1. The moment of truth

Comment #223122 by brian_d_w on August 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Right on jimbob,
The government should not be involved in marriage. There should be legally recognized unions, one per person. After that the govt should just butt out.

2. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206364 by brian_d_w on July 8, 2008 at 10:02 am

Lennox is a plodding old windbag. I just can't listen to his nonsense. The signal to noise ratio is too small. Then when I manage to decode the signal part, its all nonsense. How Dawkins can endue a conversation with him is beyond me.

3. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182635 by brian_d_w on May 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Canada should submit a request to the UK for the surrender of the original copies of the Magna Carta. It's clearly not a document that is relevant there anymore. The Star-chamber days are both ahead and behind of modern England.

4. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159121 by brian_d_w on April 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm

BFKate,

"I do believe the freedom has to be absolute to have any value."

Do you really? I find that hard to believe. Does that include cases where speech causes direct harm? Fraud, incitement to riot and direct orders to someone to kill or injure someone are good examples of this.

Your definition is not specific enough. Taken as stated, no one should be denied a job for saying inappropriate things at an interview for example.

There are consequences speaking ones mind, but the consequences don't come from government action.

5. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159104 by brian_d_w on April 11, 2008 at 12:43 pm

BFKate said

I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship. I don't think anyone wants to kill her but they do want to see her pay some kind of price. That is not freedom of speech. People's commitment to freedom of speech is always tested in situations like this, it's the bigots opinions that are the hardest to bear. Either it's an absolute freedom or it's not a freedom.

The freedom of speech is a very specific thing. It's the protection of citizens from government prosecution for any statements that they make.

Monique Davis does not have to face any criminal charges nor civil law suits. Thats the protection afforded to her by the First Amendment.

She is an elected official, this is a privilege not a right. She is in office to represent the will of the people. If she is found to be out of line, it is the right of her constituents to ask her to resign, or force her out. She clearly does not respect or understand the concept of secular government, therefor she has no role in one.

6. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159013 by brian_d_w on April 11, 2008 at 10:40 am

She should still resign. Its good of Mr. Sherman to forgive her. However she has not asked the people of the secular republic that she represents to forgive her. If she can't do that she needs to be removed from office.

7. Banned From Church

Comment #115073 by brian_d_w on January 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Fantastic! All this kind of behavior will do is weaken the church going community. Keep up the good work guys.

8. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100278 by brian_d_w on December 18, 2007 at 12:56 pm

If it said

"O come all ye @#$%^ng faith heads"

Now that would be offensive.

9. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98818 by brian_d_w on December 14, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Every time that a paleontologist discovers a new fossil species a creationist gets two more missing links.

10. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77782 by brian_d_w on October 10, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Do creationists dispute all emergent properties?

Lennox made several statements saying that emergent properties are logically invalid. However the empirical evidence of emergent phenomena is quite well documented.

One such statement is that if there is no god then there can be no morality. His evidence for this was that if that if the mater of the universe has no morality, then no morality can come from such a universe.

How is that logical in the slightest? Why didn't Dr. Dawkins call him on it?!

Morality is a human construct, even if there is a god, then it still only apples to realm of human action, not even animals, let alone quarks.

Lennox is saying that if a proton isn't moral then human beings can't be. What crap. If you only define morally a coming from god, then you have a circular argument.