51. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157462 by Clydey on April 9, 2008 at 6:06 am

ASMarques:

Apologies for my mistake. Your tone made it sound as if you were very much interested in the topic, but I now understand you don't really care to incur the risk of losing your certitudes. You sound a little like Richard Dawkins talking about his historical Jesus, without ever seeming to having taken much interest in the evidence, or lack of it, for such a supposedly historical character...

52. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157322 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 11:07 pm

ASMarques,

As for your first point, I have no desire to engage you in a debate regarding the holocaust. It's not something that interests me, as I feel it would be akin to debating the moon landing.

I'm not appalled by your denial of the holocaust, although I'm quite sure many others will be. You don't come across as someone who would take such a position without good reason. In fact, our quarrel might simply be over semantics. That said, I feel sure someone else will gladly take up your challenge.

Regarding your second point, I had no idea you were Portuguese. From what I've read your English is arguably better than mine. People who write "an historian" are just one of my pet hates, an eccentricity, if you will. There are far more accomplished writers than I who write in that fashion, albeit incorrectly ;-)

53. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157299 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 9:32 pm

ASMarques,

You have contrived to convince yourself that the holocaust did not take place in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This appears to be compartmentalisation on a par with that of devout Christian scientists.

How can you submit to the evidence that supports your atheism, yet disregard the evidence that confirms the holocaust?

On a less serious and unrelated note, you're one of those people who writes "an historic". That is just the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

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

Comment #157270 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I like what I've seen thus far from Keith Olbermann. From what I can tell he's unbiased and has real principles. He is the anti-O'Reilly. I can only imagine that O'Reilly gets better ratings because he is unintentionally hilarious, while at the same time stirring up controversy with his embarrassingly ill-informed views.

55. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157213 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

My word, how patient would you have to be to endure some of the nonsense being spouted on that show? It seemed like half of the audience completely failed to comprehend Richard's point that personal opinion is of no relevance in light of hard evidence.

If my personal opinion is that a rock is in actual fact a piece of paper, my opinion is irrelevant. All of the evidence points to the fact that it is a rock. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

56. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156475 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm

At the very least Davis should be told, in the harshest of terms, that she is to step down. Her rant of pure ignorance and hate was not only offensive, it was unconstitutional.

If she is not held accountable, it really is a sorry state of affairs.

57. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156454 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm

The difference between your analogy and Davis' treatment of Sherman is that Sherman had not demonstrated any prejudice towards her. It was all one way.

I think there are too many variables for there to be absolute equality.

58. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156447 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I think it's clear that she intended to discriminate. When she told him that he didn't deserve to be there it indicated her intent to belittle him. Now that I think about it, her outburst is not dissimilar to George H.W. Bush's comments some years ago.

59. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156439 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm

It might seem unfair, but that is how I see it. Ok, let me give an you extreme example.

A man is raped by another man. He reports the rape and the rapist is sent to jail. The rapist's actions are abhorrent, to borrow the term you used.

The man who was raped then goes out and rapes someone. Are his actions not abhorrent AND hypocritical? After all, he has suffered the indignity of being raped and had the assailant charged. For him to repeat the offence is, to my mind, worse because he knows how it feels and has decided to subject someone else to what he endured.

Am I making my point? The example is extreme, but the point I'm making is the same.

60. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156431 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Prankster, it wasn't really an issue. I merely found it hypocritical for her to demonstrate such prejudice when she has undoubtedly been the target of similar treatment.

It's not the main issue, but it certainly made her outburst all the more jaw-dropping. That's just my opinion, though.

61. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156428 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Because she is black and has doubtless railed against racism, it is hypocritical to then demonstrate similar prejudice. How you don't see the hypocrisy is beyond me.

White people are unlikely to have dealt with such prejudice, so they are therefore less sensitive to it. For someone who knows how it feels to be regarded as less than a citizen to berate someone in that fashion is, to me, doubly offensive.

It has nothing to do with supressing "anything she doesn't like". You're putting words in my mouth.

62. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156415 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Peacebeuponme,

Given that Davis is likely to have been similarly discriminated against, I expect her to be more sensitive to the issue. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, by the way. I described her as a "black woman" because she is, in fact, a woman. You read too much into it.

The chances are that Davis has at some point been discriminated against based on her skin colour. That is why I find her conduct detestable. The hypocrisy is pretty astounding.

63. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156363 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Actually, she does get a few approving squeals from the flock. It was embarrassing and infuriating in equal measures.

64. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156359 by Clydey on April 7, 2008 at 11:53 am

Who on earth does that woman think she is? For a black woman, who has doubtless been on the receiving end of similar discriminatory remarks, to use that platform to highlight her own prejudice is, frankly, almost criminal.

I hope that hopelessly ignorant mental midget is held accountable for her outburst. She exhibits precisely the attitude that makes my blood boil.

65. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #154186 by Clydey on April 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm

I switched off the second Sue conceded to McGrath's point about Stalin. Why any atheist would hold their hands up at the mention of Stalin's name boggles the mind.

66. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection

Comment #137440 by Clydey on March 2, 2008 at 9:45 pm

I think the article could and should have been worded better. To say that AHA "demanded" protection paints her as some sort of diva. I think "pleaded" would be more accurate.

Others have already noted the questionable use of the word "enjoyed". It might seem pedantic, but I hate lazy writing, like "extremely unique", "an historic" (don't get me started on that trend) etc.

I'm no Tolstoy myself, but then again writing isn't my chosen career path. You'd expect the pros to take some pride in their work.

67. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62922 by Clydey on August 12, 2007 at 10:22 am

His nonsenical arguments aside, I took a dislike to the author the moment I saw that he had written "an historical". I would like to get a hold of the person who started the trend of snooty grammarians writing "an historic".

Oh, and hello. My first post.