, 2007 at 8:40 am

Anyone who insists, with Dawkins, that Christians must produce empirically verifiable evidence are obviously going to find the arguments of these "fleas" unconvincing. But Dawkins, like most of the rest of you, is trapped in a philosophical time-warp. This Logical Positivism paradigm à la Bertrand Russell has been superseded and is now regarded as old hat by most philosophers.
Corroboration is dead? Nonsense. Uncorroborated evidence is granted a weaker evidentiary status that evidence that can be corroborated. It must be thus else we've no immunity to lies.

754. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102793 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Clinton left us with a budget surplus and a surfeit of good will among our allies in the world.

The national debt under Bush is wildly out of control. Our allies don't trust us as they once did.

I thought to be named a rapist one had to be convicted of rape, or at the very least somehow in posession of personal knowlege of the rape event. Perhaps the Bill of Rights is indeed on the way out.

755. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102776 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 3:57 pm

There are too many multi-millionaires in the US who found Jesus in the 1970s. These rich cats who imprinted on Jesus during their impressionable young adult years are now fucking up my country.

Were it not for this cadre of crazy-rich believers, we would not have the Discovery Institute, the Creation Museum, Focus on the Family, the Faith Based initiative, Ave Maria Law School, Liberty U, Regent U, Michael Olansky... on and on.

Look at McCain, Mr. Campaign Finance Reform. How can his 180 toward the religious right be explained, if not down to people like Ahmanson?

756. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102768 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

As far as Iraq and foreign policy is concerned, personally, I think Bush has done a wonderful job, although I also think that it is difficult, today, to be objective about such a hot political topic.
Dude, we thought we were invading Dr. No's island of scary WMDs. Turned out we invaded effin' Mexico.

People didn't do their jobs. They didn't properly evaluate circumstances in Iraq prior to the war. The evidence for WMDs was cooked. White House pressure drove the madness.

Our country once enjoyed unequalled respect in the world, for it's long tradition of fair play toward those less fortunate. Now we're viewed as just another manipulative bully serving its own interests.

The dollar is sinking through the floor as we borrow more to pay the interest on the debt we've already borrowed to fund a war we can't afford. People are losing their homes in record numbers.

"Wonderful" isn't the adjective that comes to mind when I think of Bush.

American "left" and "right" politics seems a strange misdirection to me. Do engineers solve problems from the left or the right? Aren't most of the problems we face matters of scientific understanding and engineering?

757. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102762 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 3:09 pm

fides, I suspect your compulsion to sneer at the regular posters here is down to constipation. Try more fiber in your diet.

Once you've sorted something like e=mc2 in relation to Maxwell's equations, it's easy to spot when someone is talking bollocks about the matter-energy relationship.

Likewise, once you understand the method of rational thinking, involving the four tests of logic, parsimony, falsification, and verification, atheism becomes the obvious, most rationally justified position. That's all there is to it.

One book, three books, twenty books in support of theism change nothing. What's required is corroborative evidence clearly showing that an interventionist God involves himself with reality in some manner.

Anyone who can produce such evidence will win the Nobel, James Randi's prize, the Templeton, a few Hollywood deals, and the adoration of the world.

We're still waiting.

758. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102640 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 10:48 am

To borrow again from Dan Barker's pleasingly concise prose:

Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?

759. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102633 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 10:40 am

Steve: But surely "God is unproved" is a claim? :)
Oh, if only natural languages didn't require all sorts of qualifiers for just about anything you might like to say. Think of the time saved.

Atheist: "God is unproved."
Theist: "Prove it."
Atheist: "No, when I say a claim is unproved, that's a special sort claim. That's the default position for any claim. It needs no justification. You're the one with the burden of proof."
Theist: "Well how convenient for your side. I and most others know that God has been proven. We can't all be wrong. You're the odd man out. You need to justify how you know God is unproved."
Atheist: "I don't know for a fact that no one living or dead has not found some proof for God. I'm saying only that I am not aware of this proof."
Theist: "Oh yes you are; you just won't admit it."
Atheism: "By accusing me of bad faith you've only made more work for yourself. Now in addition to proving that God exists, you also must justify your claim regarding my motives."
Theist: The only defensible response would be some reference to evidence that falsifies the null hypothesis, "God(s) do not exist." The likely response will be special pleading - e.g., it's silly to want "proof" of God.

What if someone said "I am an atheist, and I will refuse to believe in any God no matter what"?
We can only outline the rational defense of atheism. We're not on the hook to explain the irrational reasons for disbelief in God, anymore than we might be on the hook to explain why some people believe the earth is round, but for the wrong reasons.

760. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102542 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

Quoting from Dan Barker's book, Losing faith in faith:

Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Atheists make no claims. They can't be fundamentalists.

God is unproved. That's now my most concise definition of atheism.

Regarding the hypothesis that any miraculous event could be down to aliens fucking with our heads: true, but if the trick is that good, those aliens might as well be god, as far as this monkey is concerned.

If my cats began speaking to me in English, commanding me to praise Jesus, I'd be praising Jesus. But I'd also want them to hold a video press conference with world leaders, to explain themselves. And if they told me told me to kill babies, I'd ask to speak with their manager first.

761. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102539 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 7:04 am

dsouzaphile: You asked for an independent source for the existence for Christ benway (201). I'll take that as my point ceded.

Let's just be clear: are there any other documents independent of the early Christian sect alluding to the life of Jesus?

762. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102444 by Dr Benway on December 22, 2007 at 7:49 pm

The journalist vs. candlestickmaker thing:

Q: When is it appropriate to raise the issue of expertise?
A: In matters of personal opinion. Experts are entitled to have opinions; non-experts are not so entitled.

If Strobel clearly differentiates statements of fact from opinion, and if his book is used simply as a handy reference to established fact, he could be a crack ho and it wouldn't matter.

Wikipedia on Tacitus: "There are a number of mistakes in the passage, which call into question its accuracy rather than its authenticity... All of these mistakes could be due to exaggeration or errors in reporting when written by Tacitus in 116."

1. The passage claims that Nero wanted a scapegoat for the fire, but Tacitus also says that Nero safely walked among the people after the fire, displaying a lack of need for a scapegoat.
2. Tacitus claims that an "immense multitude" of Christians were killed when there were not an immense multitude in Rome at the time.
3. Tacitus calls Pontius Pilot a "procurator" instead of a "prefect" (Tacitus' father was a procurator and he clearly knew the difference).
4. Tacitus calls the followers "Christians" when it is unlikely that they had yet chosen this name.

#1 isn't an impressive criticism.
#2, #3, and #4 do set off my BS detector. Someone got some 'splaining to do.

763. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #102383 by Dr Benway on December 22, 2007 at 2:50 pm

...the buying up of all that shit for everybody is nauseating. We now simply buy one gift each...
We outdo you. Each year we give each other the same gift: forgiveness. No shopping required!

764. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102289 by Dr Benway on December 22, 2007 at 8:49 am

Strobel's book doesn't count as a source document.

dsouzaphile, you used the phrase "of which the bible is one source," suggesting that you are aware of other textual references to Jesus independent of the early Christian sect. Your failure to name one of these references is telling.

765. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102272 by Dr Benway on December 22, 2007 at 8:14 am

Christ's death, inexplicably empty tomb, persecuted followers, and subsequent immediate peaceful success of message are a matter of historical record of which the bible is one source.
I'd love to hear about other independent sources regarding Jesus.

766. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102268 by Dr Benway on December 22, 2007 at 8:08 am

Dr Morgan said: "All of this is what I would call the new "fundamentalism" of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion.
Know what else screws up rational dialog? Making up your own definitions.

Either all gods in the public square or no gods. Those are the non-bigot's choices.

767. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102152 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm

...my kids bankrupt me every year for a load of plastic crap.
Anyone who wants to start a War on Plastic Crap No One Actually Needs has my full support.

Today's tip for the anti-plastic warrior: Hannaford's has these nice cloth bags you can buy, stash in your car, and use when you go shopping.


768. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102146 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Steve: All I can say is that I would find it .... awkward if I were to sing.
I wouldn't carol with a crowd of born-agains. But with, say, the local running club, I'd feel something like, "Oh look at this olde timey thing I'm doing. Where is Tiny Tim? I've a ha'penny for the wee lad. Pip pip! Cheerio!"
And I have to add that this is the only time I have ever substantially disagreed with the good Dr Benway on anything.
The relative significance of something like caroling is going to vary due to personal history.

769. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102074 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Hi J!

Well I've been celebrating sexism for the holidays, so it's all good.

That's me 11 year old cat, Leo, who is more simple than cross. Developed renal failure over 2-4 weeks, in the hospital x3 days with IV. Better, but not eating, so we took him home to see if he'd eat in familiar surroundings. Not so much, sadly.

He's the best of kitties.

770. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102064 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm

benway, lets talk seriously now.
I'm willing to play checkers with anyone, dsouzaphile. However you haven't learned the rules of the game. Rational discourse is impossible unless both parties agree to the same rules.

I might be pursuaded to teach you, provided you recognize your own ignorance. Otherwise, shut up and watch the grown-ups play until you catch on.

Hint: don't use D'Souza as a model for how to behave.

771. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102044 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 1:09 pm

dsouzaphile: you were right baeoz, i spelled ideology incorrectly.
One point for catching "idoligy."
Minus one point for irrelevant "ideology" cut-and-paste definition.
Minus one point for not fixing bad HTML.
Minus one point for singling out one spelling error, as if it were the only one.
Minus eleventy points for not taking your medication as prescribed:
maybe you could look up a definition or two next time.

772. This Is Not a Test

Comment #102036 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I saw Huckabee on some news program talking about his view on evolution and wondered what it had to do with his being qualified to be president. To me, he might as well have said he believed we have winter because Persephone goes back to Hades 3 months of the year.
People can be rational in most areas while suspending reason here and there. However extreme compartmentalization is worrisome. Cognitive dissonance is supposed to be uncomfortable. That discomfort discourages things like lying.

Pathological liars make disappointing leaders.

773. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102029 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 12:35 pm

epeeist: Should I go and not sing?
Can you produce warm, resonant tones in the right key? Few things are sexier than a man who can sing, regardless of the lyrics (as both science and David Bowie have clearly demonstrated). For the sake of the womenfolk who might be present and feeling a chill, it may be your duty to carol.

774. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101948 by Dr Benway on December 21, 2007 at 8:45 am

UU = Unitarian Universalists. A hiding place for deists and non-believers before modern atheism got its feet. Many famous American infidels have been UU members - Emerson, Thoreau, Kurt Vonnegut. UU may be one reason why New England has maintained a stable rationalist culture in spite of cycles of religious revivalism everywhere else.

You may have a problem with them because they're church-like and don't stress atheism per se - e.g., they call themselves a religious organization. I think they show believers it's possible to have many of the things they like about church without having to believe a lot of nonsense.

When I was 18 or so, I remember going to a UU service where someone talked about friendship and read an excerpt from "The Little Prince." It was touching. Then they took up a collection for people in Guatamala that seemed kinda political. There was a presumption of left sided politics that bothered me. Often it takes me a long time to sort out which side of an issue I'm on.

My husband has been very active in our local running club for many years, and that seems to fulfill the social networking niche. But if I were younger, single, and living south of the Mason-Dixon, I'd investigate the nearest UU group.

775. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101755 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 10:26 pm

NorthernLight: Thanks, now my brain hurts. So much reading to do, can anyone suggest a decent book on all of this?
Screw the physics. What you need is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

To paraphrase BJohn:

The universe cannot create itself.
We suppose that something else created it--something else for which this limitation does not apply.
Therefore there must be a cause that is uncaused.

See the petitio principii?

776. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101751 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Russell Blackford: Part of the trouble is that Christianity just may be good for the world, on balance, when you consider the realistic alternatives.
Your point reminds me of Dennett's "nurse crop" analogy: some poor structures may be necessary stabilizers that allow better structures to develop.

We wonder about the first replicators that initiated the story of life. We might wonder, how did non-biological replicators emerge from the system of biological replicators? How did we get this thing we call thought or the memeplex?

Kinship selection gives you clans but not nation states. Religions capable of uniting peoples into non-biological clan-like groups might have provided the primordial environment necessary for thought to emerge.

Consider Somalia, mired in centuries of clan warfare. An Islamic state in power 100 years ago might have united the clans long enough for higher-order structures like universities to have emerged.

In the modern third world, I hope there's some way to bypass the problems of industrialization, centralization, and nationalism and go right to an era of trans-national information processing and management.

Fibre optic to the hut, or something.

777. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101739 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 9:04 pm

If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

778. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101735 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 8:54 pm

This thread wins the "most use of the word 'bollocks' among the first 40 comments" prize.

779. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101731 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 8:45 pm

The universe itself is nothing, if I recall correctly. The total mass-energy of the universe = 0.

Something arises from nothing at the quantum level. This we can observe.

Yet when all those quanta are added together, you get a whole universe of nothing.

Pleasing symmetry, no?

780. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101703 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 7:27 pm

As I recall, a "quantum" is a descriptor, not a thing. At some fundamental level of reality, as we can perceive it, reality is discrete rather than continuous.

In nothing, something spontaneously appears. The something is a bit of matter and antimatter, which cancel each other out. Except when they don't. Then Bang! You get a universe. Maybe.

The physicist guys are working this stuff out still. Maybe they'll never solve the whole puzzle.

Nonetheless, we do see something arising from nothing.

781. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #101682 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 6:25 pm

He would reply, "Of course there are Ratz in heaven, dummkopf!"

782. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101679 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 6:12 pm

dsouzaphile: i think the hatred stems from the frustration of watching a bankrupt idoligy like athieism wither in the face of truth and reason...
And superior logic and spelling ability, natch.

783. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101669 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm

The ontological argument revisited.

Imagine the most implausible God possible. What would make such a God even more implausible, if not His actual existence?

Therefore by definition, the most implausible God you can't believe in actually exists.

784. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101646 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 4:35 pm

We could have fun with this logic for hours, couldn't we. Each person trying to out-do the other in implausibility, and thereby proving their case.

785. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101643 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 4:28 pm

That last sentence was a surpise: the fact it's all clearly such bollocks means it isn't.

786. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101632 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Hey Steve's here. We can compare notes.

Air Force officers: unbelievably hot?

787. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101592 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Humans are survival mammals. Reason is not their strong suit. I don't care how many PhDs, how high the IQ, you can make a human say and do stuff that don't make sense without much effort.

You gotta love 'em anyway. Poor bastards. Once they start figuring out what life is and how to make the most of it, they're soon falling to pieces and ready for the grave. Cruel joke, that. If you didn't laugh, you'd die for the crying.

Kindness is all we have ultimately.

788. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101580 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Army, Navy, Marines, I would guess a techno collection might provoke a few "don't-ask-don't-tell" jokes. Always thought of the Air Force as more broad minded.

789. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101569 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Remember that men require a bit of, ah, inflating before they're of much use. Give him a sense of importance.

Disclaimer: today is old-fashioned sexist politics day. Advice not to be generalized to all couples and circumstances.

790. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101554 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm

In the midst of this romantic tangent, an airforce officer suddenly appears. There must be a God.

annabanana, I bet it's not dogmatism or militancy that bothers your beau. More likely it's competition for your attention.

791. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101534 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Best not to draw attention to the power thing, as it fucks with male heads.

Most of my dating life I didn't believe women had much power, although my husband told me that he'd felt at the mercy of any female he was involved with. Gradually through him, I learned to appreciate how sexual selection works.

792. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101527 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Women dispense power.

Tell him that "sexed up atheism" means "sexiest atheists," then swoon a little.

Or say that you recognize the metaphysical differences between you, and you're hoping he'll hold it against you.

793. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101516 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Atheism is a mere conclusion. What matters is reason, or the method of evaluating the truth of a claim using the four standards of logic, parsimony, falsifiability, and verification.

Some argue that the deist God violates parsimony. However, there is a counter to this argument that has some merit.

Apathy prevents me from worrying about the atheism vs. deism distinction. The deist god is a placeholder for that which is beyond our understanding. Yawn.

Why would a deist feel offended by stuff at RichardDawkins.net?

794. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101494 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Good story Limey. That's the battle line: people assuming everyone naturally respects religious rituals to such a degree that even nonbelievers should passively participate. I'd love to see the line moved back within my lifetime one notch: allow nonbelievers the option of non-participation without feeling excluded.

795. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101423 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 10:49 am

Earlier Richard M asked if it matters if words are spoken or sung. Well, there's a spectrum. The more artful the setting of a message, the less it matters.

Encoder-->message-->decoder.

Conversation usually serves message fidelity. In contrast, artistic works are designed to provoke an emotional or physical response in the decoder. Vague or ambiguous messages often serve this purpose best, as the decoder is forced to personalize the message.

Much modern art is concerned with the fracture lines within the decoder --e.g., the separation of meaning and understanding, as in, "there's something about the painting that I really like, but I can't say what it is."

Family secret: my husband discovered many years ago that if he were sitting on the can and things were moving slower than he might like, by calling to mind Billy Joel's "Honesty," somehow his colon got the groove. Now, if "Ave Maria" had a more reliable effect, would anyone begrudge an atheist the use of it?

It might seem to be about Aslan, but really it's about Jesus. It might seem to be about Jesus, but really it's about coping with a miscarriage. It might seeem to be about... and on and on, because we are each alone within our own feelings.

796. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #101126 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 12:17 am

So my question is: Is RD Gods flea?
Traditionally, when a man insults you, you do not then respond with a request for further insult. Unless you're into that sort of thing.

797. This Is Not a Test

Comment #101125 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 12:08 am

If I were younger, Diacanu, I would say you have it goin' on.

I mean, got it goin' on.

798. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100917 by Dr Benway on December 19, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I can't comprehend how an atheist would be committed to bringing up his children as Catholics. Can anyone explain this logic?
One word: pussy.

"Bringing the kids up Catholic" means baptism, first communion, confirmation, and an hour of CCD per week during the academic year. Oh and going to church on Sundays at least monthly-ish. It's not really a mind control thing. Or it wasn't in my case.

799. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100901 by Dr Benway on December 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Most here would agree that Frosty the Snowman isn't a problem (eh?). I concede that I'd decline to sing carols if some listeners might imagine I were trying to sell Christianity.

But where is the line in the murky middle for most here?

Handel's Messiah isn't a problem for me, provided it's well performed. Is it over the line for others?

I dislike "Faith of our Fathers" lyrically and musically and would not sing it.

Same with tripe like "I believe in Santa Claus," which isn't particularly religious.

All those old carols that basically say, "Look a baby! Everbody sing!" don't bother me. The story of a homeless mother and father overjoyed by their newborn in spite of tough times can be touching.

800. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100823 by Dr Benway on December 19, 2007 at 11:57 am

In later comments to the BBC News website, Mr Clegg added: "I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith, I'm married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics.
The word "committed" is an overstatement and a mistake. The time is ripe for politicians to move a notch beyond the tedious bad faith everyone has come to expect. The days of massaging dissonance with eloquence are behind us. Kids today don't have time to write using entire words and sentences. They text, "R U 4 real?"

Mr. Clegg, you are young. Lose the blah blah blah and people will respond.

Rather than feigning respect for beliefs you don't hold, say something like: "I'm not a believer, but my wife is Catholic and our kids are being raised as Catholics. Not everyone can live with compromises like this, but many can. We make it work by agreeing to disagree in some areas and focusing on the many wonderful things we have in common."

When forced to support a policy you don't like, say as much. Say, "I'm voting for X against my conscience because my party needs so-and-so's support on Y, and they won't give it without our support for X."

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next