51. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178218 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 12:02 am

Evojosh,

Whenever we suggest that something will evoke pride in someone, we never know for sure. We are expressing the opinion that it should make them proud, or that it would not be surprised.

As for wanting Boteach dead... of course Hitler would want that. Boteach is a Jew. Would he keep the Rabbi around for his imitative screeching?

52. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178212 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Entlightenme.. ,

My feeling is, that in mentioning that Hitler bombed England, he was suggesting that Dawkins ought to be as disgusted by Hitler as Boteach is, as if he wasn't, and is apparently insinuating that RD is in fact not, or that, dare I say, he may even have some admiration for Hitler.

A disgraceful power play that Boteach is orchestrating against Richard, attempting to shame him into rescinding his comparison out of mutual enmity towards a past figure.

Or maybe Boteach simply wants to reinforce the taboo of referencing the ordinary, unremarkable man, a psychopath among many, by the name of Hitler, and that this taboo is especially applicable to Dawkins because, after all, Hitler bombed England.

Yeah, well Germany has Allied scars too, and I'm sure the incendiary bombs over German cities are not forgotten.

53. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178208 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm

SilentMike:

I do know what RD meant to say. He meant to to say that Boteach shrieks like Hitler, and would make Hitler proud in emulating his oratory style. It is you who is interpreting that on subtextual levels.

The case did not demand no Hitler reference either. Schmuley clearly shrieks like Hitler. Dawkins is therefore all the more justified in making it.

It seems to me that you are treating Hitler as a God, or perhaps, as some have in my experience, at least the Devil Incarnate. The truth was, as Phil Rimmer has pointed out, was that he was an ordinary, non-supernatual human being- a very evil one, a psychopathic one, but unequivocally, an ordinary, unremarkable one. There is no jinx to invoking his name. His spirit isn't floating around to murder any more innocent Jews any time you do invoke his name. But your reverence for his memory, and your willingness to be offended on behalf of Jews, or any other persecuted cultures that suffered by his hand and those of his henchman, is remarkably similar to some atheists' willingness to be offended on behalf of theists, when one of us invokes God, by touching a wound kept "quiveringly fresh" as PR put it... I would say that a reference to Hitler in the context of racism, would be warranted in association with a genocidal Arab terrorist. Likewise in the context of rhetoric and delivery, or any other conext, any association, true or false, is not to be barred for reasons of "insensitivity." The truth of the association is the responsibility of the speaker to support.

There is nothing special, nothing forbidding, in Hitler, or in referencing Hitler. Hitler is not the Devil Incarnate.

Schmuley makes himself associable. He has it coming.

Furthermore, to a rational person, this is not class A ammo in the least. Not only is Dawkin's association warranted and explicitly limited, but...

Schmuley titled his response to "An Open Letter to Rabbi Schmuley Boteach" as "My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler", which itself referred to one sentence amongst many in Dawkin's letter. This is misleading. It suggests Richard's piece was entirely devoted to comparing Boteach to Hitler. You may call it a hook, or adverising appeal, but above all it is an emotional appeal and by no means a contextual or rational one.

Any thinking person can see through this. Is the fact that some people DON'T think our fault too?

Why didn't Schmuley say, "My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler in the context of my oratory style"?

Or,

"My response to Richard Dawkins comparing my oratory style to Hitler's"?

Or maybe just,

"My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler in one sentence out of hundreds of others."

So why didn't he then? Because he wants you to evoke all the unwarranted associations for him. He wants you to buy into his false advertising. He wants you to abandon rationality and context and embrace unbridled emotion- that unbridled hatred most of us all have for Hitler, that inevitably causes us to confuse one aspect of this ordinary man's character, pointed out and referenced, with every other aspect of his character.

Orion:

Right, so when a woman is uniquely and evidently associable in some respect(s)to a whore, unlike women in general, she has it coming.

Oh but you're so scared of hurting feelings... oh no, oh dear. Well let's pretend what's obvious, isn't... or maybe if we say she's associable to a "successful, self-managing, high-class escort of repute with many well-heeled clients,", political correctness and feminism will be satisfied, and the luscious excess of something like her lipstick application will of no doubt be of less discomfort to people like you if pointed out.

Euphemisms don't change the point! Only people's minds, which is too bad.

And, don't worry about apologising to me... haha. I think you're wrong!

As would RD I bet. He and I also share the "smear by association" of likely being mutually indifferent to your opinion.

Whether it is in reference to Hitler or Whores, we must be consciously geared towards, as Dan Dennett would say, breaking the spell.

54. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178070 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I wonder if I am becoming sycophantic in my reviews of RD. But anyways...

Seeing Richard on the offensive made me conclude that the Rottweiller had finally emerged. Or maybe it's his diminished patience for repetitive radio announcers.

You know, he could set himself up as a psychic, with the startling ability to predict with astonishing accuracy, what a radio answer will ask him...

I think I've heard RD reference this guy before. He was right to demand that Humphry's take all guests to task equally, politician or priest. I thought John's interview with O'Connor was suitably aggressive (although I wish he had the pressure maintained on him for a litle longer), and wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins was to thank for this.

Some heavy breathing on the clergyman's part while he was being interviewed. Not surprisingly, what with his likely doublethinking...

"I'm going to lie or try to evade providing a non-circular answer."

Swiftly covered up with,

"Look, I'm telling the absolute truth."

Anyways- the "Atheist's Straw Man" argument is SUCH a pain, as we are only using the beloved God of the holy texts, long abandoned by the faithful in favour of personal preference.

"That's not the God I believe in!" Well you aren't Christian then, are you?

Secondly, how the Cardinal can conclude that faith can still be reasonable once you've gone beyond reason... I'l leave it there.

Nonetheless, I think it comes down to the religious' certainty of the truth of their faith. That they conclude what is true simply for the reason that the wish it is precisely the problem. To declare truth (which no one knows absolutely) itself as reasonable is reasonable.

If you have faith in the truth (not that you need faith in truth at all, but nevermind) then your faith must be reasonable as well, even if it has moved beyond reason!

55. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177788 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm

And Boteach doesn't wear lipstick (I presume).

One possible response to the charge of "Your wife wears lipstick like a whore" would therefore be:

"What about the whores who don't wear lipstick?"

:)

56. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177782 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Phil Rimmer,

That was put a lot more eloquently than I achieved in my last post, and I wish I had said the same. Thank you very much.

Good point about Hitler's ordinariness, and the "inverted reverence."

I too worry about keeping wounds freshs, and skins thin.

And about the women-and-lipstick issue- such a situation would be difficult to handle delicately in any case (put mildly), but something along the lines of "you wouldn't want people to have the wrong impression" I suppose would be best. Right on. I admit I haven't had this occur yet... it makes me laugh to contemplate it though. It would be sticky, for sure...

57. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177768 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Tosser,

He is certainly not immune from being critised. Right now, you are criticising him. This is the beautiful, practical thing about freedom of opinion and expression. Please, continue! I'm simply obliging in the same manner towards you.

Most women don't wear lipstick like whores. They're trying to avoid the association. By the way- is colour the best point of association? That Schmuley doesn't attempt to avoid an association with Hitler and is shocked, as are many people, when someone does make that correlation, is mystifying to me.

You see? We are shocked about different things.

Again Dawkins is under no obligation to take responsibility for other people's allusions. He was very clear what the only point of correlation was and took pains to negate the connotations. Why can't you just be reasonable and accept that?

Saying "You're wife wears lipstick like a whore, but she's not one" (which was not in your original example) is surely better from an accuracy point of view than excluding the second phrase. Now go ahead and quote that in future posts...

People's primary concern is the implication that she IS a whore, right? Not just childish, irrational fear of an association (that happens to be true).

I think the "..."'s in your examples are meant to indicate an equality between the entities being compared.

Lipstick-wearing women=whores

Evolutionists=Nazis

These are, of course, egregiously dishonest, and demonstrate a critical difference that separates Dawkins from your examples.

In fact, Ben Stein giving his example is self-contradictory: that is the only thing he could be implying- That evolutionists are Nazis (some of them were I suppose- nonetheless a gross generalisation and false association) or that evolution at the very least is responsible for Nazism. It wasn't.

Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot.

Anyways, furthermore, if Dawkins does apologise, which he shouldn't, it will surely have the unfortunate effect of encouraging stupid people to wrongly conclude that freeing Schmuley from the association with Hitler frees him from the criticism of his inane ideas while ranting like Hitler, which of course is the reason he resorts to ranting in said fashion to begin with.

Make any comparison you like. Dawkins has made his, but Boteach will always, if we are doomed to be unlucky, fail to make sense, and use his present style of oration to cover it.

58. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177763 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm

SilentMike,

I'm simply saying our aim should not be to make people comfortable at the expense of truth. That is certainly in common between telling people God is not likely to exist, nor is heaven, and the fact that Boteach shrieks like Hitler.

And as for smearing by association- so what? The only thing being associated IS oratory style. You're making, as is everybody desperate to make a dent in Dawkin's armour, a mountaintain out of the molehill of irrelevance that is the rest of Hitler's character. So give it a rest, will you? It's irrelevant!

The best way to avoid "smearing by association" is to avoid being associable. Duh! Schmuley's a crybaby.

Could Richard have picked a better example? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I feel the same way about a lot of my ex-girlfriends.

Orion:

I'm glad we agree. Instead of crying out loud and censoring ourselves from referencing people like Hitler, monster as he was, whenever we feel uncomfortable in the face of truth, why don't we wait for context, as in the context of "Schmuley shrieks like Hitler." Not to do so is irrational. Think about it. There's no reason to censor.

So... Schmuley shrieks like Hitler. Yeah? It's true- and it's not objectionable if you aren't making further superfluous, unwarranted associations. Dawkin's is a very simple, very literal, and limited statement. In no way is Dawkins associating any other aspects of the two men. Dawkins has used Hitler as his example, so use another if you want. Stop whining that he didn't, and stop making unconscious associations, or associations automatically, that aren't warranted!

We're supposed to be rational here!

Ooooh, I haven't stirred controversy here in a while!

59. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177695 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Tosser,

I didn't want to change my post now, but I meant to say the "possibility OF sobriety and sense" in your quote. Grrr! I hate gramatical and spelling errors on my part!

Anyways Richard is under no obligation to apologise. He is exercising his freedom of speech, and the act of demanding an apology is often an act of callous and condescending one-upmanship, which I think it is from Schmuley, and you as well, if you mean it.

He is also under no obligation to take responsibility for the allusions people infer from the reference to Hitler in addition to the stated one. In referencing him, Dawkins is clearly alluding to his oratory style. That people reflect upon gas chambers, the SS and other grotesqueries of Nazism upon hearing the word "Hitler" is no fault of his. So do we censor the word? Get real. It is simply wrong to blame Richard for people's further allusions. We all possess intellectual freedom, and take responsibility for this. Richard has been very clear and strict in outlining his single allusion, and consumers of the information have taken to corrupting by unnecessarily expanding it.

It's a poor way to receive and critique information.

60. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177686 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Ruggles,

There is a rather thick line separating passion and hysteria.

The tradition of the strong oratory style used by preachers predates the eminence of men like Boteach, King, and Hitler, as does the Church itself. Forceful delivery in itself could not be traced to Hitler's use of it. Hitler is not responsible for the strong style of speech and we would not refer to him for this reason.

One can delivery a speech as a preacher and retain your sobriety and sense. This is what King did.

Hitler is probably precedented in his delusion, and in fact insanity, athough the myth-based and pagan idiocy of Nazism would naturally have required delusion to believe.

Richard's remark is pejorative not because he evokes Hitler, but because I think it's obvious he dislikes how Schmuley communicates himself and his general comportment. Richard has made it clear that he believes that Schmuley has sensible things to say. They can be said calmly. Leave out the nonsense, concealed by the ranting and shrieking.

Why evoke Hitler? I will address your alternatives.

To suggest Schmuley's style is dicatorial is a mistake for two reasons. The first is that it leaves Richard exposed to being asked, "Well, would you say my style is akin, to say, Hitler?" in an attempt to utilise political correctness to scare Dawkins into answering no. Hitler is the most famous, feared, and villifed dictator in history, and whenever one thinks of the word, one think of him. He is the obvious strategic choice for a challenge. The second reason is that a dictatorial style does not denote by default raving and shrieking. If you're Stalin, just say what you want as you're not really an orator anyway, and shoot anyone who dissents. In fact, to indicate a dictatorial style is to imply a Hitlerian style- one is presumably indicating a predilection for fanaticism and lunacy. It's just people don't like to use the word "Hitler" or its derivatives. They don't really like to use the word "dictator" or its derivates either frankly.

To say Boteach's style is demagogic is to invite the possibility of sobriety and sense, as well as retaining the notion of passion- a la King.

A Hitlerian style is both dictatorial and demagogic, yet excludes the possibility and sobriety and sense. It is the best adjective to describe Schmuley's delivery.

Damn the fact that it makes people squeamish. It makes people squeamish to say God doesn't exist, and that they aren't going to paradise, unless the long odds are in their favour.

61. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177627 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 11:43 am

Ruggles,

Racial exclusivity, repulsive militant nationalism and agrarian romanticism are the content of Hitler's speeches. They are WHAT he said. They are the values Hitler publically and politically espoused.

Richard is strictly addressing HOW Hitler espoused them, and how Schmuley unwittingly draws the obvious comparison.

62. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177621 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

Re: Comment 64, by Adonais.

A good bit of consciousness raising there. Atheists DO get equated to Hitler incessantly, on the basis of our "faith" (*cough* sorry, something bitter in my mouth there...) which is surely as offensive as being compared to Hitler on the basis of oratory style.

And I will simply say that not referencing Hitler in describing Schmuley due to political correctness and the hurt-feelings card they play is distasteful to put it mildly to me, and a deliberately nod to inaccuracy. Hitler is the obvious comparison. Schmuley is a reknown shrieker. Hitler was an extraordinarily reknown shrieker. And hey, if Schmuley wants to shriek, then we ought to offer him the very best (and intrisically distasteful to him) example.

I think it's a weapon we shouldn't pass up. Make him play by our oratory rules by pitting his own contempt for Hitlerism against him.

With regards to my own person, I am tall, blond-haired, and blue-eyed. I'd have been Hitler's poster boy, and I've admitted it myself in the past. It seems to me by being both an atheist and western European in heritage, there is no hurt-feelings card I could play even if I chose to sink to such despicable depths. I'd spit in the face of the offer of representing Nazism, but such a comparison to Nazi ideology, and Nazi ideals, will not compel me to seek reconstuctive surgery.

Richard is advocating for Schmuley something far less painful:

Stop shrieking like Hitler, and you have an outside chance of having to say something more sensible than him as well.

63. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177225 by DalaiDrivel on May 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I didn't know he was a born again.... God those people are unbearable.

And just to think- if he kept on drinking it might have disqualified him from holding political office...

But if he's not drinking, you might say he's had a few too many sermons, and the effect is the same.

It's futile to speculate. But one can still reflect warmly on the possibilities if things had been different.

64. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177197 by DalaiDrivel on May 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Dawkins is searing and succinct to a T. Schmuley does need to be more educated.

Remember his shrieking in the Hitchens debate, arms outstretched in theatrical disbelief: "Where are the transitional fossils?!! Where are they?!!"

Of course, they are buried (a few), or permanently deteriorated and recycled by Earth's systems. They are not with Schmuley's head, buried up his ass, which must be his point of reference.

The understated delivery of this "friendly piece of advice" is a work of good comedy in itself, more satisfying for the reader than brash, forceful comedy, the sort which Schmuley would serve up, which would be best described as overcooked.

The intelligent among us would watch an exchange between Richard and Schmuley, and observe a vacuum in effect, created by polarities in delivery. On one side you experience a measured economy of both words and volume leaving ample space to comprehend or respond, and dense explosions of irrating inanity on the other. And we would surely all be waiting on Dawkins in equal fascination and desperation, our attention drawn to the vacuum, until Schmuley self-destructs or someone with controlled calm (or not) says, "Excuse me, but could you please just shut up now?" We are seeking equilibrium, I think, because I honestly doubt that Schmuley is leaving any space to absorb what others might be telling him, and there needs to be calm and concise delivery from all commentators if they wish to sincerely participate.

We need more intelligent people to address Schmuley and others like him on their stupidity. Stupid people may hopefully be able to recognise after a proper demonstration that Schmuley is merely as stupid as they are, be able to break their own spell if we haven't, and see that in fact other people truly worth listening to exist.

Henceforth, the blustering rantings of uneducated commentators will diffuse, and the vacuum derived from the disparity between the statements of the intelligent and the stupid will do the same.

65. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #176744 by DalaiDrivel on May 7, 2008 at 11:45 pm

I must say, when Lawrence touched on quantum mechanics and the "Many Worlds" interpretation, investigating observation as a factor in determining event outcomes, and the infinite branches representing series of events in infinite other coexisting universes, I automatically developed a grin on my face.

How fascinating is this! Soon after watching and listening to that I was speaking, still spell-bound, to a friend, describing this exchange, and I was saying "This is what is so awesome and extraordinary about science! It's the stuff of dreams, the stuff of fantasy!"

And yet, critically, not. Things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the electron passing between two slits simultaneously put our evolved brains in a blender! Such notions that are beyond our imagination and our ability to encapsulate are nonetheless real and hugely compelling to those in the pursuit of a fundamental understanding of the universe.

The universe is indeed stranger than we can suppose. How beautiful, how stupendous, how magnificent it is that we still come up with these serious yet sober ideas and investigate them rigorously.

I found this discussion stimulating, and the format effective. It was a meeting of two intelligent men with such evident mutual respect and amiability.

66. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176645 by DalaiDrivel on May 7, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Chato,

You're sad to say the Spirit is real? Sad? Honestly?

I am (honestly) sad to say this can only be wishful thinking on your part.

Currently, there is no evidence that says the spirit DOES exist- unless you mean human nature and human characteristics, which are of course present across ethnicities.

Or unless you mean consciousness, an entity which scientists are rigorously investigating, as they would and should.

Or anything else.

It can only be your opinion that religions are corrupted, as within each religion each schism is equually invalid and equally stupid, and simultaneously corrupt to each other and accurate to themselves, as are religions similarly in turn.

Frankus1122- you're completely correct.

67. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175996 by DalaiDrivel on May 6, 2008 at 10:32 am

BW022,

Well, that's precisely where we should be.

I think the fairly obvious answer is that Muslims would cease to prey on our values of free speech and free thought.

That's it! I'm going out and making a T-Shirt: "Proud to be an Infidel!" or something like that. No, kidding...

Anyway... the truth is that Muslims are fallble human beings wth fallible minds and fallible beliefs, and something like your point about re-running articles with the threats added would I think be effective in evoking their ingrained human sense of humiliation.

Not just that, but I in the end it would aid integration of Muslims in society. No radical would want to stick out in a majority of free writers, free speakers, and free thinkers, even if that majority is targeted.

I live in Vancouver, Canada, and as everyone who's been here knows, the pot culture is prolific. So when there was a public mass smoke-up downtown on 420 this year, involving thousands of people, the police just sat back and went "meh, can't arrest all of them."

If Muslims are just humans, and we are just humans, it should work the same. Now how we get there I think is by steady intellectual leadership. I mean sharing ideas in the Western tradition, yet armed with courage and tenacity, by setting an example to everyone whom we know. This can be done by mass address, if we are politicians or people of influence, or under the radar, as Sam would put it, at the grassroots. The numbers of the courageous will grow with exposure to this free openness.

No one is saying that Muslims must embrace Western ideology ultimately. But they do if they want to live in the West. Thoeoretically as our society is dynamic it could morph into a theocracy or secular dictatorship at the hands of radicals, but only by their piggy-backing on our acquiescence and the very dynamicism that they despise, and by ignoring the history and evolution of our culture. It's interesting to reflect on the ignorance of history that suppressive regimes have, something Orwell epitomised so well in his description of Oceania's bureaucracy in 1984. In reality, this is generally, and I think rightly, regarded as a bad move...

I don't know why I am urged to write so much upon reading Sam's work. I know that I like his ideas and delivery very much. I am an apologist...



Vinelectric,

I'm with you all the way. You might say we have a reason surplus, and we're giving it away... for free! Free reception, another spin on the ideology of free expression. I'm serious. We all know how religion responds to inquiry and curiosity. There is a cost. It's unreasonable to suppress good ideas, or any ideas on an arbitrary basis. Share them freely, have them received freely. That is what I meant by the "free openness" I wrote earlier.

68. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175748 by DalaiDrivel on May 6, 2008 at 1:01 am

Vinelectric,

Don't pretend like your right to free speech isn't oppressed.

This is no time for clowning around (sure, pun intended). Fanaticism that attempts to establish a totalitarian regime on the shoulders and at the expense of a deliberately open society is not a subject for jokes (there we go again...).

Issues of expression don't get resolved without confrontation in the form of discussion or else violence. Somebody or everybody is going to be offended to some degree. So take your pick. I know what's been employed so far to great success by one side, and to the fear of the Western media and public.

No, the very thing you want are your leaders stirring up trouble to make a point, precisely because "the point" is so glaringly easy to make, and because it's as if the trouble was enthusiastically waiting there all along.

As Sam said, no community is so combustible as the Muslim community.

The "right not to be offended" is about as valid, and about as incensingly banal, as the old "talk to the hand" trick that taunting kids used to pull in elementary school.

But I think that's pretty close to what Muslims are actually doing. Taunting us, don't you think?

69. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175582 by DalaiDrivel on May 5, 2008 at 4:25 pm

HeyBishop,

Yeah, well it is real.

You cannot get more frank than Sam Harris. His eloquence is the the only literative flair that would align this piece with science fiction.

I wouldn't deny the reality. Because if you're not presently learning Arabic and haven't visited the local Mosque paying homage to Allah, I'll warrant that simply not offending Muslims isnt going to assure your safety in a future of unchecked, proliferated fundamentalism. And don't forget, once you've signed over to to the Almighty Celestial Dick-tator, you know you'll be on the fast-track to divine punishment shout you defect from the faith thanks to your psycho comrades.

Oh yeah- "the right not to be offended." What pathetic horseshit. It's not us who identify infidels as dogs (someone told me just yesterday that the closest organism to an to infidel is a canine). Well, I've received better compliments recently. Instead of the right not to be offended, try the right to offend. The right to offend is the reason this virus of Islam made its way into the West in the first place. We've had it dished to us, and our fear of faith-criticism has prevented our dishing it back. I doubt too that Western faith institutions would be so compassionate, so buddy-buddy, despite their mutual adherence to a faith, with the Mosques if they were as intolerant and intent on maintaining a"right not to be offended." But then, they are an integrated, fallible part of Western society.

Muslims are abdicating their responsibility to mount a defense to their views. They live in the Western world and pretend that they do not, that they are infallible; that they are not subject to the process of using discourse, argument, and opposition to ideas as a means of progress. In other words, using offense as a means of positive social development. This is not acceptable, and they ought to get used to being offended, if we have any sense to preserving our Western values.

That Muslims who emigrate from a stifling theocracy in order to set up a kind of splinter theocracy in an intentionally accommodating, vulnerable Western world is as palpably and disgracefully ironic as the way in which they act like teary-eyed babies, prepared to sulk and then turn and kill you after they've used "right not to be offended" as a euphemism for "purge this host society of all those at risk to offend that which I don't want criticised."

This is the layering that Sam is referring to. Waaa-waaa die infidel!

I am Islamophobic, yes, because my intellectual immune system is sick of this Islamic virus of abdication, infallibility and intolerance within Western society. Certainly, the world be a finer, safer place, and a plac with brighter potential, without Islam.

70. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175559 by DalaiDrivel on May 5, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Islam is Peace- without the infidel!

More accurately, Islam, if all goes to plan, will be peace.

What's the alternative when there's no one left to kill?

Maybe the wife can be stoned the next time she says anything to the deadbeat husband...

Man... oh well... keep the articles and the outcry against the psychopaths coming.

71. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172657 by DalaiDrivel on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I heard about the lecture by reading this article in the Vancouver Sun.

Indeed, I went. The slideshow was as impressive as it ever was. He is extremely natural in his delivery of it too, as he would be by now.

I couldn't quite believe he had come to Vancouver!

72. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167115 by DalaiDrivel on April 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Of course, I am backing Dennett in this debate, and while I think we are naturaly cautious generally at confrntation as a species (it hurts survival) the "Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion" motto has substantial reason to anyone here.

My best friend recently admitted to me that he is no longer a believer, after attending Church up until 2 or so months ago, after being a server in the church, and being confirmed.

What I admire most about his position is that it took him no time at all to go "OK- guess I'm an Atheist now." He took no time at all to raise the middle finger to the celestial dictatorship.

It certainly wasn't like that for me. It took me a long time to full grasp and then let go of the conceptof oblivion following death, and it took me time to accept the theoretically ambiguous moniker of Atheist, after realising its expediency- meaning non-relgious. When I say I'm an atheist, at least people know where I stand in practice.

I didn't try and convert him. But he was my best friend and I certainly discussed my doubts, my reading of Dawkins and Hitchens, and offered my critical thinking. In other words I think I rubbed off on him.

It comforts me that the people I hang out with are "no bullshit" people, at least when any bullshit is discussed and made conscious.

About Lord Winston, his saying religion is a form of man's uncertainty is interesting, and I find it eloquent, but I think it is only partially or indirectly correct. I think it is a form of man's denial of his uncertainty.

73. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157243 by DalaiDrivel on April 8, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I've sent her my e-mail.

74. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157228 by DalaiDrivel on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

It is absolutely true to say what he did, and fair to her that she receives this ridicule.

I would be angry at her bigotry if just listening to the actual recording of her tirade wasn't so god-damn (said in all sincerity) amusing.

75. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156483 by DalaiDrivel on April 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I'm sure biologically that she has a functionable cerebrum up there that happens to be frustrated at its lack of use...

She seems to be employing the "speak as stridently as possible to prevent any interruption or contradiction" strategy (although I haven't listened to the audio). It's when a religious person attempts to make white noise out of the reasoning of atheists or any reasonable person for that matter.

I like to think of it in terms of an Oceania citizen in Orwell's 1984 having to ignore whole strains of thought by applying the term "thoughtcrime" to it. Or being in that Orwellian emotional state conducive to war, which is certainly the emotional state of anyone who accuses atheists of "beating the drum of Darwin" or things like that.

Our own ADH, I recall, once pondered outloud the possiblity of atheists consciously blocking the voice of God. Even if that is so (and in a sense, I for one do block the voice of God), there are blatant examples of obstruction going the other way, such as this. I like to think any blocking of belief I do, mainly for its egoism (oh God loves me...), suspect logic, and false promises/threats, is at the least measured, considered, and courageous.

Madam, your brain must be pretty pissed off at you.

76. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143808 by DalaiDrivel on March 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Appleby,

Unfortunately, it has to be this way.

People must understand the elementary arguments first. Basic questions that people still aren't asking openly, or more frighteningly, not even asking themselves.

For those of us who've read TGD et al and take it quite seriously, what we really want I think is an All Access Pass to various philosophical or atheist conferences. Or at the very least more videos like The Four Horsemen.

I certainly do. I lap this stuff up.

77. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143149 by DalaiDrivel on March 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Richard is tenacious. He has been espousing the merits of science in explaining the splendour of the universe for a very long time now, as it struck me watching the "Break the Science Barrier" series (no offense to his age or looks... :) ) It is no real stretch and not very tiresome for him to narrow the focus of his passion and lectures to attacking religion.

I suspect every tour is like new to him, because the audience is bigger and he has the opportunity to reach new people who haven't heard the elementary arguments and questions before. The more nuanced arguments and material are for us... :P

Actually- it is probably very tiresome for him. But he knows it's worth it. A culture of critical thinking will rouse doubts on its own. To have a public speaker repeat the questions many are hopefully asking themselves (if not courageously others) will make it very difficult indeed for religion to conceal its "lowly origins" as Hitchens timelessly put it.

As for us- we're seasoned readers and seasoned atheists mostly (and yes, I even call myself an atheist now out of expediency). This article is not directed at us, and thus we must be patient with our fellow doubters. It's fun following Richard's exploits and the patient, substantive impact he's sure to have on the culture of belief. In fact, I enjoyed reading this article knowing what it would spark in terms of curiosity and questions in novice unbelievers. :P It's literally reason to hope.

EDIT: That last line is incredibly cheesy. Sorry if someone had the misfortune to read or worse, think of it before me (probably). It doesn't stop me, however, from liking it. We all have faults... Mine is rational however in that I'm fond of puns.

78. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125098 by DalaiDrivel on February 11, 2008 at 12:57 am

"Some Design Huh?"

Indeed.

Methinks God shot himself in the foot with that one.

Very similar in the fact to the way Boteach bloodied his lower appendages with every pin-drop silence following an incredibly mis-managed joke (non-joke?) delivery.

Really... people with no sense of humour should not fall under such dangerous self-delusions of wit. It's very very awkward and depressing.

I remember reading as well in Bill Brsyons's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" about the scarce likelihood that a creature will be fossilised.

Not very.

I'm not so troubled by Boteach's transitional fossil argument.

79. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #119403 by DalaiDrivel on January 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Echoing others, I thought the Humanist representative was well-spoken.

The atheist RE teacher was incredibly hot...

I can't shake from my overall impression the word games that the Right Reverend in particular was playing, to the point of being as evasive as the shall I say damn-mucky Dr. Muckadam.

And while not being English myself, the notion of England being a Christian culture I don't buy. At best,it used to be. A culture only exists so far as there are people who subscribe to it, and while there certainly are, they aren't the only examples of the English.

If England was a Christian culture, I'll hazard that there'd probably have been no London train bombings, and larger European Islamification would be mere scaremongering a joke, with each country having its own secure religious identity.

Furthermore I think the Reverend nicely illustrates the difficulty in bullshitting when a show host is asking healthy, pointed questions that can be answered rationally with ease, with a bit of political incorrectness and religious incorrectness perhaps, but like I give a damn about that.

Except... when a Hindu speaks out about the false courtesy and political tip-toeing played to one another by the Abrahamic faiths, each content in the knowledge of the inevitable epiphany, and punishment,of the heretic after death.

Good show I say to that Hindu! That's the political and religious-incorrectness I admire!

I also wonder about the wearing of the hijab, whether or not Muslim women's choice to wear one as Muslimds matters in the slightest since they are already obliged to.

Embracing it doesn't make it benign. In fact it more likely means you were indoctrinated.

80. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #119319 by DalaiDrivel on January 31, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I wasn't surprised when the Director of Islamic schools interrupted the representative of the Council of Ex-Muslims. He seemed contented and silent for the male speakers.

Probably because of her gall of both being a woman and questioning the Muslim faith.

And what a wicked evasion of Dawkin's point about apostasy, to say that Islam taught under sharia Iran is (credibly) different than it is taught under a democratic liberal nation.

In my view, there is one book, one code, one set of right and wrong. To have differentiation is a heresy. In other words, completely incredible.

Which is what's so stupid about Christianity in my books too. You can believe as an Anglican- as I once was, apparently, according to those damn child-abusers- that you're going to heaven, all because a certain king wanted a divorce...

He's a cheeky little wanker that Muslim man. I wonder if he is the heretic or the Shahs over in the mother (wait... father- let's be religiously-correct) country are.

I think faith schools should recive NO public funding.

As the woman in the blue said (I forget her title), the faiths lost the democratic debate on homosexuality and abortion.

Stop preaching them to be sin, at least with public money.

81. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117753 by DalaiDrivel on January 29, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Someone may already have raised this, but this man needs a serious smackdown debate.

At least to rub that insulting tone off his commentary.

In fact he sounds confrontational in the manner of a pubescent teenager.

If this is true, he needs discipline, maturity and a continuing education.

82. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114805 by DalaiDrivel on January 22, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Dragonfirematrix,

I'm very happy to surmise that God did not create others in the universe when we aren't sure if he even created us.

Who cares what the Christians think? I'd rather go ahead and find these planets anyway. We'll keep ignoring them until we close the door to the departing spaceship.

We'll dismantle all the nukes first, to prevent them staging their wished-for armaggedon. In fact we should dismantle all nukes anyway.

It's far more humane, and more fun to have them wait.... and wait...

The bottom line is that the Bible is a titch antiquated... ahem, ahem. It's got to updated sometime!

I'm looking forward to the Gospel of the Extraterrestials, or the Extrasolar Testament in fact.

Something more useful for the times we live in.

83. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #113210 by DalaiDrivel on January 18, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Well,

After watching Colbert interview D'Souza...

I see there is no substitute for intelligence.

Yet there is even less (yes I know that's impossible) for wit.

Did it really take Colbert to cause Dinesh to fall, to commit, cutting him off amid protests? Not that I mind...

I'm not too surprised. I think they were well suited- both professionals at different forms of comedy- one sad farce, the other calculated mockery.

Colbert went after D'Souza. You could see that. He was not aggressive at all with Shubin. He didn't crowd the latter with compromising questions for instance.

84. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #113209 by DalaiDrivel on January 18, 2008 at 11:34 pm

If only the creationist found his marine roots in the form of certain evolved organs as fascinating as I do.

This information is so utterly cool!

85. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102496 by DalaiDrivel on December 23, 2007 at 2:47 am

He may be American now...

But his humour is still British. I thought he was fairly deliciously acidic here. His jokes are original even if the serious material isn't.

Anyways- A Christmas pint raised in his direction.

86. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100358 by DalaiDrivel on December 18, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I think the interviewer was attempting to be blunt as well as efficient- I appreciated what looked like his trying to maintain the pace and intensity within the interview.

In doing so he did fall into mockery at times.

Even though Dawkin's sexual parallels at the end will unfortunately make some family types squirm, he definitely was the more impressive and effective participant.

Bear in mind that this interviewer- I think his name is Evan Solomon- comes lately after a long line of Fox/CNN etc. talk show hosts/sacrifices.

87. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #99937 by DalaiDrivel on December 17, 2007 at 10:45 pm

"We ultimately believe that Christians have been persecuted throughout history," said Houser, "so this is nothing new."

... oh so I actually read that...

LOL JESUS CHRIST (oh sir, you go too far this time...)... LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF!!!

lol The only thing for me is whether they`re in fact Christians or closet Jews...

88. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99932 by DalaiDrivel on December 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Thanks, kevin_2050, for your words.

It's not just that "shaping our culture and laws" implies imposition- the tabooing of certain views on the one hand and the illegalising of behaviour or alienating of rights on the other.

It's that I really think Huckabee is lying through his teeth when he says that he and his supporters don't want to impose their religion on anybody.

Sure they do. Their goals are religiously motivated for a start, so they can't help but impose christianity- fundamentalist christianity as well- on a diversely religious public in a legal sense if they are elected.

But as with the shiny "oh but this is good for you" mentality with which the propound all this- the near-sociopathic cheeriness with which they announce their cure to America's sinfulness, I am certain that they will cheerily shove evangelism, or extreme baptism, or whatever, down America's throat, and happily think of all the individual conversions of people they hope to make towards fundamentalist christianity, but as we expect as well as hope probably won't.

What an ambassador to the world Huckabee would make. An incredibly shitty one. He and a few other notable Ruplican candidates, in my opinion.

89. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99819 by DalaiDrivel on December 17, 2007 at 3:53 pm

"It's not that we want to impose our religion on anybody... it's that we want to shape the culture and the laws using a worldview we feel has value."

I think this makes me cringe the most. "We" does not mean the American public as a whole, as some of you here will certainly attest... And the "shaping of culture and laws" can only mean imposition on a national level, naturally, in a presidential campaign, which this is.

I simultaneously admire- because it after all takes an enormous deal of psychological conditioning and fucked-upedness- and despise the way in which evangelicals can shiny-faced, without any reticence, declare that what they believe is good and true and what they intend to do "for" us, especially politically, is good and true.

It seems politics are the only politically correct means to conduct ideological genocide these days...

90. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #99221 by DalaiDrivel on December 16, 2007 at 1:16 am

In comment 50, Steve99 saved me the effort of addressing Mitchell Gilks's first comment.

Thank you Steve, yet I address this post anyway to MG, as well as Summer Seale.

I will just say that I think you make a false god of AHA- that you must follow her essentially unquestioningly. I think the "teasing" that TGA references during the debate applies to the criticisms which we level at our colleagues, as we are doing here, all of us, in this discussion, and which I am doing with you two.

Ali, despite her negro descent, and her ex-fundamentalist, femine, somalian status, I don't feel is exempt from opposition.

Be as politically correct as you want (I am quite politically incorrect, as fate has it), but I actually want to offend you, if necessary, by challenging her even if you think I shouldn`t because of the traits I have just listed, or perhaps simply because she is the fifth prong to the New Atheist seige on the world establishment, and is tantamount to a deity that we ought to revere...

I despise such idols. I resent the idea of submission to any clan from which there could be no escape.

What do you do with an Ali lover who decides they do not love her so much anymore?

You could always behead them... which wont elevate you much socially, but nevertheless...

TGA is quite the slow talker. But I found myself (and as you warned Steve99- or one of you did- I will choose to only speak for myself here...) seeing him as weighing his words deliberately, pausing so as to impress what he was saying upon and be taken more seriously by the audience. I didn't see it as smug. I saw it as sincere, and eloquent, as the antithesis to the Dinish D'Souza-style rant-loudly-and-quickly-so-no one-can-keep-up-with-your-errors.

I have grown tiresome of AHA's reiterance of her autobiography to begin every opening statement to a debate. This is only the second debate I have seen with her, so I may well have no idea what I am talking about, but this only reinforces within me how quickly I have grown tiresome of this observation.

Ali is a speaker, a valued one, against fundamentalist islam. She knows first-hand, better than anyone I have ever heard speak, the psychological and physical grotesquerie of being caged (to borrow from her) in a fundamentalist faith, especially as a woman. I think her mission is deliberately narrowed, against a specific past reality for her. She has nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with moderate islam, and for that we must look for other sources, and TBA may well be on the right track with those- Personally I'm not familiar with the figures named- he suggested we listen to. Perhaps AHA can become more prepared to tackle the spectrum of Islam, and alternative paths forward through the faith, if she can also become prepared to talk less autobiographically.

Everyone, at least here, knows her autobiography by now.

I disliked hearing the little squabble about whether or not beheading for apostates is in the Koran.

"It is not!"

"Yes it is!"

It made them both look like children, and especially Hirsi look like (to me) as if she relied on the audience recognising that she was herself a muslim once in order to believe her.

Last night, I attended a men's gathering (because I'm a sentimental softie that likes to get in touch with his emotional side... oh no... I mean I won't put words in your mouth...) The facilitator recited a story about a boy and an argument he had with his father, and at the end of the story, when the boy had a choice, between killing his father, and killing his step-father (he had left his father's tribe and voluntarily joined a new one), the story ended, without giving his choice.

I protested last night- I interpreted the story literally. The step-father literally gave the son a sword (according to the story) and said, "you must kill one of us." And I recoiled against the idea of killing. When I brought this reaction up to the facilitator, he mentioned the different ways of interpreting a story- literally, metaphorically, and some other way I can't remember...

What if the story didn't matter, and what mattered was our interpretation? What if the best way (and it by no means is certain to be so) to interpret the story was to regard the boy as "killing" his ties with his father... starting a new life, which is the view put forward by the facilitator?

So you know, I have no idea how to interpret the ending. I'm still inclined to interpret literally.

Maybe I've made a mistake mentioning this event out of context- without you being there at the gathering- but I regard it as being similar to interpreting the texts of the Abrahamic Faiths.

Food for thought.

91. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88078 by DalaiDrivel on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Yes, I suppose the UK is looked at enough.

Thanks, Briancoughlan,

Check: Pigment change and adoption of irish accent as immigration requirements.

It's a real dilemma, balancing security and social freedom...

I guess what I'm afraid of, is a fundamentalist muslim coming to the Western World, attesting they're not a terrorist, then attending an isolated fundamentalist mosque, attesting they're not a terrorist, and maybe attending a parade where they burn a few books or effigies, and loses their voice lambasting infidels, while vigorously attesting they are not a terrorist...

And then blowing themselves up. Well they certainly won't be calling themselves anything then.

Do you see what I mean?

I'm sure we'd love to knock the religious' head together to root out fundamentalism for us, and maybe codify beliefs, functions and rituals that everyone must follow within the religions as well.

None of this Catholic/Protestant crap and similar schisms in other religions.

What kind of person starts the Church of England so he can have a divorce, honestly?

That would give them a world of credibility in my mind if they did that. Just not this world...

92. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87991 by DalaiDrivel on November 14, 2007 at 3:34 am

Goldy,

Yes I should clarify,

The terrorist network of Islam has proven adaptable to societies worldwide.

Of course, they are always the moderates. I'd never forget that.

I'm curious to know if people on this forum are opposed to survelliance being done on a person because they are Iraqi.

What I mean is, since they are stereotypically terrorists, it should be a no-no to investigate them.

Do you need more evidence of activities for a Middle Easterner than a Caucasian in order to do survelliance?

I just want to know how politically correct we all are, that's all... :)

93. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87971 by DalaiDrivel on November 13, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Can't even achieve in Turkey, a country that isn't as liberal as the west and is already primarly Muslim?

When you're preaching to the choir, you don't really have a basis for preaching extremism when the moderates in theory believe what you do.

If you have the lewd and licentious west- the progressive Netherlands, for instance- on your doorstop, there's no end to the reactionary arguments for extremism.

The problem is, there were still bombings in London and Madrid. They've happened already. They weren't prevented. The network of Islam has proven adaptable to societies worldwide. It's interesting to consider the notion of economic sanctions to supress radically indoctrinated peoples, yet I can't help considering what I see as too large a reserve of others in developed countries who will (and have) answer the call of Allah.

The London bombers were Englishmen, weren't they?

At least we must confront Islam intellectually as we have Christianity.

Here's an interesting idea- if one nation is by a wide margin more prosperous than any others, elections in that country will be opened to the world, and foreigners may see fit to elect a George Bush if they wish.

94. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87937 by DalaiDrivel on November 13, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Well... no overtly opposed reaction to my anti-islamic spaz... interesting.

Hmmm,

I could not find reliable statistics on the crime rates of countries.

Suffice to say, America's homicide rate is high for a developed country, and this discrepancy is not accounted for merely by variance in population.

Briancoughlanworldcitizen, would you agree with me that for an ordinary law-abiding citizen like you or I, religiously-influenced violence, its intent and targets, affect the individual more in the developed countries we live in, than gang warfare (supposedly less a concern in the Netherlands)?

Put better perhaps in this way, are we likely to be killed by gang members because we choose to obey the law and openly prefer pacificism over aggression, reinforced by a system that is intended to cripple the gangster's entire livelihood?

We'll write articles blasting gang violence in newspapers. Statistics will flare up on TV screens recited by cheerless voices.

How I perceive it, is that thought-crime is a real offence to the fundamentalist, and is not to the gang member.

95. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87844 by DalaiDrivel on November 13, 2007 at 10:36 am

They've got to stop being politically correct pussies over in Europe and go after the radical muslims that commit these crimes.

It might even take background checks and religious screening for fundamentalism when entering the country- or at least a bookmark of sorts to monitor the person within the country.

Then if it means banning the types of organisations they join, you wouldn't hear a whimper from me.

I'd happily fund such a directive as a taxpayer, to avoid such grotesqueries as leaving a note pierced with a butcher knife, thrust into the stomach of the Van Gogh guy that directed "Submission." Hello!

Would these extremists violate laws in their extremist homelands so brazenly?

Not if they wanted to lose a hand or even other more valued appendages...

No, they would not in other words. They behave like anarchists in Western Europe because countries like the Netherlands rely on civil obedience and social harmony amongst all of its citzens; they're passive and tolerant in order to get along with one another.

You have homogenous moderation in a good, operable democracy- without flagrant, domineering flares of extremism.

The one thing one ought not to tolerate is intolerance.

I think Islamic fundamentalism in Europe is evidence of the thriving of extremism at the expense of all passive world views- not just passive religious world views.

If only we could get an Islamic nutter on here to grill...

96. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87705 by DalaiDrivel on November 12, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Krisking,

And we do not struggle.

But Christians look at us with pitying eyes and observe in their minds that we struggle to find God.

Is that consolation for you? What you choose to think of us?

Apology accepted, by the way.

97. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87679 by DalaiDrivel on November 12, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Mejdrich,

Or, if the Security and Posperity Partnership follows through, we could be one country by that time, for all intents and purposes, anyway.

We'll have to move to Europe! Which wouldn't be so bad...

Or I know- we'll ship all the creationist nutjobs over there, the Europeans will see fit to lock them in mental institutions like Marcus Brigstocke (the comedian from the sketch in RD's presentation) predicted and we can have NA back to ourselves. And maybe leftist governments in both our countries can block the SPP.

Unless you're in favour of it... I've opened up a different can of worms there.

Back to religion:

Why didn't God intervene in 1787, or whenever it was the American constitution was written (forgive me... I'm only Canadian :) ) Why were Jefferson and Madison left uninspired to fulfil God's infiltration into government?

They must have been utterly Godless- or they were impervious to God.

But that's easily explained because God is impotent, as detailed earlier in the discussion.

Krisking,

Those quotes which you credited to me belonged to flying goose, I just discovered.

98. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87634 by DalaiDrivel on November 12, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Krisking,

The quotes stated in posts 493 and 495, responding to me, are not mine. I don't know where they're from either.

Who are you quoting there?

In response to 490, the failure of God ought to be accompanied by the exoneration of our species from ANY unworthy fate.

God has never told me He is sorry. In fact, there was an awful awful lot of me apologising to Him actually during my time spent at Church.

In response to 491, I would only like to say that the Bible ought to confirm God's permanent closing off of both Heaven and Hell, complete with a universally recognisable apology to humanity.

Thanks for heeding my post. :)

99. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87368 by DalaiDrivel on November 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

Indeed,

The bacteria came in package with the animals.

Taking them in pairs would have been impossible.

God will have to accept that he isn't omnipotent- the universe and its inhabitants make there own god-damning rules thank you very much.

Like evolution. Like people figuring out evolution.

It's been covered already extensively in this thread the impotence of God.

I decided to bring up bacteria when I remembered reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" in which he explains how bacteria quite literally rule the world.

By weight, apparently they account for more biomass than any other organism.

Utterly fascinating.

100. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87361 by DalaiDrivel on November 12, 2007 at 1:23 am

Cheers Goldy!

Hell is only the very thing I hate most about Christianity.

And I do hate it. I despise it for its Christian absoluteness, its fear-mongering, its blatant injustice (You think life is unfair, wait until the Afterlife!), and its lack of forgiveness, a virtue we humans expound, which Christians expound on behalf of God.

Ugh! Hell begone! And begone with Heaven!

It's what first turned me against Christianity, and caused me to consider atheism.

The corollary question I believe to "Who deserves to go to Eternal Hell for misdeeds in this finite lifetime?" is:

"Who deserves to go to Eternal Heaven for their good deeds in this finite lifetime?"

No one, in my opinion.