1. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #180084 by Orion on May 14, 2008 at 7:47 am

Political correctness? Isn't accusing people of clinging to 'pc' another refuge of the US religious right-wing?

2. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #180032 by Orion on May 14, 2008 at 6:05 am

Ian: "That is a strong candidate for the most idiotic thing I've ever read.
Vegetarianism is a moral choice, not a catagory, so the reason it's done is absolutely pivotal."

You're making a fool of yourself Ian, and it is you who are posting idiocy. As adwest points out, vegetarianism simply means you don't eat meat. That's all. Get yourself a new dictionary.

Some people don't eat meat for moral reasons, others for health, others to reduce their carbon footprint. But they're all vegetarians.

It's just like being atheist simply means you don't believe in God. The religious try to apply other attributes to atheist, but all you need to be an atheist is a rejection of a deity, regardless of the path that took you there.

"The whole point of the 'Hitler was a vegetarian' smear is to attack vegetarians by implying they are the same as him."

Precisely my point. That's why the reducto ad hitlerum argument is so stupid.

3. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178257 by Orion on May 11, 2008 at 3:23 am

Gnomead: "Oh, come on. Coulter makes a living saying that sort of thing. Bigotry is all that ghastly woman has to offer. Richard on the other hand is a polite and well-mannered man."

Yes precisely. That's why it is so jarring when he resorts to the same tactics. We know he's way above that kind of thing. He doesn't need it.

4. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178136 by Orion on May 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Ian: "Wrong. Hitler was not vegetarian...
Hitler did eventually stop eating meat, but it was not for moral reasons."

It doesn't matter what reason you're doing it for - if you stop eating meat then you are a vegetarian.

5. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178131 by Orion on May 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Phil: "Mel Brooks was the first to kick this disgusting little man in the nuts."

Really? I think that Charlie Chaplin got in there almost three decades earlier with 'The Great Dictator'.

Dalai: "Most women don't wear lipstick like whores. They're trying to avoid the association."

Right, so it's not insulting at ALL to compare someone's wife to a whore - you're just trying to help them out. No, Tosser's analogy is a good one. I thought it was a lame arguing technique when Coulter or Stein used it, and I'm not going to back-track just because my favourite author and scientist has used the same technique.

It was wrong for them, it was wrong for Dawkins. Sorry.

6. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177713 by Orion on May 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I'm not feaking out - I just think Richard let himself down a bit. I think he sunk to their level with that comparison.

7. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177707 by Orion on May 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I agree Tosser. It would be poor to attack Robert Winston by saying "Your moustache makes you like Hitler", then defending yourself by saying "I was only saying that the MOUSTACHE made him like Hitler - I wasn't saying he murdered millions of people".

This wasn't quite as bad - ranting and raving is worse than growing a moustache - but it still reminded me uncomfortably of Ken Livingston telling a Jewish journalist that he was like a concentration camp guard.

Dalai: "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."

Sure, who associates Hitler with gas chambers etc? When someone says 'Hitler' I think of angry rhetoric - that far over-shadows the holocaust!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but that sounds exactly like the sort of defence Ann Coulter uses after comparing Obama to Hitler.

As for censoring - who even suggested that? 'Get real' indeed.

8. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134271 by Orion on February 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Richard Feldman: "I loved how when Richard said "of course you and I are too [reasonable/intelligent] to believe in such things" and she stammered."

Richard wasn't referring to the interviewer there, he was discussing OTHERS who say "Of course, you and I are too reasonable..."

9. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111341 by Orion on January 14, 2008 at 11:58 am

Wishing you all the best George. If I have a fifth of the life you've had (so far), then I'll be very happy. But given what you'd achieved by the age I am now, I've a lot of catching up to do!

Andrew

10. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109428 by Orion on January 9, 2008 at 3:39 am

"My question is, who do atheists shake their fists against?"

The answer is in your question - nobody. They're atheists and therefore don't believe in any god. Shaking your fist shows you don't believe there's anything up there to get offended. If you had any doubt that there might be a god then you wouldn't take the risk.

The peasant's 'logical' response seems to be based on another example of Pascal's Wager. Which doesn't seem that logical to me.

11. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107819 by Orion on January 5, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I prefer these events, when the two sides are discussing with a referee. So much better than when D'Souza gets to speak for five minutes, throwing out countless fallacies, with no interuption from someone picking him up on each one.

12. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76599 by Orion on October 6, 2007 at 11:57 am

What was the point of getting Dawkins to comment on quotes from his own book? Why not read out the quotes, let Lennox comment on them and then let Dawkins respond?

Those guys at the end were really irritating - "Dawkins HIMSELF admits that Darwin doesn't explain how the universe began! Extraordinary quote there. He refuses to debate evolution vs creationism but he HIMSELF brought up the subject and admitted evolution falls short!"

Jesus wept!

13. Messiah

Comment #52532 by Orion on June 27, 2007 at 7:55 am

Celestial T:
"In his stage show he pulls off an amazing trick and then proceeds to show the audience how he subconsciously guided them to the result he wanted (and was thus able to 'predict' it)"

Convincing the audience that he 'subconsciously guided them to the result he wanted' is almost certainly just another part of the trick. There's little he does that can't be done with normal conjuring tricks. To paraphrase James Randi (talking about Uri Geller): If he's really doing his tricks in the way he CLAIMS to be doing them, then he's doing it the hard way.

14. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47950 by Orion on June 6, 2007 at 5:40 am

Martha: 'And he could(and should have)added - "nor bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Afghanistan, Iraq) if they too didn't also believe God was on their side".'

Some anti-war campaigners may contentiously put TOTAL deaths in those countries through 'allied' bombing and insurgents at such high figures. But it seems unlikely that US and UK bombing ALONE has caused 'hundreds of thousands' of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Claiming as such in this discussion would simply distract from the issues discussed.

Plus that I suspect that the invasions had more to do with oil (or, if you're charitable/naive, WMDs and freeing the Iraqi people) that to do with faith. I doubt that faith had the same effect on the decision to go to war as it did on suicide bombers' decision to cause 9/11.

15. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45981 by Orion on May 30, 2007 at 12:12 am

I'm a sub-editor actually. I hope I've never come up with anything as lame as that. I'm always happy if the author suggests any good headline as it gives me more time to check the copy. Occasionally I sub a piece where the whole thing is based on some kind of fallacy and I just have to hold your nose and do the best I can.

16. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45892 by Orion on May 29, 2007 at 2:09 pm

'The Dawkins Delusion' doesn't even WORK in this context, never mind the title's lack of originality.

The article isn't about a delusion, it's about a (supposed) lack of understanding. At no point does Kettle even discuss any kind of delusion that Dawkins is supposed to suffer from.

17. One side can be wrong

Comment #40844 by Orion on May 15, 2007 at 4:57 am

"it is considered a mild swear word but curiously, it's also used as a term of endearment"
Doesn't that apply to most mild swear words? Substitute 'lucky bugger' with 'lucky bastard'...

18. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32436 by Orion on April 17, 2007 at 4:13 am

"How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history — the end product of the random collision of molecules?"

Speaking personally, I find it incredibly inspiring.

19. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25142 by Orion on March 10, 2007 at 10:55 am

"The controversy erupted after Dawkins read an excerpt from Kay's autobiography"

Virtually every word in that sentence is false.

20. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24190 by Orion on March 5, 2007 at 7:58 am

Regarding fairy tales. How's about this:
"That's like saying you have to study astrology to discredit it".
That's better than invoking fairy tales. You compare religion to fairy tales - which no-one believes in - theists are merely insulted and turn off.

Whereas astrology is something many people DO believe in. Moreover, your average theist, especially one who uses the 'Dawkins doesn't study theology' argument, would admit that they dismiss astrology without studying it in depth.

21. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23490 by Orion on March 1, 2007 at 4:00 am

Bizzaro: "Dawkins... fails to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist."

Dawkins addresses this directly in the Q&A he has on the "Randolph-Macon Woman's College" video on this site. He answers you point better than I can summarise it. Faith and reason are two separate things. They are virtually oxymorons. If it's reasoned, then it isn't faith.

22. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15328 by Orion on December 30, 2006 at 12:04 pm

Binx: '"Either God exists or s/he doesn't."

Either evil exists or it doesn't (regardless of the difficulty in discerning which state is true).'

No, that is not so. I think you missed my point. Evil's existence is a philosophical debate, quite distinct from the existence of a deity.

23. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15041 by Orion on December 28, 2006 at 12:02 pm

Binx: "There is no scientific evidence that some human actions have a mysterious property called good or evil any more than a chimp's actions. We should therefore conclude that morality, good, and evil most probably do not exist."

The existence of evil is a philosphical question in a way that the existence of God is not. Either God ezists or s/he doesn't (regardless of the difficulty in descerning which state is true). Comparisons between the two discussions are specious.