951. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #27847 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 3:35 am

One day, I hope to find myself on the right hand of God..... if he's got one left.
What?
Not funny?
(OK, Reg, could you pass me my coat as well, please, we'll go down the local, and sup some of that fine brew, right down the middle!

952. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27842 by Richard Morgan on March 27, 2007 at 3:07 am

Oh my Gawd!!

I just opened a jar of peanut butter and found Chuck Missler inside.

Does this qualify for being called "new life" since it is apparently brain-dead?

(Note : he tasted rotten in my sandwich in spite of the strawberry jelly and honey that I added.)

953. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

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

#27790 by justme : When you say

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

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

954. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27576 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 11:18 am

My name is Richard MORGAN.

Henceforth I have to decided that I will read and reply to comments by people like;
Russell Blackford.
And ignore the various "Yorkers", "Catchy_nicks" and "justmes".
Why would one need to hide behind a pseudonym on this site?
What are you ashamed of, or frightened of, Zigster and BaronOchs?

955. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27561 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 9:35 am

Russell Blackford - I have come to expect more sensible stuff from you!

Ah, the stupidity. The people who are most likely to be able to offer something sensible about how religion should be taught are those who are able to look at religion from the outside rather than from inside some religion or other.

Obviously!!
You know that.
I know that.
But you're still missing the point of this whole debate!

It is naïve to imagine that an atheist should be admitted onto a committee that decides policy for Religious Education. Unless atheism is a religion.
I live in a country (France) where "religions" are part of the programme "Histoire/Géographie" at school, since religious behaviour and attitudes have always had an significant impact on the history of human societies.

Discussions of a "religious" nature are forbidden by law in French classrooms, more particularly since the Law passed in 1905 separating the State and the Church.

One of the consequences of this law was to create a society in which atheism has become absolutely banal.

Another beautiful example of what has been called "le paradoxe français" is a statistic recently published by the highly respectable Le Monde in their monthly magazine "Le Monde des religions" :

Fifty per cent of the population declare themselves "Catholic", and fifty per cent of these Catholics are self-declared atheists!!!

That's what you call "free-thinking"!!

But the 1905 Law recognised that affairs of State and religious affairs are separate questions. A similar law in the UK would put an end to this silly question about how religions should be taught in State schools.

The shameful policy of encouraging faith-based schools in the UK is, clearly, another subject, for a different discussion.

956. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27505 by Richard Morgan on March 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

Ohnai - you say that "Humanism and Atheism are not 'religion' per se."
That's like saying "Not playing chess is not a hobby per se". Are you sure you understand the meaning of the expression "per se"?
Because the rest of what you say is ansolutely correct, for example:

If you force humanism into RE classes then you best be willing to admit CS in to the science class room.

Alas, others, particularly Yorker, are completely missing my point. I have worked with adolescents for over thirty years. I have a very high opinion of them, and all that they represent.
I suspect that Yorker, like an increasing number of people these days, gleans too much of his information from the Web, rather from real life.

957. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27409 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.

What do others think?

Waste of time, chum. Could even be counter-productive. For many adolescents, anything that comes from adults is there to be rejected. Y'know what I mean?

"the natural rebelliousness of young people" needs to be just that.
Natural.
And according the figures quoted, young people seem to be doing quite well without needing websites to help them along.

958. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27388 by Richard Morgan on March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases, without exception. I will not be asking to be heard in a discussion on the comparative merits of the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair.

959. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26592 by Richard Morgan on March 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, yes.

Of course!

I'm a teacher, and I have been in contact with rowdy teenagers for over thirty years. And not only is it clear that "playground roughhousing " is normal adolescent behaviour, many researchers have already concluded that it is an important part of development. Not surprisingly, the most interesting explicative theories come from evolutionary psychologists.


So what's new, doc?

This is a case where our poor little rodent friends could have been left in peace, it seems to me.

But, talking about dominant male rats, we've got presidential elections coming up in France soon.
A bon entendeur.....

960. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25070 by Richard Morgan on March 10, 2007 at 2:09 am

What are the evolutionary advantages for a journalist, or a species of journalists, to behave in such a way?
The answer is in one of Richard's favourite expressions : that's how he earns his living!

It is clear that your apology is more than just an apology, it's what your life's work is about - giving the truth its rightful place.

961. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24700 by Richard Morgan on March 8, 2007 at 5:40 am

Hey, Scot, 24697, slow down.
You're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing because you are not using clear language.For example, what happens if we change "the right to life" to "the right to live"? You'll find it changes many things. Does the man who is about to slit your throat have the absolute right to life/live at that precise moment in time?

Unfortunately you're going to have to leave absolutism to religious who have an absolute god. Absolutely.
For us scepticals (Brights? hehe), situationism can (and does) rear it's nasty little head just about everywhere.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali states her case very clearly,and is leagues away from ethereal philosophical debates.
A little girl having her clitoris hacked off with a rusty old knife is, perhaps, relatively unconcerned about the absolute right to practice the religion of one's choice.
Sorry, Scot, but you "absolutely should" read a few books on philosophy before commenting again.
But comment again, by all means.

962. Religion and Politics

Comment #24273 by Richard Morgan on March 5, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Since we are on Richard Dawkins' web-site, let us not forget that Mormons believe that God evolved from something less complex – a man! That solves one of our problems with the existence of God, doesn't it?

It doesn't?

Well, I just thought I'd mention it….

963. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24031 by Richard Morgan on March 4, 2007 at 11:32 am

"It doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right."

Does this ring a bell?

964. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23650 by Richard Morgan on March 2, 2007 at 12:39 am

The only thing interesting (but not very) about the "fine-tuning" theme is the fact that the human brain itself is designed to perceive phenomena such as fine tuning.

Fifteen years ago, the registration number of my car started with "3850". This was also the pin-code for my credit card!!! People found this amazing, what a coincidence, etc and the question that always came up was, "What are the chances against having the same number for your car AND your confidential pin code?"

Lats month, I announced to these same friends: "Wow! What an incredible coincidence. My pin-code is 5266 and my registration number starts with 6914! The chances of my having these two numbers at the same time are incredibly......"

You see what I mean.

Just think of all those other universes that are fine-tuned NOT to have life (and therefore not to have three-toed sloths,slugs and me.) Clearly a divine plan to limit the number of...me's?

965. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23647 by Richard Morgan on March 2, 2007 at 12:21 am

What a waste of time!

For centuries we have seen the effects that scriptures have had on people's behaviour!

Now I want Bushman and Ridge to conduct another study, perhaps measuring the effects of reading passages about peace and love. Or the beneficial effects of kindly giving your daughters away for a gang-rape session in the name of shrewd hospitality.
Or perhaps even more fun would be to have the volunteers just read passages about father-daughter incest. But keep the straight-jackets handy, guys!

966. Faith

Comment #23083 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

Fouad Boussetta said:
"A little note of interest about the French:
1/3 atheists, 1/3 agnostics, 1/3 believers. Good allies maybe."

Not quite, my fine Canadian friend. The most recent statistics ("Le Monde" - des Réligions, February 2007) are rather more interesting than that:

50% of French people claim to be Catholic; 50% of these Catholics claim to be atheists.

Now THAT is what is interesting about the French!
Vive la différence!

967. Faith

Comment #23082 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2007 at 7:05 am

Janus requests:
"I'd love to see a negative article on Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or militant atheism in general that doesn't resort to lies, strawmen, and misrepresentations."

Here's a start.

Richard Dawkins is younger, more intelligent, better-educated, better-looking, sexier, more famous, healthier and wealthier than I am. He also has a younger wife and a huge plasma TV screen.

No lies there, but it's all pretty negative as far as I'm concerned.
Do I need any more reasons to hate him? Good grounds for getting born again, I'd say!

Over to you, Janus.

Oh - I was forgetting - my wife informs me that rumour has it that his wife agrees with him on most subjects. This could be a likely candidate for a lie, but I'd need to see the evidence first. (Just because my wife said that, doesn't automatically make it an Argument from Ignorance. Does it?)

968. Atheists come in last

Comment #22900 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2007 at 12:50 am

I'm wondering if the pollsters ensured that the people being questioned actually KNEW what an atheist is.
A short while after the the US invaded Irak, a team of reporters from French television visited a small rural community in deepest Texas to try to find out what the attitude of ordinary folk was towards their President's foreign policy.

The journalists had a hard time finding someone who even knew where Irak was! One lady confidently announced that Irak was the capital of Iran!!!
But all those questioned unquestioningly supported their President.

I know that Gallup have an excellent reputation for the quality of their polls, sampling techniques etc. But for the lady who situated Irak in place of Teheran, would she have known precisely what she was being asked about when confronted with the choice of voting for an atheist?

Reminds me of the old joke:

What's the difference between a post-box and an elephant's *ss?
I don't know.
OK, I'll post the mail today.

969. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22745 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Oh dear, Sam - you saw that the other guy did not have a tennis racket, but you continued your Ace service all the same.
You should have quit the tennis court, Sam. There is no game going on.
When you say - "I think you and I have a responsibility to see whether a conversation of this sort can ever terminate in a proper meeting of minds," I get the uneasy feeling that you are not being completely honest.
Are you sure that your endeavours to prolong the debate are completely free of any mischievous urge to let Andrew make himself look even sillier with each reply? I would love you to be able to answer "Yes" with your hand on your heart.
I'm sure Andrew is a really nice guy. Which makes this whole debate even sadder, because he clearly cannot see how alarmingly he is misusing language.
Please Sam, stop bullying. Even if it is polite bullying. Even if you remove your hat and say "Excuse me" before kicking Andrew when he is down.
In French we have an expression : "A l'impossible, nul n'est tenu." Nobody is expected to do the impossible." As in a "proper meeting of minds".

970. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22562 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2007 at 6:29 pm

This is another Argument in favour of the Existence of God. It's called "The Cringe argument by Embarrassment."
If what I claim is false, it would be embarrassingly false. Since I do not choose to be humiliated, I cannot believe anything that would be embarrassing.
Thus Creationism is the true explanation and God exists.
(And you won't find THAT one in the TGD. Naah!!!)

971. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22558 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Is this what can be called "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons"?
Or is this discrimininating against compulsive masturbators? Why should "phantom wankers" finance promiscuous sex?

The fact that this debate can exist at all is almost despairingly obscene.

God bless America. Whenever he decides to spring into existence...

972. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22383 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2007 at 9:28 pm

My children have no interest in reading either TGD or "Letter to..."
This I interpret as a clear sign of the importance and effectiveness of authors such as Russell, Sagan, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris. Why?
Because my children are second generation "atheists". Their father read all the books.
They don't know what the fuss is all about. They don't even really know that they are atheists!
Admittedly, they are growing up in France, a country where organising a good strike is much more important than worrying about God, And making a donation to Médecins Sans Frontières is a more spontaneous reaction than praying for peace in the world.
Do others out there, not living in the USA have similar stories to tell?
Mr Dawkins, Mr Harris, when there is a whole new, generation unable to understand all the hype over your books, then you will have the proof of the success of your efforts.
In the automobile industry, I believe it's called "built-in obsolescence" or something like that.

"Atheism is a belief system the way not crossing my fingers is a superstition."

973. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21610 by Richard Morgan on February 10, 2007 at 5:37 am

"The questions science cannot answer."
...that science does not ask. But theists both ask and answer these questions. And sometimes these answers justify horrifying crimes.
Please, let us never forget that TGD has more than a tenuous link with the events of 9/11.
Harbouring a delusion is one thing, acting out on it is another.
Richard Dawkins doesn't spend all his time saying it, since for most of us it us glaringly obvious, but the base issue is Life.
Alas these pages are tending to become an almost narcissistic free-for-all punch-up. (Let those who have ears, hear!)
McGrath's attitude will always leave the door open to delusional behaviour. Psychiatrists have several names for that.
Reason and science anchor our ideas and actions in reality.
Sure Richard can appear supercilious, aggressive, scornful.....whatever. But I can forgive him that, as I can forgive his being more intelligent, better-educated, better-looking, wealthier and sexier than me, because behind it all there is so much more than just a driving intellectual honesty.
He wants people to stop killing each other.
He is as concerned with life and the quality of life as any Gandhi or Mother Thérésa. His style is different, his language different, his manner...well, his manner is what it is.
But history will show that TGD (without forgetting Harris and Dennett) will have a more civilising effect on the human race than any Bible.
So many letters in these columns, like this article, look more like intellectual masturbation than the expression of a desire to improve the quality of life.
Sad, since there are so many more ways to be dead than to be alive. (Recognise that?)

974. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #21378 by Richard Morgan on February 9, 2007 at 1:04 am

Hi, Jon,

I thought I'd just drop you a line, because I've noticed that you're still using the Sleepitov Sermonizer 1.2. Can I suggest that you prayer-load the Sermonizer 2.0 which has some great new features? (You can get it free at http://hww.kneebenz_paternoster.com )
One of the problems with Sermonizer 1.2 was that when the wizard - oops, sorry, set-up evangelist - had produced the sermon, you had to manually set the "Type of Congregation". Now, when your text is complete you can just right button click, select 'Jesus saves as" and the automatic hell-check will recognise the zeal level and make the necessary modifications.
There are still the same seven levels, the highest being Born-again Fundie, and the lowest combining C. of E./agnostic.
Having read "Believing in things unseen is not delusion" set me to wondering whether you had used the Soporific adjustment tool correctly. Sermonizer1.2 is notorious for quantizing high on this one particularly in the English language version. Until you have the 2.0 version you can correct this problem by adjusting the Laughter/Comfort ratios, the C. of E. preset being 0/10 with Episcopal (Modern) levelling out at 5/5.
(The Middle Eastern version uses the factor of 20 for the Zeal/Action levels, most users preferring 10/10 since the problems with 9/11.)
The 2.0 version has a Universal language application which avoids unfortunate grammatical glitches such as the one I found in your e-sermon: "How can American believers conduct ourselves…" ("American," and "ourselves" are no longer considered as synonyms. (cf: "Discovering the rest of the World: a fourth grade primer" published by the Kansas Education Bored. (sic))
Also, Sermonizer2.0 is much more sinner-friendly than previous versions.
It's a little worrying, isn't it, the way we have come to depend on computers for everything? Just for fun, I tried manually writing my sermon for last Sunday's service, and it just felt so weird, trying to avoid being interesting and original. At least your "Believing in things unseen" never makes that mistake.
In the name of OK-Cancel-Delete, I send you my sincere regards.

Richard.

975. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21198 by Richard Morgan on February 8, 2007 at 2:07 am

Mental illness. Neurosis/psychosis.

I have placed these words at the beginning of my comment in the hope that they will attract the attention of so many of my fellow atheists who are missing an important point when condemning Alister McGrath and his ilk.
Childish name-calling has the unfortunate tendency of discrediting otherwise valid arguments and the use of expressions such as: "A religious lunatic", "complete prat" and "lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared" apart from being in bad taste, are also untrue where people like McGrath are concerned.
The important point (which Dawkins has understood in his biologist's way) can be found in the pages of this site. We just need to apply a little first-year psychology to understand it.
In an interview, McGrath tells us:

"My parents (my father was a medical officer of health for Co Down; my mother was nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital) belonged to the Church of Ireland and I tagged along to services most unwillingly, and when I was a boarder at Methody there were compulsory services, which I didn't like at all. But my parents were very good at letting me find my own way - but my way at that stage was reacting against the whole thing."

So, whether he liked it or not, his childish and susceptible mind was exposed to and conditioned by what we can call "religious thinking" (as others talk about "magical thinking"). The ideas and notions were planted in a mind ready to receive anything and everything; he was, if you like "programmed".
As a teenager, he "reacted against the whole thing" which is normal adolescent behavior. Had his parents been foaming-at-the-mouth Marxists, he may have reacted against that by reading the Bible and going to Mass. But in his case, atheism gave him the thrill of rebelliousness and the new-found independence from parental influence that adolescents are genetically programmed to seek.
Then he went out into the big bad world. Where did he find comfort? From other atheists? No. Rather it was in the company of people who were telling him, in a new way, things he was already programmed to accept and therefore "know".
Therefore it is perfectly logical that he should be able to say:

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."
Without realizing it, he was "coming home" – psychologically speaking.
(Heck, even the writer of proverbs in the Old Testament understood that: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22.6
That is a neat bit of writing – it talks about "a child", skips over adolescence and continues with "when he is old". Exactly what happened to McGrath!)

Add to all this some interesting ideas found in the Benedict Carey article:

Children exhibit a form of magical thinking by about 18 months, when they begin to create imaginary worlds while playing. By age 3, most know the difference between fantasy and reality, though they usually still believe (with adult encouragement) in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. By age 8, and sometimes earlier, they have mostly pruned away these beliefs, and the line between magic and reality is about as clear to them as it is for adults.
It is no coincidence, some social scientists believe, that youngsters begin learning about faith around the time they begin to give up on wishing. "The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer," (Do You Believe in Magic? by Benedict Carey, NY Times)

….and the whole McGrath phenomenon makes sense. He's doing what he's been programmed to do.
I seriously liken all this to neurosis/psychosis (Freud was there before me!!) in the sense that attitudes and feelings are based on mental constructs that are not directly derived from sensorial experience of an external reality. Beliefs are not based on experience, but they shape the interpretation of the experience. "I see what I believe" is often just as true as "I believe what I see." (Maybe more so, but that is another discussion.)
Take paranoia for example. If I have slight paranoid tendencies, when I get on a bus I may have the unpleasant sensation that people are looking at me, judging me, and/or having unfriendly thoughts about me. I feel uncomfortable, because a part of me believes it is true, while another more rational part doesn't, so I am thrust into uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.)
However, if I am a fully-fledged, card-carrying paranoiac, I absolutely know for sure they are having evil thoughts about me. And if questioned, I will be able to advance some seemingly solid reasoning. (Ask any psychiatrist – psychotics can appear remarkably reasonable!) I have no doubts about it. In fact, I may have to kill them before they kill me! That is what psychosis is all about – acting out delusions.
So it is easy to see how people grow up to become believers – in varying degrees.
We have our gentle neurotics (in a recent survey in France, it was discovered that 50% of French people claim to be Catholics, and 50% of those Catholics claim to be atheists! Don't you just love those French people?,) the most harmless being perhaps C. of E. Then there are the murderous psychotics who destroy New York sky-scrapers, or bomb innocent families in the search for non-existent weapons of massive destruction.
So, my friends, there is no point insulting theists. They weren't reasoned into their neurotic/psychotic delusions so they will never be reasoned out of them. Cured, perhaps, but not reasoned. They are only behaving as they were programmed to do. And perhaps we atheists were programmed, in some way, to become atheists.
Quem sabe? (lol)
Efforts like those made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are enormously useful in helping people who are in the process of curing themselves, or of being cured of their neuroses. There is, at the same time, a danger of their provoking the anger of the psychotics who may then feel obliged to act out their illusions. But that, too, is another discussion.
But please, let us remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill. And unfortunately they are usually beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation. But by all means, let us share our ideas here on this site – we all need encouragement and moral support form time to time.
As that wonderful French author Frédéric Dard (SanAntonio) said:
"If God was able to create this whole universe and all that is in it without even existing, well, that is a real miracle."

976. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #20353 by Richard Morgan on February 2, 2007 at 12:48 am

Brilliant idea! HGT would certainly explain why one of my seven children bears a striking resemblance to our postman!

Also this can become the new chat-up line in sleazy night clubs: "Hey sweety, how about going back to my place for a bit of horizontal gene transfer?"

Waadya think, guys?

977. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19785 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Scott Adams is missing the point. A recent study has shown that the number of carpet manufacturers married to, or in a stable relationship with a caribou is decreasing annually, particularly in the southern States such as Texas, Alabama and Northern Chipping Sodbury.
The resulting emotional stress on both lonely caribous and heart-broken carpet manufacturers tends to provoke digestive disorders in both groups. This increases their belching and farting activities, viz. methane production, methane being one of the gases responsible for the green-house effect that we hear so much about. A warm planet is one of the signs of the end of the world predicted by my Bible.
In my Bible I read about the lion laying down with the lamb, but there is no mention of caribous and carpet manufacturers doing anything at all together. This is a significant omission. Methane is a significant emission. Put the two together and what do you get? Revelation, of course.
Last night, as I was rolling a corpse into a carpet, with my wife, Kari-booboo standing by holding the shovel, everything became clear.
In fact, it is the non-existence of God that is responsible for an alarming increase in Atheism (cloven-footed beasts are notably agnostic)
My Bible predicts that also "The fool hath said with a fart, "There is no God" (N.I.V.)
(A fourth-century error in transcription, retained by many translations gives us "The fool hath said in his heart.." This cannot be true. A day spent at the local abattoir convinced me that hearts contain no organs of vocal production.)
So, Scottie boy, back to the drawing board with a little humility please. Atheists are only as lazy as the God they don't believe in. (cf. Peter Atkins' delightful: "The Creation - in five easy-to-bake steps.) (Ha! There are no coincidences - "peter" is a French verb meaning to fart.)
Where was I?
Ah, yes.
Talking about over-crowding in French jails....

978. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19613 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

So, let us imagine a doctor, who has gone through many years of study and training, making the same kind of mistake:
"Well, actually, your son is dead. So you can arrange the funeral service and bury him."

In the funeral parlor, the kid wakes up screaming in the coffin.

What would happen to such a Doctor in the USA? In my country he would be at least banned from practising for life.
And he certainly would never dare to defend himself by saying that he's not God.

What kind of cultural climate exists that would allow Sylvia Browne to get away, not only with her evil fraud, but also her callous, stupid defense argument.

Would YOU consult a doctor who had declared living people dead?

979. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16877 by Richard Morgan on January 9, 2007 at 10:40 am

No, it's quite clear that this business of being tempted by the devil is pure silliness.
Any right thinking person knows that the molested children were experiencing the lessons required by their Karma. They had obviously been sexual perverts in a previous life.

Well, not actually, it was God teaching them a lesson so that their parent's faith would be tested and made stronger in the refiner's fire.

Er, no, it's not quite that either, it's God humbling His Church...

In fact it's the Universal Life Force enabling children and parents alike to learn about detachment...

What I'm saying is that God moves in mysterious ways, that Jesus is the Sinner's friend and it's a chance for everyone to learn forgiveness...

There again, what a chance to get the sexual shakras opened up at such a young age...

And they didn't die, they went into transition...

Sincerely, my heart bleeds for the Murphy family. To suffer all of that, and then to have the suffering hideously multiplied by all the mythical, inhuman nonsense that is likely to be ladled on them.

Sometimes it's hard to resist the temptation to become as virulent as the Theists, isn't it?
But we must resist AND persist.

980. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7744 by Richard Morgan on November 19, 2006 at 9:08 am

Having lived in France for over twenty years, I was tempted to ask, "What's all the fuss about?"
Not a single eyebrow is raised when I say that I am an atheist. Well, perhaps one or two - by people who think to themselves , "So what?"
How sad for people living in America. My heart goes out to them, and not for the first time.
(I can already hear American Evangelicals saying, "Well of course, the French are a godless bunch of heathens. They even refused to helped us liberate Irak from a murderous dictator! What more proof do you need of their spiritual degradation?")
It would be good if there was a page on this site dedicated to giving moral support and advice to people who are (rightly) afraid of "coming out" about their atheism.
Having spent many years as an unhappy and frustrated "theist" during the early years of my life(I daren't say the "E" word!) I would be happy to volunteer my help in such an endeavour.
Oh, perhaps I should warn you - I don't believe in fairies either.