Comments by Ben Jennings

51. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99170 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Further to my last, I wouldn't show this in public as smoking is just not on in this day and age. Bad guys smoke, good guys don't.

Excuse me, but are you serious?

52. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99155 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Hitchens didn't say he was deliberately playing Devil's advocate.

Why would he?

He simply made a bunch of stupid, muddled points, as he does quite regularly.

Specifically?

He's simply not as rational and reasonable a man as the other three "horsemen".

By which you presumably mean he makes a case for the war and you don't like that.

53. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99152 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Hitchens is wrong about the US involvement in Iraq, and he knows it. He's just doesn't have the cojones to admit it.

That makes no sense whatsoever. He'd be positively lauded if he reversed his support of the war.

At the moment he's holding an opinion which troubles the majority of his readership (still primarily left-leaning secularists). But somehow it'd take more "cojones" to repent and come back to the fold? Huh?

54. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99151 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 6:45 pm

I get the feeling that Hitchens likes to argue for the sake of it - regardless of the company, and even if he has to give contradictory statements.

Well when four people get together to discuss a topic that they fundamentally agree upon, I think one or more of them playing Devil's advocate is going to be a slightly necessary thing. :-)

55. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99137 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Hitchens didn't do himself any favours in this encounter. As eloquently as he speaks with sentences full of quotes from the classics and references to obscure historical events, he still ended up making some stupid statements.

For example?

The lack of scientific thinking (as opposed to a humanities background) shows up here in contrast to the other three.

Surely the whole appeal of the four is that they represent different backgrounds, a biologist, a philosopher, a neuroscientist and a political journalist. So Hitchens' expertise is less grounded in science than the other three. I don't understand what's inherently wrong with that.

56. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99131 by Ben Jennings on December 15, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Hitchens doesn't deserve a place alongside Dawkins, Dennett and Harris. He's by far no champion of reason.

Good argument...?

57. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #96823 by Ben Jennings on December 11, 2007 at 1:32 am

He's wrong about one thing. These people don't disgrace their religion. They represent their religion, which is itself disgraceful.

58. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96045 by Ben Jennings on December 9, 2007 at 9:10 pm

In other news, an English teacher has been fired for not believing in the alphabet.

59. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89480 by Ben Jennings on November 20, 2007 at 11:10 pm

If anything, I am downplaying how I feel about this--but if prompted, I will continue to embellish further.

And if not prompted, you'll promise to shut up?

60. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89471 by Ben Jennings on November 20, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Sam is an inveterate Last Word freak, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. You can always count on him to to respond... and promptly.

61. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88844 by Ben Jennings on November 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

Professor, please meet, debate, and humiliate Dinesh. He claims to refute the atheistic position through reasoning and science, which is your turf.

Hitch failed, as did Shermer. You are our only hope.

Says who?

62. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86646 by Ben Jennings on November 9, 2007 at 8:15 pm

On the contrary, right after this tragedy occurred I personally witnessed my friends (I was in high school at the time) circle up and pray for the terrorists.

Yeah, um, why?

Care to explain this whole "love your enemy" thing? It's kinda baffling.

63. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86605 by Ben Jennings on November 9, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Christian definition of volunteer work: laboring in one's spare time in order to increase one's chances of going to heaven.

64. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66402 by Ben Jennings on August 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm

To my knowledge, Hitch is of the "abortion should be free, legal and extremely rare" persuasion.

65. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65332 by Ben Jennings on August 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

And anyway one could hold chastity to be a virtue simply as a matter of principle and still not be religious.

On what non-religious basis could chastity be a virtue? What is the "principle"?

Anyway if desire for promiscuity is the reason anyone decides to abandon their faith that is not a very good reason now is it? I don't think so, but that is just my opinion.

That's fine, as long as you're not suggesting that chastity and promiscuity are the two sole options.

66. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65187 by Ben Jennings on August 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

Good grief! I consider myself to be fairly literate and very seldom have to reach for a dictionary, but you managed to make me do so twice in a post of only 11 words! Impressive.

Me too; at first I thought he was making up cromulent-sounding words just to embiggen his point.

67. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65182 by Ben Jennings on August 23, 2007 at 5:25 am

Liberty "University" I'm affraid. It's interesting that he is trying to gain credibility by claiming to be a "biology major", because that works!

Why am I not surprised.

I wonder if he was one of the unfortunate youngsters eviscerated by Dawkins at the Randolph-Macon seminar. I seem to remember one of them referred to himself as a "biology major".

68. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65149 by Ben Jennings on August 23, 2007 at 3:00 am

Bizarre Dork wrote:
"but being a senior biology major"

Which "college"?

69. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65087 by Ben Jennings on August 22, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Bizarre Dork wrote:
"We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy"

My guess is that remaining a virgin has actually been a great deal easier for you than you'd like to admit.

"but I've chosen to wait until I am married."

Of course you have. ;-)

70. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61396 by Ben Jennings on August 5, 2007 at 3:10 am

"I consider mainstream religious conservatives and extremists to be the most important target for attack because of their great political influence, but I'm happy to see RD going after these lesser breeds of irrationalist as well."

I know what you mean, but I wouldn't be underestimating the importance of these people. Presumably, part of the point of Dawkins' new series is that the Enlightenment has at least as many enemies on the left as it does on the right, and since many of these enemies sit on academic faculties (especially of course in the Humanities) they are indeed very influential.

Perhaps the fact that we are tempted to regard them as a "lesser breed" is exactly what's dangerous about them.

71. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26574 by Ben Jennings on March 20, 2007 at 2:16 pm

For a more detailed outline of the story:

http://www.nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=12833

Seems he was sourcing material from Answers in Genesis. Grade A nutcase.

72. Amazing Meeting 3, 2005

Comment #25928 by Ben Jennings on March 15, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Re: Darwin beard

Haha! Great idea. I think I'll follow your example.

73. God's dupes

Comment #25916 by Ben Jennings on March 15, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Sam is utterly peerless as a polemicist, better even than Professor Dawkins, I think. Of course, Richard is more a popular science genius who merely dabbles in polemics in his spare time. :)

74. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19918 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm

"I swear there wasn't a man in England who took intelligent design seriously before Dawkins started attacking it."

Yeah, I'm sure that's true...

We need a "rolls eyes" emoticon on this board.

75. In defense of atheism

Comment #19258 by Ben Jennings on January 26, 2007 at 1:15 am

That third to last paragraph might be the single most entertaining thing I've ever read. :-D

76. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #18439 by Ben Jennings on January 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm

kwirth: "My challenge remains - if Dawkins is wrong, then you lose your life. Dismissing my comments means you're willing to bet your LIFE that Dawkins is right and I am wrong. This is what it all boils down to."

Yes, indeed, when you grill a theist for long enough, Pascal's Wager is PRECISELY what their supposedly solemn and noble devotion boils down to. You could not have expressed it better!

Atheists, on the other hand, have the moral and intellectual fortitude to recognise Pascal's Wager for the load of tripe that it is.

kwirth, until you can actually provide a shred of proof that hell exists then I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. Do you understand this?

Threatening children with hell and telling them how they can avoid it is no different to saying they'll be murdered by a vampire if they go outside without wearing garlic. Each scenario is equally likely to be true.

77. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7464 by Ben Jennings on November 18, 2006 at 3:14 pm

<<< Honestly, Josh, (or whosoever posted this) isn't this a bit over the top?>>>

Er, why? It's a great article.

78. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3523 by Ben Jennings on October 29, 2006 at 7:21 pm

Is there an evolutionary advantage to believing in the bible? An evolutionary advantage to feelling happy spiritual crap? If there isn't a reason, something Dawkins never addresses, then it is a purely faith based crit.

Um, you might want to actually read his book before making a fool of yourself. There's a whole chapter discussing possible evolutionary reasons for the existence of religion.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2